New Variant of Casino Hold'em - is this beatable?
52 card deck, randomized each hand.
Player must pay an ante size of their choice to play.
Dealer and player are dealt 2 cards.
Player must bet 2x ante to see a flop or fold and surrender the ante. If the player bets, they are guaranteed to see a showdown at the end of the hand.
Player has option of checking or betting 2x ante after flop is revealed.
Player has option of checking or betting 2x ante after turn is revealed.
No betting action after the river is revealed.
Best hand wins between dealer and player.
If player wins, player retains the 1x ante and all of the 2x bets are paid 1:1.
If dealer wins, dealer takes all chips in play.
Example - If a player antes $1, bets $2, bets $2, bets $2 and wins, they will be paid $13 for a $6 profit.
If player bets all hands that are statistically ahead preflop in heads up hold'em, then bets on each allowed street when they are statistically ahead, or checks if behind, is this a beatable proposition? Or is there potential for optimized pre/post flop betting play that could be solved to give the player an edge? If not, what am I missing? Is the 1x ante that isn't paid on a win enough to give the house an edge?
I would like to understand the math behind the conclusion.
Quote: HoldemMaybeI recently came across a new to me version of Casino Hold'em that I can't find any info about online after searching for about an hour.
52 card deck, randomized each hand.
Player must pay an ante size of their choice to play.
Dealer and player are dealt 2 cards.
Player must bet 2x ante to see a flop or fold and surrender the ante. If the player bets, they are guaranteed to see a showdown at the end of the hand.
Player has option of checking or betting 2x ante after flop is revealed.
Player has option of checking or betting 2x ante after turn is revealed.
No betting action after the river is revealed.
Best hand wins between dealer and player.
If player wins, player retains the 1x ante and all of the 2x bets are paid 1:1.
If dealer wins, dealer takes all chips in play.
Example - If a player antes $1, bets $2, bets $2, bets $2 and wins, they will be paid $13 for a $6 profit.
If player bets all hands that are statistically ahead preflop in heads up hold'em, then bets on each allowed street when they are statistically ahead, or checks if behind, is this a beatable proposition? Or is there potential for optimized pre/post flop betting play that could be solved to give the player an edge? If not, what am I missing? Is the 1x ante that isn't paid on a win enough to give the house an edge?
I would like to understand the math behind the conclusion.
link to original post
In this variant, when player Wins it seems that the ante bet always Pushes rather than (as in standard Custom Hold'em) paying 1:1 when the losing dealer hand is a pair of 4s or better. So this rule costs Player some EV, maybe approximately Δ EV = -0.25 .
The conventional Casino Hold'em has one round of betting at post-flop. From what you say, the player has been given an additional choice after the turn to either check or bet 2X and an additional requirement preflop to Bet 2x or Fold Prima facie that gives Player the ability to bet more heavily on good hands where he has positive Expected Value. However Player is also being required to Bet 2x or Fold (with no check option) before the flop. Either way he chooses on the preflop decision these rule changes will cause Player to lose EV when his starting cards are -EV hands.
I haven't done any math but it seems plausible that all these changes might roughly wash out.
BTW, modeling a poker-variant table game that simulates Player making three sequential optimal decisions is pretty difficult. So, I don't expect that this new variant of Casino Hold-em will be modeled immediately or soon.
Quote: HoldemMaybeI recently came across a new to me version of Casino Hold'em that I can't find any info about online after searching for about an hour.
52 card deck, randomized each hand.
Player must pay an ante size of their choice to play.
Dealer and player are dealt 2 cards.
Player must bet 2x ante to see a flop or fold and surrender the ante. If the player bets, they are guaranteed to see a showdown at the end of the hand.
Player has option of checking or betting 2x ante after flop is revealed.
Player has option of checking or betting 2x ante after turn is revealed.
No betting action after the river is revealed.
Best hand wins between dealer and player.
If player wins, player retains the 1x ante and all of the 2x bets are paid 1:1.
If dealer wins, dealer takes all chips in play.
Example - If a player antes $1, bets $2, bets $2, bets $2 and wins, they will be paid $13 for a $6 profit.
If player bets all hands that are statistically ahead preflop in heads up hold'em, then bets on each allowed street when they are statistically ahead, or checks if behind, is this a beatable proposition? Or is there potential for optimized pre/post flop betting play that could be solved to give the player an edge? If not, what am I missing? Is the 1x ante that isn't paid on a win enough to give the house an edge?
I would like to understand the math behind the conclusion.
link to original post
I mistook the betting rules.
The bet to see the flop is 2x ante.
The optional bet before the turn is 1x ante.
The optional bet before the river is 1x ante.
The payout rules remain the same -- only the bets are paid 1:1. The ante is not paid.
I found an online version of the same game through Evoplay. I am not able to post links as a new user but if you search Evoplay, Texas Holdem Poker 3d is the name of the game they list.
