Where can I find correct strategy for triple double bonus?
Quote: supermaxhdThe strategy maker for triple double bonus doesn't show 2 high cards in the basic strategy but then shows two to a straight: JK listed as an exception. Maybe it is not complete.
9/7 TDB basic strategy:
https://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/strategy/a-1-b-120-c-1-d-0-d-1-d-1-d-2-d-4-d-7-d-9-d-50-d-80-d-160-d-400-d-800-d-50-d-800/
Basic Strategy
TYPE OF PLAY PLAY DETAILS
Pat Hand
(more)Four 2's, 3's, 4's with any A,2,3,4; Four Aces with any 2,3,4; Straigh...
4 of a Kind
(more)2222; 3333; 4444; 5555; 6666; 7777; 8888; 9999; TTTT; JJJJ; QQQQ; KKKK...
4 to a Royal Flush TJQA; TJQK; TJKA; TQKA; JQKA
3 of a Kind + 1 Kicker 2223; 2224; 222A; 3332; 3334; 333A; 4442; 4443; 444A; AAA2; AAA3; AAA4
3 of a Kind 222; 333; 444; AAA
Pat Hand Straight; Flush; Full House
3 of a Kind 555; 666; 777; 888; 999; TTT; JJJ; QQQ; KKK
4 to a Straight Flush
(more)A234; A235; A245; A345; 2345; 2346; 2356; 2456; 3456; 3457; 3467; 3567...
1 Pair AA
2 Pair
(more)2233; 2244; 2255; 2266; 2277; 2288; 2299; 22TT; 22JJ; 22QQ; 22KK; 3344...
4 to a Flush
(more)2347; 2348; 2349; 234T; 234J; 234Q; 234K; 2357; 2358; 2359; 235T; 235J...
3 to a Royal Flush TJQ; TJK; TQK; JQA; JQK; JKA; QKA
1 Pair JJ; QQ; KK
3 to a Royal Flush TJA; TQA; TKA
1 Pair 22; 33; 44
4 to a Straight 2345; 3456; 4567; 5678; 6789; 789T; 89TJ; 9TJQ; TJQK
3 to a Straight Flush 789; 8JQ; 9TJ; 9JQ; 9JK; 9QK
1 Pair 88
3 to a Straight Flush 456; 9TQ
1 Pair 77
3 to a Straight Flush 345; 89J; 8TJ
1 Pair TT
3 to a Straight Flush 678
1 Pair 66
3 to a Straight Flush 89T
1 Pair 99
3 to a Straight Flush 567
1 Pair 55
4 to a Straight JQKA
3 to a Flush
(more)2JA; 2JQ; 2JK; 2QA; 2QK; 2KA; 3JA; 3JQ; 3JK; 3QA; 3QK; 3KA; 4JA; 4JQ...
2 to a Royal Flush JA; JQ; JK; QA; QK; KA
3 to a Straight Flush
(more)A23; A24; A25; A34; A35; A45; 234; 235; 245; 346; 356; 457; 467; 568...
4 to a Straight 9JQK; TJQA; TJKA; TQKA
3 to a Straight Flush 89Q; 8TQ; 9TK
3 to a Straight JQK
4 to a Straight 89JQ; 8TJQ; 9TJK; 9TQK
Single Card an Ace
3 to a Flush
(more)23J; 23Q; 24J; 24Q; 25J; 25Q; 26A; 26J; 26Q; 27A; 27J; 27Q; 27K; 28A...
2 to a Royal Flush TJ
3 to a Flush 23K; 24K; 25K; 26K; 34K; 35K; 36K; 45K; 46K; 56K
3 to a Straight TJQ
2 to a Straight JQ (note QJT is better)
3 to a Straight Flush 458; 468; 478; 569; 579; 589; 67T; 68T; 69T
2 to a Royal Flush TQ
3 to a Straight Flush 236; 246; 256; 347; 357; 367
2 to a Straight JK; QK
2 to a Royal Flush TK
Single Card a Jack; a Queen; a King
3 to a Flush
(more)237; 238; 239; 23T; 247; 248; 249; 24T; 257; 258; 259; 25T; 267; 268...
4 to a Straight
(more)2346; 2356; 2456; 3457; 3467; 3567; 4568; 4578; 4678; 5679; 5689; 5789...
2 to a Straight Flush 34
Garbage Discard everything
Quote: supermaxhdThanks, is this considered one of the more difficult games to remember? Is there a simple strategy anywhere?
It's certainly more difficult than Jacks or Better.
The strategy linked to is complete. You can manually consolidate it into a simpler strategy using whatever notation you're comfortable with. If you follow only the basic strategy (and ignore the exceptions) then you're playing a game that returns 99.5761% (with the full-pay 9/7 paytable). Throw in the exceptions and you'll gain another 0.0017%. You're on your own for identifying the conditions which make each exception apply.
Quote: supermaxhdThanks, is this considered one of the more difficult games to remember? Is there a simple strategy anywhere?
Versus most games yes, this one is more difficult. And nope, no simple strategy made. For most players, it's just better to play 9/6 JoB. Any game where the flush payout is 7 for 1 or higher is more difficult. Is there is a 9/7 TDB in your area even?
I wouldn't touch anything lower than 9/7 either.
Quote: tringlomaneVersus most games yes, this one is more difficult. And nope, no simple strategy made. For most players, it's just better to play 9/6 JoB. Any game where the flush payout is 7 for 1 or higher is more difficult. Is there is a 9/7 TDB in your area even?
I wouldn't touch anything lower than 9/7 either.
9/7 TDB has some benefits over 9/6 JoB. Sometimes variance is your friend.
There are also some casinos that have 9/7 TDB but not 9/6 Jacks (or any other 99.5+% game)
Quote: supermaxhd9/6 TDB (about 98.2% I think) at HorseShoe Cincinnati at $5 per credit. I got the JoB strategy down and sometimes I do want the high variance this game has. HorseShoe Cincinnati and Southern Indiana downgraded everything thing early this year. Not sure anything 99%+ exists in Ohio or Indiana.
If you really want to play at Horseshoe Cincinnati and want variance, I would play 9/6 DDB way before 9/6 TDB. Game is 0.8% better and the strategy is easier.
Quote: tringlomaneIf you really want to play at Horseshoe Cincinnati and want variance, I would play 9/6 DDB way before 9/6 TDB. Game is 0.8% better and the strategy is easier.
I will definitely do that next trip. thanks
Quote: supermaxhd9/6 TDB (about 98.2% I think) at HorseShoe Cincinnati at $5 per credit. I got the JoB strategy down and sometimes I do want the high variance this game has. HorseShoe Cincinnati and Southern Indiana downgraded everything thing early this year. Not sure anything 99%+ exists in Ohio or Indiana.
9/6 TDB is going to have a different strategy than 9/7 TDB. The 7 flush really changes things.
Quote: supermaxhd9/6 TDB (about 98.2% I think) at HorseShoe Cincinnati at $5 per credit. I got the JoB strategy down and sometimes I do want the high variance this game has. HorseShoe Cincinnati and Southern Indiana downgraded everything thing early this year. Not sure anything 99%+ exists in Ohio or Indiana.
Wow, I don't play a lot of VP in casinos, and from what I can tell the payables tend to suck, but wow! A 1.8% edge on a $5 credit machine? Is that standard? I mean if I play Nickel credits (even penny multihand) I generally have like a .6% edge against me.
Quote: Boney526Wow, I don't play a lot of VP in casinos, and from what I can tell the payables tend to suck, but wow! A 1.8% edge on a $5 credit machine? Is that standard? I mean if I play Nickel credits (even penny multihand) I generally have like a .6% edge against me.
In the last part, I meant on Bovada, which is obv. better odds than a Brick and Mortar casino, but even in general I find it surprising that such a high denomination wouldn't have a lower HE.
https://blog.vidpoke.com/2021/10/best-basic-strategy-for-9-7-triple-double-bonus.html
[Link reinstated by Mod]
Quote: WizardMy video poker strategy maker will give you a strategy for almost any form of video poker, including triple double bonus.
link to original post
Can you please add strategy maker for Triple Triple bonus?
Quote: HopHooferQuote: WizardMy video poker strategy maker will give you a strategy for almost any form of video poker, including triple double bonus.
link to original post
Can you please add strategy maker for Triple Triple bonus?
link to original post
I can make a strategy for you if you tell me which paytable you need. There are four listed on vpFREE2:
https://www.vpfree2.com/video-poker/pay-table/triple-triple-bonus
And six listed on Wizard's website:
https://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/tables/triple-triple-bonus/
https://blog.vidpoke.com/2021/10/basic-strategy-9-6-triple-triple-bonus.html
Quote: FiliusBruceI went ahead and created two strategies for the 9/6 paytable. You can find them here:
https://blog.vidpoke.com/2021/10/basic-strategy-9-6-triple-triple-bonus.html
link to original post
Thanks, Filius, for your blog entries on VidPoke. Interesting stuff. (By the way, I attempted to leave a comment on your Triple Triple Bonus page as a Google user, but it failed. May have been my error!)
I may have a solution to your dilemma, “A thirty-long set of options would require a hundred quadrillion years to find absolutely the best strategy.” …Or at least the beginning of a solution.
As I understand it, the 30 items are the 3 Pairs KK,QQ,JJ; the 3 RF3’s AKQ,AKJ,AQJ; and the 24 FL4’s created by adding 2 thru 9 to each of the 3 RF3’s. From your description, I have inferred that you truncated this to a 7-item set, as follows: the 3 Pairs, the 3 RF3’s, and 1 FL4. Your result could very well be correct, but as you stated, we can’t really be sure. Using the idea that only conflicting holds need be compared, we could arrange the 30 items into 3 sets (see below).
Set 1 (12 items):
AKQ9 .. AKQ2; AKQ; the 3 pairs
Set 2 (12 items):
AKJ9 .. AKJ2; AKJ; the 3 pairs
Set 3 (12 items):
AQJ9 .. AQJ2; AQJ; the 3 pairs
Furthermore, within each set you could create a list of smaller groups of Strongly Connected Components (SCC’s) in one of a couple a ways. (1) Each of 8 groups within each set could contain 1 FL4, 1 RF3, and the 3 Pairs, making 5 SCC’s per group; or (2) each of 24 groups within each set could contain 1 FL4, 1 RF3, and 1 Pair, making 3 SCC’s per group. If there isn’t much difference in time comparing 3 or 5 SCC’s, then the time savings could come from using fewer groups, as in (1).
The reason I wrote that this may just be the beginning of a solution is that until we see results from each of the groups and sets, we won’t know how complicated it will be to put them all back together as part of a strategy that makes sense. I am hoping that the results would back up what you already found, but we can’t assume this will be the case.
"ignoring penalty cards and averaging the different hands,
- AKJ2 is better to hold than AKJ,
- AKJ is better to hold than JJ, and
- JJ is better to hold than AKJ2."
where bold font indicates the cards are suited.
Fascinating, could you post some numbers on that?
If you had a hand AKJ2J such as As-Ks-Js-Jd-2s there must be a single optimal decision as to how to draw to it, correct? Is the "loopy option" caused by ignoring the penalty cards? In other words:
- 2s and Jd are penalty cards when drawing to AsKsJs
- Jd is a penalty card when drawing to AsKsJs2
So, isn't the 'loop in the list of optimal categories' caused by the simplification involved in defining the categories of hands? Might the hand categories be defined differently to eliminate this?
Quote: gordonm888This statement from your blog cites an example of a "loopy option":
"ignoring penalty cards and averaging the different hands,
- AKJ2 is better to hold than AKJ,
- AKJ is better to hold than JJ, and
- JJ is better to hold than AKJ2."
where bold font indicates the cards are suited.
Fascinating, could you post some numbers on that?
If you had a hand AKJ2J such as As-Ks-Js-Jd-2s there must be a single optimal decision as to how to draw to it, correct? Is the "loopy option" caused by ignoring the penalty cards? In other words:
- 2s and Jd are penalty cards when drawing to AsKsJs
- Jd is a penalty card when drawing to AsKsJs2
So, isn't the 'loop in the list of optimal categories' caused by the simplification involved in defining the categories of hands? Might the hand categories be defined differently to eliminate this?
link to original post
I realize that you are asking Filius, but perhaps I can clarify the “loops”. This has been discussed before when JB was still around, so I have either had time to stew on it and/or someone described it similarly.,,
First, we can’t just look at hands that contain all 3 holds, as that is not the whole picture. What is going on here is that when comparing ALL of the hands that contain Hold 1 and Hold 2, sometimes Hold 1 has the highest EV, and sometimes Hold 2 has the highest EV, but Hold 1 beats Hold 2 in more than half of the hands. Similarly, looking at all hands containing Hold 2 and Hold 3, sometimes Hold 2 prevails, and sometimes Hold 3 prevails, but Hold 2 prevails more often. If we stopped looking there, we’d order them as Hold 1 > Hold 2 > Hold 3. However, some have noticed that when comparing Hold 1 with Hold 3, that Hold 3 happens to prevail more often than Hold 1, thus creating an endless loop…
Hold 1 > Hold 2 > Hold 3 > Hold 1 > Hold 2 > Hold 3 > Hold 1 > Hold 2 > Hold 3…
I have described this generically (using Hold 1, Hold 2, Hold 3) in hopes of eliminating extra confusion due to the fact that in this particular case each of the RF3’s is completely contained within a subset of the FL4’s. In other words, there aren’t any hands with suited AKJ2 that don’t contain suited AKJ. Hopefully, thinking of each one as a distinct hold makes the explanation less muddy!
Also, in my example above, please assume that these dual comparisons don’t include other holds that dominate the three in question, such as suited AKQJ - J or suited AKJ - J - J.
Quote: camaplQuote: gordonm888This statement from your blog cites an example of a "loopy option":
"ignoring penalty cards and averaging the different hands,
- AKJ2 is better to hold than AKJ,
- AKJ is better to hold than JJ, and
- JJ is better to hold than AKJ2."
where bold font indicates the cards are suited.
