Thread Rating:

gordonm888
Administrator
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 59
  • Posts: 4655
April 1st, 2020 at 1:55:14 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Also... just had a hand of straight flush, flush, flush, straight. Won $22 on a $9 bet. I don't think there is enough variance at all.



I agree. I played 200 hands with an RTP of 88% (yuch). That was using optimum play. I found it frustrating. I would make a great Trade and then hit a lucky Place and finish with Straight+Straight+ Flush and then realize that I had lost money! You never have a winning hand unless you get trips or a straight flush and even then you rarely win $9 from a $9 wager.

Here are some ideas, recognizing that most ideas are bad ideas:

1. Consider eliminating high pairs as a payout, or payout 1 only for an AA pair. This game is not about making pairs.

2. Considering adding to the payout table something like "Two 3 of Kind" or "Two Straight Flushes" with large payouts. Or "Two Royals" which I have never seen.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 61
  • Posts: 607
April 1st, 2020 at 3:58:45 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Make the bet $10, not a silly $9.

Raise the mini royal enough to keep the RTP whatever you deem appropriate. Maybe $400? It will of course increase the variance substantially, but give a big prize to hope for.

How about $150 for mini royal clubs, diamonds, hearts, and $1000 for spades?



We will change the bet to $10 to play the game in our next update and see what impact raising the mini royal to 400 would do for the game.

I will check with Alex to see if we could do a mini royal payout where on suit will pay more than the others. This would keep the players playing for the big hand.
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 61
  • Posts: 607
April 1st, 2020 at 4:06:37 PM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

I agree. I played 200 hands with an RTP of 88% (yuch). That was using optimum play. I found it frustrating. I would make a great Trade and then hit a lucky Place and finish with Straight+Straight+ Flush and then realize that I had lost money! You never have a winning hand unless you get trips or a straight flush and even then you rarely win $9 from a $9 wager.

Here are some ideas, recognizing that most ideas are bad ideas:

1. Consider eliminating high pairs as a payout, or payout 1 only for an AA pair. This game is not about making pairs.

2. Considering adding to the payout table something like "Two 3 of Kind" or "Two Straight Flushes" with large payouts. Or "Two Royals" which I have never seen.



1. I like the idea of removing high pairs and that should help a bit.

2. Also, like the idea of adding more options to the pay table. I wonder if it would be acceptable to remove straights and pairs from paying out. I think chopping those two things may allow us to really work on the upper end of the pay table.

My last resort is to go back to playing 3x3 but only paying the horizontal lines, so instead of six lines, the game would consist of three. We could still use the same concept of a trade card and place or just one place card (maybe 2). I don't think we are at that point yet, but something we can fall back on.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 120
  • Posts: 10198
Thanks for this post from:
VladAlex1
April 1st, 2020 at 4:48:35 PM permalink
Gordon got it right!

3 mini royals 400,000
2 mini royals 40,000
1 mini royal 400
charliepatrick
charliepatrick
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
  • Threads: 39
  • Posts: 2900
Thanks for this post from:
VladAlex1
April 1st, 2020 at 6:55:52 PM permalink
Personally I accept that somtimes (say for a $10 bet) you might win less than that, but you need to keep a large payout to draw people in. Remember people playing 3CP always prefer the Pair+ bet which can pay 35/1 (40/1 or 50/1 in US).

Another idea is to reduce the chances of getting a trade. I like the idea of trundling along but every now and getting a nice juicy trade and winning a bundle.

btw I got 92% RTP with 81% having trades.
gordonm888
Administrator
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 59
  • Posts: 4655
Thanks for this post from:
RealizeGamingVladAlex1
April 2nd, 2020 at 9:50:21 AM permalink
Another possible idea:

Reduce the "lines" from 6 to 5 by eliminating the 3 vertical columns as possible three card hands and replacing them with the two diagonals. That could maintain the rich complexity of your game while reducing the player possibilities, thus giving you more headspace on designing the paytable.