They list the RTP as 99.37%.
I appreciate the input from everyone.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: HoldemMaybeI recently came across a new to me version of Casino Hold'em that I can't find any info about online after searching for about an hour.
52 card deck, randomized each hand.
Player must pay an ante size of their choice to play.
Dealer and player are dealt 2 cards.
Player must bet 2x ante to see a flop or fold and surrender the ante. If the player bets, they are guaranteed to see a showdown at the end of the hand.
Player has option of checking or betting 2x ante after flop is revealed.
Player has option of checking or betting 2x ante after turn is revealed.
No betting action after the river is revealed.
Best hand wins between dealer and player.
If player wins, player retains the 1x ante and all of the 2x bets are paid 1:1.
If dealer wins, dealer takes all chips in play.
Example - If a player antes $1, bets $2, bets $2, bets $2 and wins, they will be paid $13 for a $6 profit.
If player bets all hands that are statistically ahead preflop in heads up hold'em, then bets on each allowed street when they are statistically ahead, or checks if behind, is this a beatable proposition? Or is there potential for optimized pre/post flop betting play that could be solved to give the player an edge? If not, what am I missing? Is the 1x ante that isn't paid on a win enough to give the house an edge?
I would like to understand the math behind the conclusion.
link to original post
In this variant, when player Wins it seems that the ante bet always Pushes rather than (as in standard Custom Hold'em) paying 1:1 when the losing dealer hand is a pair of 4s or better. So this rule costs Player some EV, maybe approximately Δ EV = -0.25 .
The conventional Casino Hold'em has one round of betting at post-flop. From what you say, the player has been given an additional choice after the turn to either check or bet 2X and an additional requirement preflop to Bet 2x or Fold Prima facie that gives Player the ability to bet more heavily on good hands where he has positive Expected Value. However Player is also being required to Bet 2x or Fold (with no check option) before the flop. Either way he chooses on the preflop decision these rule changes will cause Player to lose EV when his starting cards are -EV hands.
I haven't done any math but it seems plausible that all these changes might roughly wash out.
BTW, modeling a poker-variant table game that simulates Player making three sequential optimal decisions is pretty difficult. So, I don't expect that this new variant of Casino Hold-em will be modeled immediately or soon.
link to original post
Thank you for your insight and response.
I understand that modeling an optimized strategy is very complex for a game like this. Unfortunately, creating something like that is far beyond my scope of expertise but understanding the solution is something I am still interested in should anyone be interested enough to create one.
To "simplify" it in my mind, it seems quite similar to a heads up limit Hold'em solver with modified betting criteria and an opponent who only ever check/calls. The ante not being paid 1:1 unfortunately really throws a wrench in the return rate.
Quote: harrisThis seems extremely similar to Texas Hold’Em Bonus rather than Casino Hold’Em; right?
link to original post
You may have hit it on the head. I had not found the Texas Hold'em Bonus page on the Wizard of Odds site. That seems to accurately describe the game I found, minus the bonus portion. This thread can be closed if that is a thing here.
Texas Holdem bonus has different odds depending on if the ante is paid on a straight or better( Vegas rules) or a flush or better ( Atlantic City rules )Quote: harrisThe same website has the game Texas Hold'Em Bonus with the exact same RTP shown. The question now is: why are these RTPs different from the one I see on the Wizard of Odds website? There must be some rule or pay table difference?
link to original post
Quote: harrisCoding these things are difficult. I am willing to share all my personal code that I have written to find house edge on table games if other great mathematicians here do the same. Such cooperation could ensure that new games are analyzed in the future. Very shortly I plan to add the strategy and house edge to every game and side bet on my website
link to original post
This game is between classic Casino Holdem (CCH) and UTH. It only took me a day to write and test a CCH analyzer. UTH is definitely trickier to code and takes much longer to run. There are more cards and more decisions
This game is in between CCH and UTH. If you have code for a UTH program, it should be easy to modify it to analyze this game. I cannot find Texas Hold'Em Bonus online and I have little incentive to do the work.
Quote: MentalI cannot find Texas Hold'Em Bonus online and I have little incentive to do the work.
link to original post
You can play it for free on the 4th Google result. As a side note I really like this website and will admit it's better than my own website, where you can also play my game.
Quote: MentalI have little incentive to do the work.
Relatable
If I had a website where I was getting advertisement revenue it might be worth it ;)
I really doubt there is a way to get +EV in this game without hole-carding, collusion, or plain cheating. Table games are generally checked by some neutral authority who would prevent the release of a game that has a potential 100%+ RTP.
I am not sure how 100%+ video poker ever legally existed.
