UTH Rule Variation

Hi,

I currently play UTH at Genting in the UK and was interested to find out that the rules they have when the dealer does not qualify differ from every other version of the game I have seen. I was wondering if anyone has seen this variation of the rules elsewhere and how much it would affect the house edge / strategy.

This is the extract from the website : Dealer’s Hand Does Not Qualify - If the Dealer does not qualify then the ante will push and the play wager is paid even money. If the Player has the higher hand the Blind bet will pay according to the Blind Bet pay table opposite. If the Dealer has the higher hand, only the Blind bet will lose.

Basically the play wager is always paid even if the dealer beats your hand if they do not qualify and only the blind bet is taken.

Quote: NachoUlti

This is the extract from the website : Dealer’s Hand Does Not Qualify - If the Dealer does not qualify then the ante will push and the play wager is paid even money. If the Player has the higher hand the Blind bet will pay according to the Blind Bet pay table opposite. If the Dealer has the higher hand, only the Blind bet will lose.

Basically the play wager is always paid even if the dealer beats your hand if they do not qualify and only the blind bet is taken.
link to original post

I suspect the rules on the web site are wrong.

These are the normal UK rules - https://www.ukcasinotablegames.info/pokerultimatetexasholdem.html

From several years ago I only have a Genting booklet (which doesn't have UTH) but the pamphlet "House Edge" has the same figures as shown on the above page. Thus, as the wizard has also suggested, I'd guess https://www.gentingcasinos.co.uk/casino-gaming/ultimate-texas-hold-em/#how-to-play is wrong.

The rules on the site are definitely correct, I’ve played it with these rules in person.

Quote: NachoUlti

The rules on the site are definitely correct, I’ve played it with these rules in person.
link to original post

It's asking a lot to modify my UTH code to analyze this rule. However, I was in the process of redoing that program anyway, so at least the timing is good to look into this. However, it would be nice to get a second opinion they Play bet is an automatic win if the dealer doesn't qualify. I have lost count of the number of times I've been given false information about rules and wasted a lot of time analyzing the effect.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: NachoUlti

The rules on the site are definitely correct, I’ve played it with these rules in person.
link to original post

It's asking a lot to modify my UTH code to analyze this rule. However, I was in the process of redoing that program anyway, so at least the timing is good to look into this. However, it would be nice to get a second opinion they Play bet is an automatic win if the dealer doesn't qualify. I have lost count of the number of times I've been given false information about rules and wasted a lot of time analyzing the effect.
link to original post

Dear Wizard,
On the GENTING's how-to-play it says: House Edge is 3.5% Ante and Blind Wager combined is 2.19%.
https://www.gentingcasinos.co.uk/casino-gaming/ultimate-texas-hold-em/#how-to-play

UTH at Wizard of Odds: https://wizardofodds.com/games/ultimate-texas-hold-em/

* I think:
It is The Casino/s and/or The Dealer/s where NachoUlti plays got the (RULES of the game) wrong. NOT a new Variation.

Image: UTH, RTP from Evolution-Gaming.

I modified my UTH code to handle the Genting UK rules. With optimal strategy for their rules, I get a player edge, based on the Ante bet, of 3.23%.

Here is a strategy for when to make the 4x raise.



Y = Always make big raise
S = Make big raise only when cards are suited
N = Never make big raise

The player edge following conventional UTH strategy is 1.22%, also based on the Ante bet.

I appreciate your time creating this strategy. I am surprised that it shows a player edge, especially that high. What reason would they have for implementing this rule? To be fair, when I play, the vast majority of other players do not play even close to optimally so I guess that could be a factor?

Quote: NachoUlti

I appreciate your time creating this strategy. I am surprised that it shows a player edge, especially that high. What reason would they have for implementing this rule? To be fair, when I play, the vast majority of other players do not play even close to optimally so I guess that could be a factor?
link to original post

My guess is that whoever wrote the rules for the casino didn't know what they were doing. It wouldn't be the first time a casino did that.

Quote: NachoUlti

I appreciate your time creating this strategy. I am surprised that it shows a player edge, especially that high. What reason would they have for implementing this rule? To be fair, when I play, the vast majority of other players do not play even close to optimally so I guess that could be a factor?
link to original post

I've played a fair bit of conventional UTH and player butcher the strategy.

Also, the average final wager under these rules is 4.550929 units. That makes the Element of Risk (ratio of expected casino win to total player bet) equal to -0.71%. I'm quite sure player errors cost them more than 0.71%.

I just published my page on this variant, Ultimate Texas Hold 'Em -- Genting UK Rules. I welcome all comments.

This rule sounds too good to be true. The “Play” wager is always paid when the dealer does not qualify, even if the player loses.

Is it possible for Wizard to calculate another similar rule like this? The “Play” wager is pushed when the dealer does not qualify and the player loses.

I think I may have instigated the downfall of the advantageous rules as they have changed the rules when the dealer doesn’t qualify to the conventional rules. It lasted nearly 2 months though, maybe I shouldn’t have posted anything :(

Quote: NachoUlti

I think I may have instigated the downfall of the advantageous rules as they have changed the rules when the dealer doesn’t qualify to the conventional rules. It lasted nearly 2 months though, maybe I shouldn’t have posted anything :(
link to original post

Unfortunately, you're probably right. As a minimum, you shouldn't have mentioned the name of the casino.

Without pointing fingers, I'll say that gaming industry employees almost certainly monitor this forum and notify any casino if something is said about a game (at a named casino) being exploitable or having a 'bad' rule.