HopHoofer
HopHoofer
Joined: Oct 13, 2021
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 18
October 28th, 2021 at 10:06:58 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

My 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?
FiliusBruce
FiliusBruce
Joined: Dec 29, 2019
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 46
Thanks for this post from:
HopHoofer
October 28th, 2021 at 10:25:44 AM permalink
Quote: HopHoofer

Quote: Wizard

My 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/
FiliusBruce
FiliusBruce
Joined: Dec 29, 2019
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 46
Thanks for this post from:
DieterHopHoofer
October 29th, 2021 at 1:46:49 AM permalink
I 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
camapl
camapl 
Joined: Jun 22, 2010
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 302
April 14th, 2022 at 9:15:15 PM permalink
Quote: FiliusBruce

I 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.
* Actual results may vary.
gordonm888
Administrator
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 55
  • Posts: 3700
April 15th, 2022 at 9:33:08 AM permalink
This 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?
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
camapl
camapl 
Joined: Jun 22, 2010
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 302
April 15th, 2022 at 10:31:13 AM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

This 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.
* Actual results may vary.
gordonm888
Administrator
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 55
  • Posts: 3700
April 15th, 2022 at 1:08:06 PM permalink
Quote: camapl

Quote: gordonm888

This 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 JJ
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.
Last edited by: gordonm888 on Apr 15, 2022
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
camapl
camapl 
Joined: Jun 22, 2010
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 302
Thanks for this post from:
Dieter
June 3rd, 2022 at 11:20:34 AM permalink
Quote: FiliusBruce

I 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…
* Actual results may vary.

  • Jump to: