Paris Poker

Joined: Oct 26, 2011

Threads: 83
Posts: 1117

October 23rd, 2019 at 7:31:45 PM permalink

It looks like fun! I'll field test it on my in-laws when I can see the pay table.

Mrs. smooth gets very annoyed when I say something has "a certain je ne sais quoi."

smoothgrh

Joined: Oct 26, 2011

Threads: 83
Posts: 1117

October 23rd, 2019 at 8:19:15 PM permalink

Based on the Scientific Games video for Paris Poker:

Rules
Player vs. Dealer
Five cards dealt, one card selected as a wild card
Dealer must qualify with a pair of aces or better
When dealer doesn't qualify: Ante wagers push
When dealer qualifies: All remaining bets resolved as normal

It looks as if you can make just an Ante bet.
Ante and Play bets pay even money.

I'm not sure if the Play bet is made before or after one sees their hand�if it's before, then the guy on the left past-posts at the 0:21 mark of the video!

Optional:
Players Monster bet
Banker Buster bet

From the 0:34 mark:
Player's Monster Bet pays*
Player wins if hand contains:
Five Aces�1000
Five of a Kind (other)�200
Royal Flush�100
Straight Flush�40
Four of a King�7
Full House�3
Flush�2
Straight�1

Banker's Buster Bet pays*
Dealer does not qualify�3.5
Player wins if dealer's hand is not a pair of aces or better

I don't know what the asterisk stands for.

There appears to be a progressive bet with a paytable from the 0:05 mark:
Royal Flush�100% of major ($10,000 in example); Envy: $1,000
Straight Flush�10% of major ($10,000 in example); Envy: $300
Four of a King�300 for 1
Full House�50 for 1
Flush�40 for 1
Straight�30 for 1
Three of a Kind�9 for 1

Wizard
Administrator

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Threads: 1470
Posts: 25734

Thanks for this post from:

October 24th, 2019 at 5:06:59 AM permalink

I saw this at G2E and have their rules in SG's "featured products" brochure.

I'm quite sure the player may look at his cards before making the raise/fold decision.

�Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.� -- Carl Sagan

gordonm888
Administrator

Joined: Feb 18, 2015

Threads: 59
Posts: 4637

October 24th, 2019 at 8:59:11 AM permalink

Is only one specific card in each hand (say the 4H) designated as a wild card? Or, if you have a natural pair of 4s, can you designate cards with the rank of 4 as a wild card?

So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.

tringlomane

tringlomane

Joined: Aug 25, 2012

Threads: 8
Posts: 6278

October 24th, 2019 at 10:20:16 AM permalink

Quote: gordonm888
Is only one specific card in each hand (say the 4H) designated as a wild card? Or, if you have a natural pair of 4s, can you designate cards with the rank of 4 as a wild card?

You choose your wild card i think and only one card. The felt itself says "Wild Card", not something like "Wild Rank". So in the video the dealer is playing 444QT since she played a 7d to be a wild card.

But if you were dealt say 4c4h5c7d8h, you would call one of your fours a wild card to make a straight. This is very similar to Caribbean Stud with a choose your own wild card. The only major strategy decision is where is the play/fold point. A pair of aces (with what kicker??) is where I assume it is.

Last edited by: tringlomane on Oct 24, 2019

Dobrij

Dobrij

Joined: Jun 6, 2012

Threads: 22
Posts: 193

October 24th, 2019 at 11:57:16 AM permalink

But it will look recklessly
: )

gordonm888
Administrator

Joined: Feb 18, 2015

Threads: 59
Posts: 4637

October 24th, 2019 at 4:05:44 PM permalink

Okay, so with this rules clarification it seems to me that this game is very similar to 5 card stud without the wild card.

