TDB breaking up FH
Quote: IbeatyouracesI had pictures of my W2-G's on here. Unfortunately I deleted them from my photobucket which in turn deletes them from here.
You've got nothing to prove to me, my friend, I just figured even 10/6 DDB has an extremely negligible edge at base...so the Progressive(s) would either have to be up there or you'd be going for the handpay bonus, seems like a good machine as any 4OaK would do it.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhy would anyone think that it was?
Because you wrote this:
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThat is absolutely insane. You are trading in 1 shot at $20,000 for two shots at $4,000.
Had you written 1 shot in 47 vs 2 shots in 47 I wouldn't have beef with you. But you oversimplified the situation.
Quote: IbeatyouracesThey aren't progressives. The cash back was 0.33% plus 0.33% comps, and that did not include any other bounce back which is very good.
I don't know which is bigger, your bankroll or your ****s! I don't care if you're a millionaire, that takes guts.
Quote: AlanMendelsonHad you written 1 shot in 47 vs 2 shots in 47 I wouldn't have beef with you. But you oversimplified the situation.
The denominator is irrelevant. 2 have twice the chance of winning as 1 ticket, regardless of how many tickets are in the drum.
Quote: Mission146Going back to the original quote, I'm not sure what is so controversial that this is still being discussed with such fervor:
1.) Alan admitted in the initial post causing this line of discussion that his play violated, "Proper strategy."
2.) It was pointed out that the play mathematically sucks, quite possibly worse than AlanMendelson may have thought.
3.) It was pointed out that the situation may not be quite as rare as AlanMendelson seemed to believe.
4.) It's Alan's money, and Alan maintains that the greater likelihood of the Quad Aces takes precedence over the Expected Value.
With all due respect to those who are mathematically correct, it doesn't seem that AlanMendelson is defending his play as the, "Better," play, just that he attributes more subjective (read: non-monetary) value to the greater chance of Quad Aces. It's kind of like people who place $x inside at Craps, they're eating it in House Edge, but the action has the subjective value that satisfies them.
Even though no compromise is necessary, it is Alan's money, I would personally and respectfully recommend that he switch to Double Double Bonus, a game in which going for Quad Aces when dealt Trip Aces/FH Aces Full always seems to be the right move. It seems that the way you are playing behaves in direct contravention of the reason why people play Triple-Double to begin with.
thanks Mission. I appreciate how you summed up my position:
Yes, it violates proper strategy. Yes, mathematically my play sucks. Yes, the situation probably isn't as rare as I think it is -- but then I don't play TDB that often. And yes, I'd be happy getting the quad aces.
Thank you for your recommendation about playing DDB instead... but I will go one better. MY GAME is Bonus or Aces and Faces where the strategy is much more simple: you hold the full houses ALWAYS and you drop kickers ALWAYS.
But in the rare times Ive played TDB as I wrote before, I was dealt AAAA once and did not draw the kicker, and I was dealt AAAK once and dropped the kicker and dropping the kicker didn't make any difference.
And while I admit it's the "wrong play" it's the play I would make each and every time because I would like to maximize my chances for quad aces which pays DOUBLE what quad aces would pay in both Bonus and Aces and Faces.
And this brings up another question: why don't I just stick to Bonus and Aces and Faces? Because sometimes in the casinos I go to the paytables on Bonus and Aces and Faces are too bad to play, or one or the other isn't even offered.
Quote: AlanMendelsonAnd while I admit it's the "wrong play" it's the play I would make each and every time because I would like to maximize my chances for quad aces which pays DOUBLE what quad aces would pay in both Bonus and Aces and Faces.
And this brings up another question: why don't I just stick to Bonus and Aces and Faces? Because sometimes in the casinos I go to the paytables on Bonus and Aces and Faces are too bad to play, or one or the other isn't even offered.
I don't understand why you would take the time to find good paytables, and then play sub-optimally. Couldn't you just play bad paytables optimally? The results are the same and it saves time.
