UTH - Does Knowing Everyone's Hand Change Play?

I was recently at a casino where they are slowing bringing back table games after COVID. They've brought back Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em - but with an interesting twist - they do not allow the players to touch the cards.

The cards are shown face up on the table and so long as you continue to check, they are shown face up. As soon as you choose to make your Play wager, the cards are closed and tucked under the chips.

I found this fascinating considering that the tables usually have warnings about sharing information. It also got me thinking - does this change the best play?

For example, if you are playing at a full table and you have a weak suited King - and then reviewing all of the other hands, you see four, five, or more cards of your suit in the hands of the other players. I'd have to believe that making a 4X raise with so many of your flush cards dead would no longer be the proper play.

I'm also sure that the perfect strategy is incredibly complicated - just how many flush cards are dead ... straight cards ... heck even cards of the same rank - but I know that I starting thinking about not making 4X wagers when I didn't like the cards in my fellow players' hands compared with mine.

What do others think?

Better to play face up than having all the cards concealed If you know how to play. Useful information can be an edge for a player who knows how to play. But 99% of UTH players do not how to play using basic strategy.

I think it helps very little, but I've never studied it. In fact, I think it may actually be bad as the additional information gives the player rope to hang himself.

There’s a teliot article on this on 888. If you can see six people’s hands there’s a 2.5% collision edge.

FYI:THE FIRST Casino Hold'em Poker® Where Player's cards are shown Face-up is Casino Hold'em® OPEN™ ©2014 (see info below.) TheFirstNewTableGames.com

Casino Hold'em® OPEN™ ©2014. CasinoHoldemOPEN.com
*** THE FIRST Casino Hold'em Poker® Where ALL Player's Hole-cards is ALL Dealt Face-up. https://bit.ly/3gvTte5
* Live-Dealer 2-Hand Casino Hold'em® OPEN™ Power by Evolution: 2HandCasinoHoldem.com
* 3-Hand Casino Hold'em® OPEN™ Power by Play'n GO: https://bit.ly/3tLVLM8
​***FREE-Play 3-Hand Casino Hold'em® OPEN™. Power by Play'n GO: 3HandCasinoHoldem.com

Math at Wizard of Odds Casino Hold'Em Open (Under this name, the rules are the same except the player hole cards are dealt face up. In normal Casino Hold 'Em they are dealt face down): CasinoHoldemOpenWoO.com

Math by Stephen How. https://bit.ly/3gvTte5


​FREE-Play 3-Hand Casino Hold'em® OPEN™. Power by Play'n GO: 3HandCasinoHoldem.com



VIDEO-Demo: Evolution's 2-Hand Casino Hold'em Review by Live Casino Comparer. https://bit.ly/338fyMS

Quote: MrCasinoGames

FYI: THE FIRST Casino Hold'em Poker® Where Player's cards are shown Face-up is Casino Hold'em® OPEN™ ©2014 (see info below.) TheFirstNewTableGames.com

Casino Hold'em® OPEN™ ©2014. CasinoHoldemOPEN.com
*** THE FIRST Casino Hold'em Poker® Where ALL Player's Hole-cards is ALL Dealt Face-up. https://bit.ly/3gvTte5
* Live-Dealer 2-Hand Casino Hold'em® OPEN™ Power by Evolution: 2HandCasinoHoldem.com
* 3-Hand Casino Hold'em® OPEN™ Power by Play'n GO: https://bit.ly/3tLVLM8
​***FREE-Play 3-Hand Casino Hold'em® OPEN™. Power by Play'n GO: 3HandCasinoHoldem.com

Math at Wizard of Odds Casino Hold 'Em Open (Under this name, the rules are the same except the player hole cards are dealt face up. In normal Casino Hold 'Em they are dealt face down): CasinoHoldemOpenWoO.com

Math by Stephen How. https://bit.ly/3gvTte5


​FREE-Play 3-Hand Casino Hold'em® OPEN™. Power by Play'n GO: 3HandCasinoHoldem.com



VIDEO-Demo: Evolution's 2-Hand Casino Hold'em Review by Live Casino Comparer. https://bit.ly/338fyMS

link to original post

Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation. Ever heard the term hijacking?


ZCore13

Quote: swweber

I was recently at a casino where they are slowing bringing back table games after COVID. They've brought back Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em - but with an interesting twist - they do not allow the players to touch the cards.

The cards are shown face up on the table and so long as you continue to check, they are shown face up. As soon as you choose to make your Play wager, the cards are closed and tucked under the chips.

I found this fascinating considering that the tables usually have warnings about sharing information. It also got me thinking - does this change the best play?

For example, if you are playing at a full table and you have a weak suited King - and then reviewing all of the other hands, you see four, five, or more cards of your suit in the hands of the other players. I'd have to believe that making a 4X raise with so many of your flush cards dead would no longer be the proper play.

I'm also sure that the perfect strategy is incredibly complicated - just how many flush cards are dead ... straight cards ... heck even cards of the same rank - but I know that I starting thinking about not making 4X wagers when I didn't like the cards in my fellow players' hands compared with mine.

What do others think?
link to original post

My Casino removed and has not replaced the poker game for this reason. We don't allow players to touch cards yet and it would be too advantageous to allow players to see all cards. I don't know if players would actually be able to use optimal strategy and gain the edge, but they could surely reduce the house edge.


ZCore13

Quote: MrCasinoGames

<snip>
Math by Stephen How. https://bit.ly/3gvTte5

<snip>
link to original post

ZCore13,

The table above (snipped from the post by MrCasinoGames) shows that even perfect strategy on a full table will not produce a +EV game for the players.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

To beat a dead horse… Grossjean talked about this as well and I think wrote a blog article about how it absolutely does not make it a +EV game for the player.

Casinos that are strict about seeing other cards or talking about hands always make me laugh. Typical stupid casinos terrified of what they don’t know. If they simply watched the game for 10 minutes they’d deal the game face up. ANY PLOPPY that has an ace will almost never 4x if they know another player has an ace… or won’t bet things like a pair of 10’s if someone else has a 10, even though it’s the 5th best starting hand out of 1326. Seriously this game would be 10x profitable for the casino if they dealt it face up.

More information can help (an educated player) make more decisions though. An example would be counting outs after the river for a call/fold decision.

For what it’s worth I too find mr casino games posts to be 99% worthless spam, pretty much every single time as well. Time and place for advertising and in EVERY SINGLE POST YOU MAKE EVER is not the time, nor the place.

Quote:

Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation. Ever heard the term hijacking?


ZCore13

I quite agree this is hijacking. I honestly thought this person knew better -- don't they have an entire thread where they can post their self-aggrandizing promotions?

As far as the original question, I did my own analysis of card sharing in UTH -- here is my article:

https://www.888casino.com/blog/novelty-games/ultimate-texas-holdem-collusion

I come up with a six-player collusion edge of about 2.5% for the players. But it isn't easy.

Quote: teliot

As far as the original question, I did my own analysis of card sharing in UTH -- here is my article:

https://www.888casino.com/blog/novelty-games/ultimate-texas-holdem-collusion

I come up with a six-player collusion edge of about 2.5% for the players. But it isn't easy.
link to original post

Great analysis. I NOT an AP, but since there are many APs who play BJ with a 1% advantage, often in limited session times to avoid heat, plus generally playing unrated to remain somewhat anonymous, you don’t think 2.5%, or even 2% , presumably with less heat and the possibility of comps on top of that makes it worth it? Now even more so if it is not collusion but the cards are legally dealt open?

Quote: SOOPOO

Great analysis. I NOT an AP, but since there are many APs who play BJ with a 1% advantage, often in limited session times to avoid heat, plus generally playing unrated to remain somewhat anonymous, you don’t think 2.5%, or even 2% , presumably with less heat and the possibility of comps on top of that makes it worth it? Now even more so if it is not collusion but the cards are legally dealt open?