However, a nuance that would need more thought is that currently you have all 9 cards that are a component of two possible hands, whereas with three horizontal lines and two diagonal lines you would have:

- 4 cards that are only part of one possible hand
- 4 cards that are part of two hands
- 1 card (the center card) that is part of three hands

So, from a "fun factor" point of view that might play a bit differently -you'd have to try it and see.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 61
  • Posts: 607
April 2nd, 2020 at 9:53:50 AM permalink
Quote: charliepatrick

Personally I accept that somtimes (say for a $10 bet) you might win less than that, but you need to keep a large payout to draw people in. Remember people playing 3CP always prefer the Pair+ bet which can pay 35/1 (40/1 or 50/1 in US).

Another idea is to reduce the chances of getting a trade. I like the idea of trundling along but every now and getting a nice juicy trade and winning a bundle.

btw I got 92% RTP with 81% having trades.



Thanks @charliepatrick for you thoughts. I think we will be looking at the 10 dollar bet, having a pair of aces as the only pair that wins, and adjusting the higher ranking hands. We can always adjust the trade card but I think it works well at about 60% of the time.

I'm also very curious about the mini royal paying out according to suits mentioned a few post ago. We will see what we can put together.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 120
  • Posts: 10198
Thanks for this post from:
RealizeGamingVladAlex1
April 2nd, 2020 at 11:30:40 AM permalink
Just played 100 rounds. RTP 99.11%. I did hit a mini royal twice. One was on the deal with two cards to a mini royal lined up on another line before the draw card. I was fantasizing about my proposed two mini payout. Alas, didn't hit.
Joeman
Joeman
Joined: Feb 21, 2014
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 2333
April 2nd, 2020 at 12:40:08 PM permalink
I think this is a fun game. Could I offer two suggestions?

First, is it possible to trade on every hand instead of just when the trade card is dealt? It seems like the rate at which the trade card is dealt is pretty high anyway, but I find it frustrating that every now and then, I don't have the trade option, especially if there is a premium hand possible.

Second, can you make both the trade and place optional? I have had hands that wherever I put the place card, it reduces the payout. I can imagine the same happening with the trade, although I have not seen that occasion, yet.

I realize there must be a trade off such as lower pay tables to accommodate these concessions, but these are the types of things tend to leave a sour taste, and may prompt players to walk away.

EDIT -- I see that you can opt out of the trade.
"Dealer has 'rock'... Pay 'paper!'"
ksdjdj
ksdjdj
Joined: Oct 20, 2013
  • Threads: 94
  • Posts: 1707
Thanks for this post from:
VladAlex1RealizeGaming
April 3rd, 2020 at 12:21:07 AM permalink
Quote: RealizeGaming

(snip)


(snip)


If it is easy enough to do, can you make a 2nd box that shows/counts how many times you get paying hands and what they were (see below).

Round: 100 (not needed, since it is already in the "RTP box" that you already have created)
Short Royal: 2
Straight Flush: 15
3 of a Kind: 21
Straight: ?
Flush: ?
High Pair: ?

Note: For that play through I didn't keep track of the straights or lower, so that is why i put a "?" as the number.

Also Note: I used the data from here >>> https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/video-poker/34437-3-card-trade-n-place-poker/3/#post761411 <<< to get these figures
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 61
  • Posts: 607
April 5th, 2020 at 6:05:26 AM permalink
Quote: Joeman

I think this is a fun game. Could I offer two suggestions?

First, is it possible to trade on every hand instead of just when the trade card is dealt? It seems like the rate at which the trade card is dealt is pretty high anyway, but I find it frustrating that every now and then, I don't have the trade option, especially if there is a premium hand possible.

Second, can you make both the trade and place optional? I have had hands that wherever I put the place card, it reduces the payout. I can imagine the same happening with the trade, although I have not seen that occasion, yet.

I realize there must be a trade off such as lower pay tables to accommodate these concessions, but these are the types of things tend to leave a sour taste, and may prompt players to walk away.

EDIT -- I see that you can opt out of the trade.



Joeman, thanks for your suggestions. I think in order to get the pay table to an acceptable rate, we almost need to lower the frequency of it a bit. I do agree, the more we have it, the better the game is. Still a work in progress for us!
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 61
  • Posts: 607
April 5th, 2020 at 6:13:51 AM permalink
We've updated the game a bit by adding a few top prizes. You can also track the stats of every hand that you play by using the view more stats button. This will give you a breakdown of the hands for the rounds that you play. In our sims of the game so far, we haven't hit the two top prizes, so we are not sure how it will impact the RTP. Currently, we are just under 100% for the RTP. Any further thoughts or suggestions?