With the wild card, the categories of hands are:

5 of a Kind
Straight Flush and Royal Flush
Quads
Full house
Flush
Straight
Trips
One Pair

Natural High Card Hand --> One Pair (and infrequently straight, flush ,SF or RF)
___So the worst natural hand category in 5-card Stud is still usually the worst card category in Paris Poker.
One Pair Hand --> Trips (and very infrequently straight, flush ,SF and RF)
___ So the 2nd worst hand category in 5-card Stud becomes the 2nd worst card category in this wild card game
Two Pair Hand --> Full House
Trips --> Quads
___ Admittedly, these natural hands are significantly promoted by the wild card feature, but it refers to a small fraction of natural hands that were winning almost all the time anyway.
Straight, Flush --->Unchanged (and infrequently straight-->flush, or either --->SF or RF)
Quads ---> 5 of a kind
____ This is an uber powerful hand (Quads in 5-card stud) transforming into an uber powerful hand in Paris Poker (5oaK).

I guess what I'm saying is that Paris Poker will play pretty much like a 5 card stud game in which the dealer needs an Ace-High or better to qualify. The wild card feature adds surprisingly little.

So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.

Wizard
Administrator

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Threads: 1470
Posts: 25734

Thanks for this post from:

October 24th, 2019 at 6:34:27 PM permalink

Quote: gordonm888
Is only one specific card in each hand (say the 4H) designated as a wild card? Or, if you have a natural pair of 4s, can you designate cards with the rank of 4 as a wild card?

As others have said, it is like trading one of your cards for a joker. It doesn't make any other cards wild except the one joker.

�Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.� -- Carl Sagan

Wizard
Administrator

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Threads: 1470
Posts: 25734

Thanks for this post from:

October 25th, 2019 at 8:05:00 AM permalink

Here is my analysis of the Player's Monster hand. Can I get an a-men from any other the math geniuses of the forum?

Hand	Pays	Combinations	Probability	Return
Five aces	1000	48	0.000018	0.018469
Five of a kind	200	576	0.000222	0.044325
Royal flush	100	944	0.000363	0.036322
Straight flush	40	6,592	0.002536	0.101456
Four of a kind	7	58,656	0.022569	0.157983
Full house	3	123,552	0.047539	0.142617
Flush	2	109,152	0.041998	0.083997
Straight	1	334,608	0.128747	0.128747
Three of a kind	-1	1,002,912	0.385890	-0.385890
Pair	-1	961,920	0.370117	-0.370117
Total		2,598,960	1.000000	-0.042091

p.s. Happy Nevada day!

�Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.� -- Carl Sagan

Wizard
Administrator

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Threads: 1470
Posts: 25734

Thanks for this post from:

October 25th, 2019 at 12:05:01 PM permalink

I've got my computer going on the main game. It will take 9 hours and 22 minutes to cycle through every combination. So, expect results, hopefully good ones, to be ready about 9:30 PM Vegas time.

�Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.� -- Carl Sagan

gordonm888
Administrator

Joined: Feb 18, 2015

Threads: 59
Posts: 4637

October 25th, 2019 at 12:58:42 PM permalink

As a strategy for the PLAY/FOLD decision I get:

PLAY if your hand (with the wild card) is AA-Q96 or higher.
FOLD any hand that (with the wild card) is AA-Q95 or lower.

Exceptions
PLAY AA-Q95 when
- your wild card is a 4 and your 5-card hand has all 4 suits.

FOLD AA-Q96
- when your wild card is a 2
*******************************

Having a deuce in your hand is a bad card, because the deuce blocks fewer dealer straights.

Last edited by: gordonm888 on Oct 25, 2019

So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.

smoothgrh

Joined: Oct 26, 2011

Threads: 83
Posts: 1117

October 25th, 2019 at 2:44:59 PM permalink

I�m in the presence of wizards!

Ayecarumba

Ayecarumba

Joined: Nov 17, 2009

Threads: 236
Posts: 6763

Thanks for this post from:

October 25th, 2019 at 3:57:24 PM permalink

five card games are usually more vulnerable to player collusion. Would seeing one or two dealer cards in other player's hands change any play/fold decisions.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci

Wizard
Administrator

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Threads: 1470
Posts: 25734

Thanks for this post from:

October 26th, 2019 at 9:44:07 AM permalink

Results are in!