There are substantially larger card-sharing edges available that are much easier.

Quote: unJon

There’s a teliot article on this on 888. If you can see six people’s hands there’s a 2.5% collision edge.
link to original post

Can somebody estimate how much advantage a player may get when all four aces are marked out for him?

I cannot open the link. Anywhere else where I can find this analysis?

Not sure what data you want -- here is some data:

https://advancedadvantageplay.com/downloads/

Thanks a lot, this is very useful.
I was looking for the data about having a 2.5% edge with perfect computer play and knowledge of all players' cards, but that I could not find on the link.

Quote: BEgambler

Thanks a lot, this is very useful.
I was looking for the data about having a 2.5% edge with perfect computer play and knowledge of all players' cards, but that I could not find on the link.
link to original post

https://discountgambling.net/2010/01/15/practical-collusion-for-ultimate-texas-holdem/



ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

Quote: BEgambler

Thanks a lot, this is very useful.
I was looking for the data about having a 2.5% edge with perfect computer play and knowledge of all players' cards, but that I could not find on the link.
link to original post

https://discountgambling.net/2010/01/15/practical-collusion-for-ultimate-texas-holdem/



ZCore13
link to original post

Basic strategy says to check pocket 22s; however, player confidently finds that no other 2s are held by other five co-players, so collusion strategy says to raise 4x now. Is this correct? I don’t know how to count player’s outs in this particular situation.

Yes, if you are sure that the other 5 players do not have a 2, raising before the flop with 22 becomes the best play.
Counting outs is relevant for the decision to pay or fold after the river.

Quote: BEgambler

Yes, if you are sure that the other 5 players do not have a 2, raising before the flop with 22 becomes the best play.
Counting outs is relevant for the decision to pay or fold after the river.
link to original post

Stephen How is saying there are two outs (a 2 and another 2) unseen (available) to make a player’s trips or better hand.

I finally managed to open the article using a VPN, but I still could not understand the player edge of 2.5%. The article talks about a simulation of 500 hands, for which 47 would result in changes to the basic strategy reducing the.house edge on average of 11%. That means an approximate reduction of the house edge in 1% (47/500*11%).
Where do the additional changes come to allow to increase the player edge 3.5%? Is it in the other decision points (after flop, after river). I did not see any reference to this, and I could not understand how it was possible to gain that much edge.

Quote: BEgambler

I finally managed to open the article using a VPN, but I still could not understand the player edge of 2.5%. The article talks about a simulation of 500 hands, for which 47 would result in changes to the basic strategy reducing the.house edge on average of 11%. That means an approximate reduction of the house edge in 1% (47/500*11%).
Where do the additional changes come to allow to increase the player edge 3.5%? Is it in the other decision points (after flop, after river). I did not see any reference to this, and I could not understand how it was possible to gain that much edge.
link to original post

11%x47/500=1.034%. The author Eliot is here. He states “the six-player collusion edge at UTH is about 2.5%.” This statement is still vague. Is UTH a positive EV game for collusion players? Let’s forget the edge amount for now.

Quote: BEgambler

I finally managed to open the article using a VPN, but I still could not understand the player edge of 2.5%. The article talks about a simulation of 500 hands, for which 47 would result in changes to the basic strategy reducing the.house edge on average of 11%. That means an approximate reduction of the house edge in 1% (47/500*11%).
Where do the additional changes come to allow to increase the player edge 3.5%? Is it in the other decision points (after flop, after river). I did not see any reference to this, and I could not understand how it was possible to gain that much edge.
link to original post

Given there are 2072767086390 starting configurations of six 2-card hands (up-to-symmetry), a sample of 500 may not be sufficient to draw a conclusion about the overall edge from computer perfect collusion.