Real game stats picture:


Even more options:
I love the option of simulating with no interface to get a good number of hands in a short amount of time.
Last edited by: RealizeGaming on Apr 5, 2020
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 61
  • Posts: 607
April 5th, 2020 at 2:23:39 PM permalink
I was able to run the simulator for several hours today and here are my results.



A few things:
1. The odds of getting 2x or 3x straight flushes are very slim. On one other separate sim, it resulted in a 2x one time out of 75k rounds.
2. I'm thinking about removing the high pair altogether.
3. Would switching the straight and the flush values help out to allow upping the values of some other top hands.
4. Currently, we are getting the trade card approximately 85% of the time. We may want to scale that back.

Just some early thoughts.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 120
  • Posts: 10198
Thanks for this post from:
RealizeGaming
April 5th, 2020 at 2:54:21 PM permalink
Quote: RealizeGaming

I was able to run the simulator for several hours today and here are my results.



A few things:
1. The odds of getting 2x or 3x straight flushes are very slim. On one other separate sim, it resulted in a 2x one time out of 75k rounds.
2. I'm thinking about removing the high pair altogether.
3. Would switching the straight and the flush values help out to allow upping the values of some other top hands.
4. Currently, we are getting the trade card approximately 85% of the time. We may want to scale that back.

Just some early thoughts.



Played 50 more rounds. Was near 120%, but must have had variance on my side. Had one short royal. Had a bunch of straight flushes, once 2 on the same deal.

If I was just lucky (likely), and your RTP is below 100%, I believe you should up the "3 short royal pay" substantially. Its gotta be less than 1 in 10,000,000, correct? Bump it to 100,000. (Or do the math and figure out if I'm correct on the 1 in 10,000,000 guess.!)
ksdjdj
ksdjdj
Joined: Oct 20, 2013
  • Threads: 94
  • Posts: 1707
Thanks for this post from:
RealizeGaming
April 5th, 2020 at 10:55:08 PM permalink
Quote: RealizeGaming

I was able to run the simulator for several hours today and here are my results.



A few things:
1. The odds of getting 2x or 3x straight flushes are very slim. On one other separate sim, it resulted in a 2x one time out of 75k rounds.
2. I'm thinking about removing the high pair altogether.
3. Would switching the straight and the flush values help out to allow upping the values of some other top hands.
4. Currently, we are getting the trade card approximately 85% of the time. We may want to scale that back.

Just some early thoughts.


Here is my result for the day (see picture below):


Also:
1. Because the 2x and 3x Short Royal is very rare, maybe you could do something like "instead of adding the pays together, you multiply them if you have at least one short royal in the hand" (see example)
eg: 1x Royal Flush and 1x Straight Flush = 1,000 (since a short royal pays 50 and a st flush pays 20)
2. I agree, especially for these types of games, as I think the casual player would want a chance to hit a "medium to big win", rather than lots of "little wins" (just a guess though)
3. if you switch the flush and the straight payout/"reward" then it may mean that the flush comes up more than the straight?
4. I don't have any idea of what the trade card % should be.

Lastly, I don't know how to do this, but it would be great if someone could work out the chance of getting each of the paying combinations (when a player is playing optimally).
I think this will be very helpful for when you want to sell the game***

***: If I was a casino operator, I would be ok with simulated results, but I would prefer to see a math report that proves/shows what the combinations / chances of each hand is.


Hope this was helpful, spelling etc not checked.
ksdjdj
ksdjdj
Joined: Oct 20, 2013
  • Threads: 94
  • Posts: 1707
Thanks for this post from:
RealizeGaming
April 6th, 2020 at 10:32:21 PM permalink
if you can't see*** the image/picture in my previous post, here is the link to it (see below)
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkZe36xEmT6RgTb4HdWE7Z8zMhuG
*** note: I can only see the picture when I am logged in, when I am viewing the page as a "guest" it doesn't show the image (I don't know why).


I can now see the image, as a guest.