Quote: harrisCoding these things are difficult. I am willing to share all my personal code that I have written to find house edge on table games if other great mathematicians here do the same. Such cooperation could ensure that new games are analyzed in the future. Very shortly I plan to add the strategy and house edge to every game and side bet on my website
link to original post
Have you written a blackjack game analyzer yet? That was one of my first projects when I started designing games and it was one of the most fun to write. It is not difficult but the splitting scenarios and doubling down after splits can be convoluted. Of course, 35 years ago it may have been a little more difficult because I did not have the internet as a resource.
I really struggled doing my first video poker analyzer because it never occurred to me that 90% of the card combinations could be folded in together and not analyzed individually. It took quite a while on my 286 computer. I was amazed at what Dean did with the Winpoker analyzer.
Quote: DRich
Have you written a blackjack game analyzer yet? That was one of my first projects when I started designing games and it was one of the most fun to write. It is not difficult but the splitting scenarios and doubling down after splits can be convoluted. Of course, 35 years ago it may have been a little more difficult because I did not have the internet as a resource.
I really struggled doing my first video poker analyzer because it never occurred to me that 90% of the card combinations could be folded in together and not analyzed individually. It took quite a while on my 286 computer. I was amazed at what Dean did with the Winpoker analyzer.
link to original post
I have analyzed blackjack side bets but not the game itself. From what I can tell, the strategy to every existing blackjack game is publicly and freely available with the except of a single game at one casino in the Philippines whose rules I don’t know. This is the main reason I haven’t been analyzing. I’ll make a blackjack simulator in the future but I would like some assistance so as not to waste time re-inventing the wheel. The simulator I want to build would be able to cover every existing variety…
I was planning on analyzing blackjack via giant simulations but let me know if there is a better way.
The only other field I haven’t done mathematical analysis on is Pai Gow. I don’t like these games and the house ways are always so complex.
Also in normal Pai Gow Poker there are 14 cards which means the analysis will take much longer than other games
Before everyone in this forum retires I hope I can obtain enough esoteric math/coding/gambling knowledge to carry down y’all’s work to the next generations
Quote: harrisQuote: DRich
Have you written a blackjack game analyzer yet? That was one of my first projects when I started designing games and it was one of the most fun to write. It is not difficult but the splitting scenarios and doubling down after splits can be convoluted. Of course, 35 years ago it may have been a little more difficult because I did not have the internet as a resource.
I really struggled doing my first video poker analyzer because it never occurred to me that 90% of the card combinations could be folded in together and not analyzed individually. It took quite a while on my 286 computer. I was amazed at what Dean did with the Winpoker analyzer.
link to original post
I have analyzed blackjack side bets but not the game itself. From what I can tell, the strategy to every existing blackjack game is publicly and freely available with the except of a single game at one casino in the Philippines whose rules I don’t know. This is the main reason I haven’t been analyzing. I’ll make a blackjack simulator in the future but I would like some assistance so as not to waste time re-inventing the wheel. The simulator I want to build would be able to cover every existing variety…
I was planning on analyzing blackjack via giant simulations but let me know if there is a better way.
The only other field I haven’t done mathematical analysis on is Pai Gow. I don’t like these games and the house ways are always so complex.
Also in normal Pai Gow Poker there are 14 cards which means the analysis will take much longer than other games
Before everyone in this forum retires I hope I can obtain enough esoteric math/coding/gambling knowledge to carry down y’all’s work to the next generations
link to original post
I would suggest avoiding simulations for any game that can reasonably be solved. I made that mistake in my early days just doing sims for slot machines which was a mistake if you have all of the data to solve it. Honestly, I was laughed at by peers for simulating when I had the PAR sheets. That moment humbled me, once I realized how easy it was to solve with all of the info on the PAR sheet.
Quote: DRich
I would suggest avoiding simulations for any game that can reasonably be solved. I made that mistake in my early days just doing sims for slot machines which was a mistake if you have all of the data to solve it. Honestly, I was laughed at by peers for simulating when I had the PAR sheets. That moment humbled me, once I realized how easy it was to solve with all of the info on the PAR sheet.
link to original post
Depends on the level of confidence you need. It is a waste of time solving a game when sims provide you with the actual answer you need.
In this case sims got a 99.2% house which confirmed Hunterhills/Harris conjecture about the payout structure being the issue relating to the op's question. I don't need to get to the exact 99.37% the manufacturers state is the exact rtp.
The game is clearly a waste of time without a dramatic procedural quirk. Sims confirm single-card exposure in the 3-4% range. That's not interesting when you take into consideration the variance (10x blackjack). I don't care what the exact HC edge number is.
Quote: KevinAAI've done simulations on keno and blackjack, and the number of trials needed to get close to the correct value is ridiculous.
link to original post
define "ridiculous"
I talked to GLI at G2E last year and they said they do minimum 100 billion simulations per game - and I've had to do more simulations (above a trillion) to verify things for the NJDGE. I don't view trillions as too many but quadrillions would be a little too much for my computer right now :D