Fascinating, could you post some numbers on that?
If you had a hand AKJ2J such as As-Ks-Js-Jd-2s there must be a single optimal decision as to how to draw to it, correct? Is the "loopy option" caused by ignoring the penalty cards? In other words:
- 2s and Jd are penalty cards when drawing to AsKsJs
- Jd is a penalty card when drawing to AsKsJs2
So, isn't the 'loop in the list of optimal categories' caused by the simplification involved in defining the categories of hands? Might the hand categories be defined differently to eliminate this?
link to original post
I realize that you are asking Filius, but perhaps I can clarify the “loops”. This has been discussed before when JB was still around, so I have either had time to stew on it and/or someone described it similarly.,,
First, we can’t just look at hands that contain all 3 holds, as that is not the whole picture. What is going on here is that when comparing ALL of the hands that contain Hold 1 and Hold 2, sometimes Hold 1 has the highest EV, and sometimes Hold 2 has the highest EV, but Hold 1 beats Hold 2 in more than half of the hands. Similarly, looking at all hands containing Hold 2 and Hold 3, sometimes Hold 2 prevails, and sometimes Hold 3 prevails, but Hold 2 prevails more often. If we stopped looking there, we’d order them as Hold 1 > Hold 2 > Hold 3. However, some have noticed that when comparing Hold 1 with Hold 3, that Hold 3 happens to prevail more often than Hold 1, thus creating an endless loop…
Hold 1 > Hold 2 > Hold 3 > Hold 1 > Hold 2 > Hold 3 > Hold 1 > Hold 2 > Hold 3…
I have described this generically (using Hold 1, Hold 2, Hold 3) in hopes of eliminating extra confusion due to the fact that in this particular case each of the RF3’s is completely contained within a subset of the FL4’s. In other words, there aren’t any hands with suited AKJ2 that don’t contain suited AKJ. Hopefully, thinking of each one as a distinct hold makes the explanation less muddy!
Also, in my example above, please assume that these dual comparisons don’t include other holds that dominate the three in question, such as suited AKQJ - J or suited AKJ - J - J.
link to original post
Thanks for your helpful response, I didn't realize this topic had been discussed before in the murky past.
But I think I did understand this. The equity (or EV) of the cards you are drawing to depends somewhat on the cards you have discarded, and so lumping suited(AKJ)-J-J with suited(AKJ)-7-5 and calling it the "Hold suited AKJ option" creates problems. Its a consequence of how you defined the hand categories - such as "suited AKJ" - while blithely deciding not to designate whether the discards include cards of the same rank as the high cards that you are drawing to.
But here's an important point. An optimal strategy list of what cards to hold need not be strictly ordered by the average EVs of all the hands that are lumped into the category.
When asking whether Hold JJ should be ranked higher than Hold AKJ2 the only relevant question is: Which hold is the better option when you have a hand that offers you both possible draws? And, literally, the only hands that offer you both draws are AKJ-J-X. And for those hands I am pretty sure that JJ > AKJ because the off-suit J significantly degrades the EV of drawing to AKJ but the presence of the suited AK does not much affect the EV of drawing to JJ (in fact it slightly increases its EV.).
So, JJ should be ranked higher than a suited AKJ on the strategy sheet.
Using similar logic, the JJ should also be ranked ahead of AKJ2 and AKJ2 should be ranked ahead of AKJ irrespective of the relative EVs of the average hands.
So, for the optimal strategy list these three categories should be relatively ranked:
Hold AKJ2
Hold AKJ
The only potential problem is whether ordering these hands in this way creates any problems with how these hand categories must be ranked relative to other hand categories. I think this is what camapi was referring to in his blog. And if that problem is occurring and has no solution, then one should probably consider changing some of the hand category definitions to indicate key "penalty cards" where necessary.
Quote: FiliusBruceI went ahead and created two strategies for the 9/6 paytable. You can find them here:
https://blog.vidpoke.com/2021/10/basic-strategy-9-6-triple-triple-bonus.html
link to original post
Hi all! Sorry to bring up a slightly older thread, but I wanted to clear up some confusion that I created in case others go back and read through this “old thread”!
While this thread was originally about Triple DOUBLE Bonus, my posts in this thread are regarding Triple TRIPLE Bonus. While looking for a thread to post my thoughts about Triple TRIPLE, I unfortunately came across FB’s response (quoted above) and posted here before finding the separate thread that FB had started for Triple TRIPLE… Also, I wasn’t clear in my posts that I was discussing Triple TRIPLE! Once I read through Gordon’s posts more thoroughly, I realized that he was discussing Triple DOUBLE, which matches the thread title, and that what he posted is in fact correct for that game.
Thanks for “listening”. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program…