Quote: AlanMendelson
And this brings up another question: why don't I just stick to Bonus and Aces and Faces? Because sometimes in the casinos I go to the paytables on Bonus and Aces and Faces are too bad to play, or one or the other isn't even offered.
That's why I recommended DDB, the strategy is simple, if you see Three Aces in your hand, drop everything that's not an Ace. Four Aces will either pay $4,000 (5-K) or $10,000 (2-4), but the play is always the same...only keep the Three Aces. You would keep any Full House that does NOT have Three Aces in it.
Quote: Mission146That's why I recommended DDB, the strategy is simple, if you see Three Aces in your hand, drop everything that's not an Ace. Four Aces will either pay $4,000 (5-K) or $10,000 (2-4), but the play is always the same...only keep the Three Aces. You would keep any Full House that does NOT have Three Aces in it.
Yeah, exactly. If you are going to play the DDB strategy, you may as well play DDB...
Quote: IbeatyouracesPlus, only getting 2 credits back on TDB for 3oak just sucks!
Ick.
I can't play anything like that, which is why I am pretty strictly JoB and DW. I like Joker Poker, even though 2P only pays one, and I can barely tolerate Bonus Deuces with the Straight only paying one.
Joker Poker is the only game I like in which what is usually only the second-lowest paying result becomes tied for lowest-paying winning result by virtue of only returning the original bet. I hate everything else like that, except can tolerate Bonus Deuces.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceActually, Mickey said that you get dealt 3 aces with a kicker once every 1504 hands.
Mickey, can I ask how you calculated this?
If you exclude full houses (eg, you count AAA29 but not AAA22) I get 1 in every 1230 hands. If you do count full houses (ie, you could AAA22) I get 1 in every 1152 hands. It's possible that I made some stupid mistake though.
So, basically, by playing 9/7 $5 TDB and throwing away $94 in EV every time you get dealt AAA + a kicker, you are turning a 99.58% game into a 99.25% game. Almost doubling the house edge... I hope they comp you well!
Actually its 1 in 1305, I think. Assuming I didn't goof either. But you don't lose $94 on Aces full with 2 low kickers by holding AAA, you lose $105 instead. And you lose $109 with AAA and 2 different low kickers.
So overall: AAA + low kicker + high kicker = 4*12*36/2,598,960 x 3.762257 betting unit mistake = 0.00250145446 return mistake
Aces full with two low kickers = 4*6*3/2,598,960 x 4.19889 betting unit mistake = 0.00011632348 return mistake
AAA + low kicker + different low kicker = 4*(12*11/2 - 6*3)/2,598,960 x 4.354302 betting unit mistake = 0.0003216771262351 return mistake
Total errors by not holding a kicker with AAA: 0.0029394550662351 = 0.294%
So when not holding AAA+kicker: 9/7 TDB goes from 99.578% to 99.284%.
9/6 TDB goes from 98.154% to 97.860%. So by making this one error, playing 9/5 DDB (97.87% max) becomes a better game than 9/6 TDB.
Quote: AlanMendelsonThis is wrong. It's not "one shot" -- it's 1/47 at 20,000.
If it were "one shot" as in a flip of the coin -- then yes, I would take the "one shot out of two" at 20,000.
I think your definition of "one shot" is inconsistent with most on this forum. If you really play this way, you really should avoid TDB at all costs. See 9/6 TDB w/error vs. 9/5 DDB w/o error for further justification.
Quote: tringlomaneActually its 1 in 1305, I think. Assuming I didn't goof either. But you don't lose $94 on Aces full with 2 low kickers by holding AAA, you lose $105 instead. And you lose $109 with AAA and 2 different low kickers.
My $94 number was from the hand AAA2T (using the wizard's calculator). ie, only 1 low kicker, which is (I think) the situation that Alan was referring to. 2 low kickers is obviously an even bigger mistake since you have less of a chance at a redraw.
My 1 in 1230 number was for AAA+small+anything (anything could possibly be another small, but not making a full house or quads)
My 1 in 1152 number was for AAA+small+anything, where anything could possibly make a full house (but not quads)
Anyway, I think that it's safe to just ballpark this as a $100 mistake that will come up about once every hour or so for a fast player, once every 2 hours for a normal player, and once every 3 hours for a slow player. JB mentioned that he could get in 1700 hands an hour in a different thread... for him this would come up once every 40-45 minutes!
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceJB mentioned that he could get in 1700 hands an hour in a different thread... for him this would come up once every 40-45 minutes!
I'd be impressed if JB could play 9/7 TDB "accurately" at 1700 hands/hr! 9/7 TDB is a tough game, imo.
Quote: tringlomaneI'd be impressed if JB could play 9/7 TDB "accurately" at 1700 hands/hr! 9/7 TDB is a tough game, imo.
I would not be able to; I'm not too familiar with TDB strategy other than the major differences such as holding the kicker. The games I know best are 9/6 Jacks and 9/4/4 BDW.
And even with BDW, there are two situations where I know I make errors because I haven't studied the strategy enough to know the gory details. The first situation is choosing between holding 4 to a wild Flush (deuce + three suited naturals) or holding only the deuce. An Ace in the dealt hand (whether it is part of the 4-Flush or not) instantly makes the 4-Flush the better play, but I basically always hold the 4-Flush since there are more combinations where that is the correct play than where holding only the deuce is the correct play. The other situation is suited Ace-Ten when there are no deuces in the dealt hand. I typically only hold the Ace-Ten if there is no Flush penalty and no Straight penalty (K/Q/J). A Flush penalty instantly makes discarding everything the better play. But with no Flush penalty, there are situations where you should discard everything even if there is no Straight penalty, and then there are situations that have a Straight penalty where you should hold the Ace-Ten anyway. These two strategy situations combined account for less than 0.04% of the return, so it's not really worth it to me to bother knowing the exact details.
It's basically only Jacks or Better that I can cruise through accurately. When I was playing with the Wizard we were playing 9/6 Bonus Deluxe and I did pause occasionally to look up certain plays. It was during a stretch of "no-brainer" hands that I was able to max out around 1700 hph. Like I mentioned in the other thread, the conditions have to be just right in order for me to play that fast -- and being dealt "no-brainer" hands is definitely one of those conditions.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI don't understand why you would take the time to find good paytables, and then play sub-optimally. Couldn't you just play bad paytables optimally? The results are the same and it saves time.
Actually, with bad paytables I use some of the advice from Bob Dancer where he violates "optimal play" and takes "shots" at bigger wins. For example on 6/5 Bonus -- if dealt a full house with 3 aces BOB DANCER says to hold the three aces and try for quads. THAT'S DANCER... NOT SINGER.
fortunately I rarely find that I am stuck playing 6/5 Bonus, but 7/5 Bonus is pretty much common now at most casinos and it's tempting to hold three aces in a full house with 7/5 Bonus. I have to wonder if there might be a fuzzy line between 6/5 and 7/5 Bonus for Dancer about holding just the three aces?
Quote: AlanMendelsonActually, with bad paytables I use some of the advice from Bob Dancer where he violates "optimal play" and takes "shots" at bigger wins.
For example on 6/5 Bonus -- if dealt a full house with 3 aces BOB DANCER says to hold the three aces and try for quads. THAT'S DANCER... NOT SINGER.
Holding only the three aces (of a dealt full house) does not violate optimal strategy in 6/5 Bonus Poker; the paytable is so bad that that actually is the optimal play.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceActually, Mickey said that you get dealt 3 aces with a kicker once every 1504 hands. Mickey, can I ask how you calculated this?
Sure. First, total combinations
52X51X50X49X48/5X4X3X2X1 = 2,598,960
Then, how many three-card combinations make 3 Aces?
4X3X2/3X2X1 = 4
Then, how many kickers? Since it has to be a 2, 3 or 4 there are 12 kickers.
Then, the fifth card has to be from on of the other nine ranks, so 36.
4X12X36 = 1728
Then divide total combinations by the number of combinations that make three aces with a kicker.
2,598,960/1728 = 1504.0277
I've never studied TDB so I don't know if you break Aces Full hands like AAA22. If you do then 24 combinations make AAA22, and 24 combinations make AAA33, and 24 combinations make AAA44. If the break is made here then there would be a total of 1800 combinations where you will be drawing one card to 4 Aces with a kicker.
2,598,960/1800 = 1443.8666
That's the way I do it. If anyone finds a mistake please let me know.
Quote: AlanMendelsonBut by dropping the kicker and holding AAA what are the odds for getting quad aces?
Total combinations is 47x46/2x1 = 1081
There are 47 cards remaining in the deck. When you catch the 4th Ace the sidecard has to be one of the 46 remaining cards.
1X46 = 46
1081/46 = 23.5
You are trading in a 1 in 47 chance of 4 Aces with a kicker for a 1 in 23.5 chance at 4 Aces that have a 1 in 4.45 chance of coming up with a good kicker. Eleven of the 46 sidecards will be a small kicker.
Quote: mickeycrimmThen, the fifth card has to be from on of the other nine ranks, so 36.
Ok, this explains why our numbers are different -- you're not counting hands with 3 aces and 2 kickers (like AAA23), and I am.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceOk, this explains why our numbers are different -- you're not counting hands with 3 aces and 2 kickers (like AAA23), and I am.
Thanks for pointing this out, Axiom. I forgot all about those hands. I didn't figure those hands in. So there are 64 combinations that make a AAA23, and 64 combinations that make a AAA24, and 64 that make a AAA34. That's 192 more combinations. So the real frequency should be:
2,598,960/1992 = 1304.6499 which I think is the number that you or Tringlomane gave.
Quote: JBI would not be able to; I'm not too familiar with TDB strategy other than the major differences such as holding the kicker. The games I know best are 9/6 Jacks and 9/4/4 BDW.
And even with BDW, there are two situations where I know I make errors because I haven't studied the strategy enough to know the gory details.
Yeah, I'm okay with BDW as it is the best paying deuces game in STL, meh, but I think I forget that four flush rule a lot. I have mostly converted to 35/8/5 Bonus lately though. Much easier, lower variance, higher return...etc etc
Quote: JBHolding only the three aces (of a dealt full house) does not violate optimal strategy in 6/5 Bonus Poker; the paytable is so bad that that actually is the optimal play.
Yep, Bob Dancer would always try to avoid giving sub-optimal advice. If someone was playing 6/5 Bonus Deluxe, he would also tell you to break 2 pair that has a high pair. Only after chastising you for playing 6/5 Bonus Deluxe (95.36% max) of course.
Quote: mickeycrimm
2,598,960/1992 = 1304.6499 which I think is the number that you or Tringlomane gave.
It was me. Took me away too long to get that answer though. Damn rust.
For the non-full-house ones I was just calculating 4*12*44 (number of ways to pick AAA * number of kickers * number of other cards) for the number of possibilities. Unfortunately that double-counts hands with 2 kickers (it treats AAA23 and AAA32 as different hands). That explains why my frequencies are a little higher than yours.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/hand-analyzer/
Quote: movieguy73very useful link.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/hand-analyzer/
Absolutely.
But it only answers questions like "how should I play this hand" or "what is the cost of misplaying this hand", not "how frequently does this hand come up?"
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAbsolutely.
But it only answers questions like "how should I play this hand" or "what is the cost of misplaying this hand", not "how frequently does this hand come up?"
The software that will do this is wolf video poker. You can add statistics to the strategy chart. "Cycle" will give the founded frequency of seeing the hand. "Appeared" will give the actual number of cimbinations.
