Fantastic Fives video poker
I see from the Wizard of Odds site that the odds of getting any four of a kind is 1 in 3,430.
The probability of a specific four of a kind appears to be 0.0002 — is that the same as 2 in 10,000?
If so, is that the same as 1 in 5,000?
If so, how is it that the odds of any four of a kind is 1 in 3,430, but a specific four of a kind is 1 in 5,000?
Finally, the Ask the Wizard page says the expected number of four of a kinds to get at least one of all 13 four of a kinds is about 41.3 — so does that mean I can expect an average of (41.3)(3,430) = 141,659 hands until I'm statistically expected to get my stupid quad 5s?
Quote: smoothgrhIf so, is that the same as 1 in 5,000?
If so, how is it that the odds of any four of a kind is 1 in 3,430, but a specific four of a kind is 1 in 5,000?
Finally, the Ask the Wizard page says the expected number of four of a kinds to get at least one of all 13 four of a kinds is about 41.3 — so does that mean I can expect an average of (41.3)(3,430) = 141,659 hands until I'm statistically expected to get my stupid quad 5s?
For 8/5 Jacks, quads of any rank come at a rate of about 1 in 423. So if you're looking for a specific rank, I think you could multiply by 13 to get a very rough estimate of 1 in 5,500.
The big 141,659 number is for accumulating all 13 ranks, which is a lot more difficult.
I've never seen the Fantastic Fives game before, but it doesn't look like a good one. The extra payoffs only occur in very rare scenarios. You need quad 5s with specific kickers, and the kickers only play in positions 1 or 5.
It would be a fun enhancement to a 9/6 Jacks game, but 8/5 Jacks is only 97.3% base.
That can't be right. ??????Quote: HugoSlavia
The big 141,659 number is for accumulating all 13 ranks, which is a lot more difficult.
.
Quote: AxelWolfThat can't be right. ??????
Thanks, you're correct. I knew it was a big number, but didn't look at it carefully.
Wizard says 1 in 17,893 for a generic game with no strategy adjustments:
https://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/tables/power-quads/
Smoothgrh mentioned that you need 41 quads on average to catch all 13 ranks, then you would multiply 41 by the 423 cycle for quads.
Quote: tringlomaneSome quick and dirty math shows it adds about 0.7% when you don't make any strategy changes at all.
Thanks. I would have guessed lower than that.
Fives are listed at 0.000175832 = 1 in 5,687.
That's for a 9/6 Jacks game, but 8/5 Jacks would be similar.
I would call this a "failed" game, but in a way, that's what makes it interesting.
Quote: WizardMy video poker program that handles sequential hands is 1,334 lines of code and I haven't used it in a while. It would take some customizing for this game. I will put it on my "to do" list, but it's rather low down.
The need for Quad 5s kickers to be in 1st or last position will complicate the analysis a little bit - at least for the techniques that I use. Do any other VP games use position-dependent bonuses like this? (Is position dependence what is meant by "sequential hands"?)
Quote: gordonm888The need for Quad 5s kickers to be in 1st or last position will complicates the analysis a little bit - at least for the techniques that I use. Do any other VP games use position-dependent bonuses like this? (Is position dependence what is meant by "sequential hands"?)
A-C-E-S Bonus poker is position dependent.
Quote: smoothgrhYeah, that the kickers need to be in the 1 or 5 positions makes the game insane. It's quite a mountain to climb to get that award.
Looking back at my 516 documented quads in the last 5 years, I've got it at least once unintentionally in another game.
Quote: smoothgrhThanks everyone.
I would call this a "failed" game, but in a way, that's what makes it interesting.
Yeah Double Bonus Plus is a "failed game" too. I'm not too sure why positional dependent games haven't caught on that much. But of course the math is a lot more complex, so maybe IGT also avoided creating them. Why work a lot harder for a mildly exciting gimmick?
Quote: tringlomane. I'm not too sure why positional dependent games haven't caught on that much.
My gut feeling is that players don't really like them because it is disappointing to get the four of a kind but in the wrong position most of the time.
Quote: smoothgrhFantastic Fives video poker by IGT is boring in my opinion—but it seems to be a rare game, so there's some novelty in that. I'm trying to figure out how many hands I should expect to play to even get any quad 5s. I looked at the Wizard's "Royal Sevens" page, in which the probability is .000231 to get Four Sevens. The probability should be the same, right? So that's expected to be about 2 occurrences in 10,000 hands?
I'm curious as to where this game is located. I have no idea if I'd be interested in playing it, but I do find these types of games to be different and fun.
I'm also assuming you could do the same game, but change the fives to some other value?