Quote: aceside

Quote: BEgambler

I finally managed to open the article using a VPN, but I still could not understand the player edge of 2.5%. The article talks about a simulation of 500 hands, for which 47 would result in changes to the basic strategy reducing the.house edge on average of 11%. That means an approximate reduction of the house edge in 1% (47/500*11%).
Where do the additional changes come to allow to increase the player edge 3.5%? Is it in the other decision points (after flop, after river). I did not see any reference to this, and I could not understand how it was possible to gain that much edge.
link to original post

11%x47/500=1.034%. The author Eliot is here. He states “the six-player collusion edge at UTH is about 2.5%.” This statement is still vague. Is UTH a positive EV game for collusion players? Let’s forget the edge amount for now.
link to original post

It's not vague. Player edge is the same as positive EV and player advantage.


ZCore13

Quote: aceside

Quote: BEgambler

I finally managed to open the article using a VPN, but I still could not understand the player edge of 2.5%. The article talks about a simulation of 500 hands, for which 47 would result in changes to the basic strategy reducing the.house edge on average of 11%. That means an approximate reduction of the house edge in 1% (47/500*11%).
Where do the additional changes come to allow to increase the player edge 3.5%? Is it in the other decision points (after flop, after river). I did not see any reference to this, and I could not understand how it was possible to gain that much edge.
link to original post

11%x47/500=1.034%. The author Eliot is here. He states “the six-player collusion edge at UTH is about 2.5%.” This statement is still vague. Is UTH a positive EV game for collusion players? Let’s forget the edge amount for now.
link to original post

The author is wrong and I believe he knows it. Maybe take a look at the work of someone who has made millions in the casino Like Grosjean. He also doesn’t eat cheese from my understanding.

Quote: Seedvalue

Quote: aceside

Quote: BEgambler

I finally managed to open the article using a VPN, but I still could not understand the player edge of 2.5%. The article talks about a simulation of 500 hands, for which 47 would result in changes to the basic strategy reducing the.house edge on average of 11%. That means an approximate reduction of the house edge in 1% (47/500*11%).
Where do the additional changes come to allow to increase the player edge 3.5%? Is it in the other decision points (after flop, after river). I did not see any reference to this, and I could not understand how it was possible to gain that much edge.
link to original post

11%x47/500=1.034%. The author Eliot is here. He states “the six-player collusion edge at UTH is about 2.5%.” This statement is still vague. Is UTH a positive EV game for collusion players? Let’s forget the edge amount for now.
link to original post

The author is wrong and I believe he knows it. Maybe take a look at the work of someone who has made millions in the casino Like Grosjean. He also doesn’t eat cheese from my understanding.
link to original post

Math doesn't lie my friend. Mr. Elliot is world renowned for his work. I doubt he's wrong and I doubt he "knows it". You might want to do a little reading before making accusations like that to a current member here.


ZCore13

Quote: Zcore13

Quote: aceside

Quote: BEgambler

I finally managed to open the article using a VPN, but I still could not understand the player edge of 2.5%. The article talks about a simulation of 500 hands, for which 47 would result in changes to the basic strategy reducing the.house edge on average of 11%. That means an approximate reduction of the house edge in 1% (47/500*11%).
Where do the additional changes come to allow to increase the player edge 3.5%? Is it in the other decision points (after flop, after river). I did not see any reference to this, and I could not understand how it was possible to gain that much edge.
link to original post

11%x47/500=1.034%. The author Eliot is here. He states “the six-player collusion edge at UTH is about 2.5%.” This statement is still vague. Is UTH a positive EV game for collusion players? Let’s forget the edge amount for now.
link to original post

It's not vague. Player edge is the same as positive EV and player advantage.


ZCore13
link to original post

So, you are saying a skillful player has a player edge of +2.5% advantage over the house. If this is true, I will bet a lot on this game. This is a social game, so it is fun and profitable.

Quote: aceside

Quote: Zcore13

Quote: aceside

Quote: BEgambler

I finally managed to open the article using a VPN, but I still could not understand the player edge of 2.5%. The article talks about a simulation of 500 hands, for which 47 would result in changes to the basic strategy reducing the.house edge on average of 11%. That means an approximate reduction of the house edge in 1% (47/500*11%).
Where do the additional changes come to allow to increase the player edge 3.5%? Is it in the other decision points (after flop, after river). I did not see any reference to this, and I could not understand how it was possible to gain that much edge.
link to original post

11%x47/500=1.034%. The author Eliot is here. He states “the six-player collusion edge at UTH is about 2.5%.” This statement is still vague. Is UTH a positive EV game for collusion players? Let’s forget the edge amount for now.
link to original post

It's not vague. Player edge is the same as positive EV and player advantage.


ZCore13
link to original post

So, you are saying a skillful player has a player edge of +2.5% advantage over the house. If this is true, I will bet a lot on this game. This is a social game, so it is fun and profitable.
link to original post

6 skillful players colluding with each other gives a 2.5% player advantage. You can't get that advantage alone because you need to know all 5 others hands cards to gain that advantage.
Alone, you might be able to see a couple people's cards or hope for a bottom card peak of the dealers cards when they move them from the shuffle to the table.


ZCore13

Quote: BEgambler

I finally managed to open the article using a VPN, but I still could not understand the player edge of 2.5%. The article talks about a simulation of 500 hands, for which 47 would result in changes to the basic strategy reducing the.house edge on average of 11%. That means an approximate reduction of the house edge in 1% (47/500*11%).
Where do the additional changes come to allow to increase the player edge 3.5%? Is it in the other decision points (after flop, after river). I did not see any reference to this, and I could not understand how it was possible to gain that much edge.
link to original post

Okay, I looked back at the data.

What you are missing here is that I only showed the 4x/Check decision gain in this article and attached spreadsheet. But there are subsequent possibilities for EV gain on the next two streets if the player Checks initially.

You are right that there is an average 11.2% gain in EV for those hands where the 4x/Check strategy is improved based on sharing information. What you are missing is that in every situation where the player Checked on the first street, there may have been subsequent improvements on the 2x/Check or 1x/Fold streets. Those later decisions are taken into account in computing the Collusion Check EV's printed in the table.

For example, hand #3 in the spreadsheet shows the Player with 6s, Qh. The Basic Strategy EV for that hand (6/Qo) is -0.248730 after Checking first street. The collusion EV for that hand after Checking is -0.092515.

Also, here's another issue -- let's say the simulation says that for a given hand, instead of Check you should Raise 4x. The gain listed in the spreadsheet for the simulation is the difference between the collusion edge of Checking and the collusion edge of Raising 4x. To get the true gain against Basic Strategy, once again, you have to look at the difference between the Basic Strategy edge of Checking and the Collusion edge of Raising 4x.

Likewise, if the strategy change is that instead of Raising 4x, you should Check, then you should measure the gain as the difference between the Basic Strategy EV of Raising 4x and the Collusion strategy of Checking.

And if there is no change, e.g. Raise 4x to Raise 4x, then the EV listed might still not be the Basic Strategy EV, because the computation is being done based on certain cards not being available. So even then you may have a EV gain (or even a loss). You need to measure the Basic Strategy Raise 4x EV against the Collusion Raise 4x EV to see.

If you feel like doing this work, here's the basic strategy edges:

https://advancedadvantageplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/UTH_Basic_Strategy.xlsx

Thank you for your thoughtful question. It's been a long time since I looked at this. Obviously, I did not show those 500 hands to be used as a sample to compute the gain in EV. It was more to illustrate the kind of strategy changes that might take place.

Hopefully I don't have any typos in what I wrote above.

It’s clear that Dr. Eliot knows a lot about this game, but the conclusion is still vague. The player’s advantage of +2.5% over the house is referenced to the player’s ante bet amount, right?

Also, if we isolate out the player’s advantage to consider only the advantage from the 1x raise using this basic strategy, “less than 21 dealer outs beat you,” how much advantage does the player gain?