Event	Pays	Combinations	Probability	Return
Player wins	2	1,196,963,177,508	0.300243	0.600486
Dealer doesn't qualify	1	612,847,987,596	0.153725	0.153725
Push	0	4,421,831,136	0.001109	0.000000
Fold	-1	1,200,890,164,320	0.301228	-0.301228
Dealer wins	-2	971,522,942,880	0.243694	-0.487389
Total		3,986,646,103,440	1.000000	-0.034405

The player will raise 69.9% of the time, for an average final wager of 1.699. So, house edge is 3.44% and element of risk is 2.03%.

Next, I shall confirm or deny Gordon's strategy.

�Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.� -- Carl Sagan

TigerWu

TigerWu

Joined: May 23, 2016

Threads: 25
Posts: 5094

October 26th, 2019 at 9:52:39 AM permalink

Quote: Wizard
So, house edge is 3.44%

Not bad for a carnival game. Looks like it might be pretty fun, too. I'd give it a shot, especially if the dealer was as distracting as the woman in the video.

gordonm888
Administrator

Joined: Feb 18, 2015

Threads: 59
Posts: 4637

October 26th, 2019 at 10:59:25 AM permalink

Quote: Wizard

The player will raise 69.9% of the time, for an average final wager of 1.699. So, house edge is 3.44% and element of risk is 2.03%.

Next, I shall confirm or deny Gordon's strategy.

Always possible that I made a mistake - actually, given my track record recently its more than "possible." I did some things manually and may have missed something.

So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.

Wizard
Administrator

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Threads: 1470
Posts: 25734

October 26th, 2019 at 12:13:47 PM permalink

Quote: gordonm888
As a strategy for the PLAY/FOLD decision I get:

PLAY if your hand (with the wild card) is AA-Q96 or higher.
FOLD any hand that (with the wild card) is AA-Q95 or lower.

Exceptions
PLAY AA-Q95 when
- your wild card is a 4 and your 5-card hand has all 4 suits.

FOLD AA-Q96
- when your wild card is a 2

My own analysis is showing the borderline range to be close to this. However, I think there are exceptions you're missing. For example, I show 2h, 6d, Tc, Qs, Ah to be a fold.

I think what I'm going to advise on my site is to raise with AAQT (after the wild substitution) or better. A difference between that and optimal should be minute.

�Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.� -- Carl Sagan

Wizard
Administrator

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Threads: 1470
Posts: 25734

Thanks for this post from:

October 27th, 2019 at 7:55:20 PM permalink

If we must boil down the strategy to raising on X-Y-Z or higher, before the switch, I find the best strategy to be to raise with A-Q-10 or better. That is an increase in house edge of 0.0020%, compared to optimal. A-Q-9 is an increase of 0.0122% and A-Q-J is 0.0107%.

�Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.� -- Carl Sagan

gordonm888
Administrator

Joined: Feb 18, 2015

Threads: 59
Posts: 4637

Thanks for this post from:

October 27th, 2019 at 9:38:00 PM permalink

Quote: Wizard
My own analysis is showing the borderline range to be close to this. However, I think there are exceptions you're missing. For example, I show 2h, 6d, Tc, Qs, Ah to be a fold.

I think what I'm going to advise on my site is to raise with AAQT (after the wild substitution) or better. A difference between that and optimal should be minute.

BTW, I agree. I found that I had erroneously scored a group of hands and when I corrected it that AQ9 vs AQ10 is the breakpoint.

So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.

Wizard
Administrator

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Threads: 1470
Posts: 25734

October 28th, 2019 at 6:47:02 AM permalink

Quote: gordonm888
BTW, I agree. I found that I had erroneously scored a group of hands and when I corrected it that AQ9 vs AQ10 is the breakpoint.

Thanks for the second set of eyeballs on this, Gordon. I am a strong believer in the value of peer review.

�Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.� -- Carl Sagan

Wizard
Administrator

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Threads: 1470
Posts: 25734

Thanks for this post from:

October 28th, 2019 at 7:29:28 AM permalink

Paris Poker page is up. I welcome all comments.

�Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.� -- Carl Sagan

mrsuit31

mrsuit31

Joined: May 29, 2010

Threads: 82
Posts: 1325

October 28th, 2019 at 7:47:33 AM permalink

Quote: Wizard
Paris Poker page is up. I welcome all comments.

You are missing the full house odds/pays of "3" on the return table for the Player Monster (I must say, I like the name of that wager...).

.

Wizard
Administrator

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Threads: 1470
Posts: 25734

Thanks for this post from:

October 28th, 2019 at 10:38:02 AM permalink

Quote: mrsuit31
You are missing the full house odds/pays of "3" on the return table for the Player Monster (I must say, I like the name of that wager...).

Thanks, good catch.

�Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.� -- Carl Sagan

Ayecarumba

Ayecarumba

Joined: Nov 17, 2009

Threads: 236
Posts: 6763

October 28th, 2019 at 4:51:31 PM permalink

I'm not sure rule #14 is correct regarding the Banker Buster Bet. It seems to indicate that the bet wins or pushes, but doesn't lose.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci

Wizard
Administrator

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Threads: 1470
Posts: 25734

October 28th, 2019 at 6:25:51 PM permalink

Quote: Ayecarumba
I'm not sure rule #14 is correct regarding the Banker Buster Bet. It seems to indicate that the bet wins or pushes, but doesn't lose.

Thanks -- fixed.

�Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.� -- Carl Sagan

Ajaxx

Ajaxx

Joined: Sep 15, 2019

Threads: 4
Posts: 36

October 28th, 2019 at 11:24:49 PM permalink

Mind blown at how fast you coded this and turned the analysis around. Not for publication of course, but have you looked at hole card strategy by chance?

Quote: Wizard
Paris Poker page is up. I welcome all comments.

Based on the video, it looks like the Banker's Buster pays 3.5 to 1; you list it as 3 to 1 in both Rule 14 and the analysis table (which, by the way, is titled "Dealer Doesn't Qualify Analysis" instead of "Banker's Buster Analysis," though that very well may have been intentional). Amazingly, that would bring the house edge down to a very respectable 1.265%, about as good as you can find for a side bet.

Also (and this is purely minutia), Gordon's handle is gordonm888 as opposed to gordon888 for the acknowledgements.

Last edited by: Ajaxx on Oct 29, 2019

"Not only [does] God play dice... he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen." ~ Stephen Hawking

LoquaciousMoFW

LoquaciousMoFW

Joined: Aug 24, 2014

Threads: 1
Posts: 194

October 28th, 2019 at 11:43:28 PM permalink

I think that in Player's Monster section, the listed house edge of 3.86% should in fact be 4.21%.

Ajaxx

Ajaxx

Joined: Sep 15, 2019

Threads: 4
Posts: 36

October 29th, 2019 at 12:22:42 AM permalink

Also in that same Player's Monster section, I think the probability and return in the "Loser" row of the table should be 0.756007 and -0.756007, respectively, instead of 0.385890 and -0.385890.

"Not only [does] God play dice... he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen." ~ Stephen Hawking

Wizard
Administrator

Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Threads: 1470
Posts: 25734

Thanks for this post from:

October 29th, 2019 at 5:28:16 AM permalink

Thanks for the comments and corrections. I had a formatting error in the Player's Monster section, which I just fixed.

As for the Banker's Buster, the literature I got at the show says it pays 3 to 1. I have yet to actually visit the game at the Paris.

Also, corrected gordonm888's name.

�Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.� -- Carl Sagan

Ajaxx

Ajaxx

Joined: Sep 15, 2019

Threads: 4
Posts: 36

October 29th, 2019 at 2:33:14 PM permalink

Quote: Wizard
As for the Banker's Buster, the literature I got at the show says it pays 3 to 1. I have yet to actually visit the game at the Paris.

Interesting. Looks like the video came out in June, so probably best to trust your more recent number. Maybe SG decided a true sucker bet would sell better at G2E.

"Not only [does] God play dice... he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen." ~ Stephen Hawking

smoothgrh