Update (about 445 am)

Here is a link for the next test/sim that I did:

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkZe36xEmT6RgTfBE4520f0K4HAx?e=xCNpBN
Last edited by: ksdjdj on Apr 7, 2020
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 61
  • Posts: 607
April 7th, 2020 at 5:11:48 AM permalink
Thanks for sharing your results. They line up with all the other ones we've done so far. We did have a tester get a x2 short royal in their sim and it didn't really throw off the RTP like we thought it would.

A few things we are considering:
1. Keep the current build which is 99% RTP and show proof of concept and then develop another version using only the 3 horizontal pay lines similar to our 5x3 game.

2. Adjust the current version by adding in a 6 card bonus. (Not sure who has the rights to this bonus, so it may not be a possibility).

3. Adjust the current version by adding a 5 card bonus. I'm able to use it as part of this game.

4. Keep the current version but play the 6 lines vs a single 3 card dealer hand. Any hands that beat the dealer award the wins to the player. If the dealer hand beats any of the player hands, the player loses those "wins".

I kind of like all the above option, but each will have their own pros and cons. Any thoughts?
ksdjdj
ksdjdj
Joined: Oct 20, 2013
  • Threads: 94
  • Posts: 1707
Thanks for this post from:
RealizeGaming
April 7th, 2020 at 6:42:11 PM permalink
Quote: RealizeGaming

Thanks for sharing your results. They line up with all the other ones we've done so far. We did have a tester get a x2 short royal in their sim and it didn't really throw off the RTP like we thought it would.

A few things we are considering:
1. Keep the current build which is 99% RTP and show proof of concept and then develop another version using only the 3 horizontal pay lines similar to our 5x3 game.

2. Adjust the current version by adding in a 6 card bonus. (Not sure who has the rights to this bonus, so it may not be a possibility).

3. Adjust the current version by adding a 5 card bonus. I'm able to use it as part of this game.

4. Keep the current version but play the 6 lines vs a single 3 card dealer hand. Any hands that beat the dealer award the wins to the player. If the dealer hand beats any of the player hands, the player loses those "wins".

I kind of like all the above option, but each will have their own pros and cons. Any thoughts?


All of these are good ideas, even no 4.

Note: The main reason I singled out number 4 is because, I think you originally wanted this game to be closer to a "video poker style game" and this will probably make it closer to a "table game".

Note 2: One good thing about number 4. is that you could possibly double the reward amount for each paying hand (that should make it more exciting?)

Also, for another version of the game you get drop the "3x short royal and/or 2x short royal" from the pay table and instead pay a "multiplier bonus" if "all 9 cards are same colour" (see example)

EG: if you got a flush, a St flush, and all the cards were black (or all red) then you could reward 220 (if you use a 10x multiplier) or 2200 (if you use 100x multiplier) instead of the standard return of 22 for that hand.

Note: I don't know the chances of getting all red or all black cards (so this is just an idea).

Lastly,, I may have mentioned something like this before, but on "Auto Best Play mode", it reminds me more of a slot than a VP game, so maybe you can have two pay-tables:

1. For "Auto-play mode", you could use the current pay table.
2. For "manual mode", you could pay 55 or 60 for the short royal and leave everything else the same.
Last edited by: ksdjdj on Apr 7, 2020
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 120
  • Posts: 10198
Thanks for this post from:
RealizeGaming
April 8th, 2020 at 6:32:35 AM permalink
A single short royal, especially using a trade or even just the replace function is rare, but not that rare. Getting two is extremely rare, and I'll bet getting 3 is lottery like rare.
I think for the game to have even a slight chance of commercial success you will need to have some big jackpot associated with that. Of course you could have it associated with something like "9 of same suit" or "3 three of a kinds" or just something rare enough to allow a huge payout without taking up too much EV.

People are not going to want to play putting $10 in and having $15 as a high payout. If in JOB the pair paid 1.1 instead of 1, and a Royal only paid 10-1 instead of what it does, no one would want to play even if EV was the same.
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 61
  • Posts: 607
April 28th, 2020 at 6:38:11 PM permalink
Here is our latest experiment with the horizontal and vertical pay lines. Itís kind of an all or nothing version of the game. The RTP is around 98%.

http://realizegamingllc.com/dev/tradeNPlace3x3/
gordonm888
Administrator
gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 59
  • Posts: 4655
Thanks for this post from:
RealizeGaming
April 29th, 2020 at 8:59:52 AM permalink
The new game is pretty good. But by flattening the payouts for straight, flush and high pairs the game has lost some of its fun. No worrying about upgrading a pair to flush, or a flush to a straight. And, at 1 unit, it doesn't seem to matter anyway. The 9 card board is usually 'lousy' with pairs, flushes and straights and so I didn't pay any attention - I mainly searched for possible 3oak's, SF's and Royals.

I don't mean to be critical - this may be your best (most viable) version of a payout table. And the game will play quicker with the reduced complexity.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 120
  • Posts: 10198
Thanks for this post from:
RealizeGaming
April 29th, 2020 at 11:33:41 AM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

But by flattening the payouts for straight, flush and high pairs the game has lost some of its fun. No worrying about upgrading a pair to flush, or a flush to a straight.



Lost most of its fun. Just look for SF, 3 oa K. Rest is mindless. I was up a lot because I hit a mini Royal and quite a few SF's. But having 3 flushes and one straight but losing $6 out of $10 doesn't feel appetizing.

Would not play as presently constructed.
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 61
  • Posts: 607
April 29th, 2020 at 3:45:26 PM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

The new game is pretty good. But by flattening the payouts for straight, flush and high pairs the game has lost some of its fun. No worrying about upgrading a pair to flush, or a flush to a straight. And, at 1 unit, it doesn't seem to matter anyway. The 9 card board is usually 'lousy' with pairs, flushes and straights and so I didn't pay any attention - I mainly searched for possible 3oak's, SF's and Royals.

I don't mean to be critical - this may be your best (most viable) version of a payout table. And the game will play quicker with the reduced complexity.



You are not being critical at all, just honest and we appreciate that. We also agree that this might be the best we get for now. Our plan is to get another three card version using just the horizontal lines, possibly a four card version using only horizontal hands, and solidify the math for our 5x3 version. I think these versions will offer great game play with really good pay scales. Look for our updates, gordonm888 as we always value your thoughts.
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 61
  • Posts: 607
April 29th, 2020 at 3:47:09 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Lost most of its fun. Just look for SF, 3 oa K. Rest is mindless. I was up a lot because I hit a mini Royal and quite a few SF's. But having 3 flushes and one straight but losing $6 out of $10 doesn't feel appetizing.

Would not play as presently constructed.



We donít disagree with you, but it may be the best we can do for now. Keep an eye out for our others versions which we think you will like much better.
Gialmere
Gialmere
Joined: Nov 26, 2018
  • Threads: 44
  • Posts: 2754
Thanks for this post from:
RealizeGaming
April 30th, 2020 at 8:50:43 PM permalink
I'm still thinking the math isn't there for this one as a stand alone. Maybe you should punt and make it a bonus round for one of your other games.

For example, in a JoB game (with a watered down pay table): A pair of 3s activates one 3x3 bonus play. Two pair (containing a pair of 3s) gets two bonus plays. Three 3s gets three plays. A full house (containing 3s) gets four plays. And quad 3s nets five bonus games. You might have players holding onto a lone 3 in the hopes of pairing it to get into the juicy bonus round. (I'm assuming an earlier 3x3 pay table.)
Have you tried 22 tonight? I said 22.
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 61
  • Posts: 607
Thanks for this post from:
ksdjdj
May 1st, 2020 at 4:10:39 AM permalink
Quote: Gialmere

I'm still thinking the math isn't there for this one as a stand alone. Maybe you should punt and make it a bonus round for one of your other games.

For example, in a JoB game (with a watered down pay table): A pair of 3s activates one 3x3 bonus play. Two pair (containing a pair of 3s) gets two bonus plays. Three 3s gets three plays. A full house (containing 3s) gets four plays. And quad 3s nets five bonus games. You might have players holding onto a lone 3 in the hopes of pairing it to get into the juicy bonus round. (I'm assuming an earlier 3x3 pay table.)



Love the idea! I also agree with you that something about the math is just missing in this version. I think using the trade card in this version also causes a ton of math issues, but I also realize the card helps with the "fun factor" for the game. I'm curious to see what everyone thinks about the 3x3 version that will play with just the horizontal lines. I feel the game play will be easier and more straightforward for the player and I'm also thinking the math will be easier to find a very and balanced pay scale.

I'll be back with another version when we start digging into it shortly.

  • Jump to: