Straight flush payoff

In many games a straight flush pays 250 coins for 5 bet. I've read this is a short payoff to keep games such as bonus, jacks, DDB, TDB negative expectation.

What would be the true payoff on a SF if it wasn't intentionally shorted?

It depends on the game and the rest of the pay table, as whatever a straight flush paid would affect the strategy.

For an otherwise standard 5-credit 9/6 Jacks or Better machine, a SF payout of 451 has an ER of 99.9986%, and 452 has an ER of 100.001%.

Of course, keep in mind that the other payouts are probably also shorted, so this would affect what a SF would need to be. If a Royal paid 4880 instead of 3200, a SF payout of 250 would be an ER of pretty much exactly 100%. A flush pay of 34 (with a Royal of 3200 and an SF of 250) makes the ER 100.1808%.

If it was merely based on chance of hitting, it is lower than it should be in most games. About 400 would put it in line with the RF payout. There are a few games where it pays closer to 'right', Triple Bouns+ pays 500, and there are some old Double Bonus where it pays 500.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

It depends on the game and the rest of the pay table, as whatever a straight flush paid would affect the strategy.

For an otherwise standard 5-credit 9/6 Jacks or Better machine, a SF payout of 451 has an ER of 99.9986%, and 452 has an ER of 100.001%.

Of course, keep in mind that the other payouts are probably also shorted, so this would affect what a SF would need to be. If a Royal paid 4880 instead of 3200, a SF payout of 250 would be an ER of pretty much exactly 100%. A flush pay of 34 (with a Royal of 3200 and an SF of 250) makes the ER 100.1808%.
link to original post

For a non-wild game straight flush could pay like 15,900 and still have no edge to the player. Only paying 250 is a major ripoff.

Quote: TomG

Quote: ThatDonGuy

It depends on the game and the rest of the pay table, as whatever a straight flush paid would affect the strategy.

For an otherwise standard 5-credit 9/6 Jacks or Better machine, a SF payout of 451 has an ER of 99.9986%, and 452 has an ER of 100.001%.

Of course, keep in mind that the other payouts are probably also shorted, so this would affect what a SF would need to be. If a Royal paid 4880 instead of 3200, a SF payout of 250 would be an ER of pretty much exactly 100%. A flush pay of 34 (with a Royal of 3200 and an SF of 250) makes the ER 100.1808%.
link to original post

For a non-wild game straight flush could pay like 15,900 and still have no edge to the player. Only paying 250 is a major ripoff.
link to original post

But that 15,900 is a fair payout only if the game is paying on straight flush and nothing else.

Most video poker games are paying on any poker hand that is better than a pair of tens, which should have an average payout over all winning hands of slightly better than 2. Rather than giving one payout level for all winning hands, the game pays 1 for 'one pair, jacks or better' and a graduated payout table for better hands. So, a pay of 250 is not a ripoff, IMO.

Quote: gordonm888

So, a pay of 250 is not a ripoff, IMO.

This discussion is based on readings of a SF being short paid. How much is it being short paid? If you believe that it's short pay is based on the payouts of other hands, then the answer is going to vary based on those other payouts. The extent of the short pay could be as low as -250 (that would happen if it should pay zero to make a fair game), or as high as 15,650 (or even a little over that). If you believe the 250 is fair, then the short pay of the SF would be 0 and there is no intentional short pay. But if that was true, why is the literature claiming the straight flush is given a short payoff?

Quote: ThatDonGuy

It depends on the game and the rest of the pay table, as whatever a straight flush paid would affect the strategy.

For an otherwise standard 5-credit 9/6 Jacks or Better machine, a SF payout of 451 has an ER of 99.9986%, and 452 has an ER of 100.001%.

Of course, keep in mind that the other payouts are probably also shorted, so this would affect what a SF would need to be. If a Royal paid 4880 instead of 3200, a SF payout of 250 would be an ER of pretty much exactly 100%. A flush pay of 34 (with a Royal of 3200 and an SF of 250) makes the ER 100.1808%.
link to original post

Just to clarify: yes, that should be 4000 for a standard 5-credit Royal, not 3200. The 451 / 452 and 34 numbers are correct for a 4000 Royal payout.

Also, here is what the payouts would have to be in a 5-credit game to make 9/6 Jacks or Better 100% if every payout except one was standard:

Royal - 4880 (RTP 100.0000%)

Straight Flush - 452 (100.0010%)

4 Of A Kind - 136 (100.0637%)

Full House - 47 (100.0044%)

Flush - 33 (100.2416%)

Straight - 22 (100.018%)

3 Of A Kind - 16 (101.0329%)

2 Pair - 11 (102.1295%)

Jacks Or Better - 6 (103.8465%)

It looks like Straight Flushes are being singled out because the payout has to be increased by 80.8%, while no other payout has to be increased by more than 22% (Royal - 22%; Jacks or Better - 20%; 2 Pair, Straight, Flush - 10%; everything else is < 10%).

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Quote: ThatDonGuy

It depends on the game and the rest of the pay table, as whatever a straight flush paid would affect the strategy.

For an otherwise standard 5-credit 9/6 Jacks or Better machine, a SF payout of 451 has an ER of 99.9986%, and 452 has an ER of 100.001%.

Of course, keep in mind that the other payouts are probably also shorted, so this would affect what a SF would need to be. If a Royal paid 4880 instead of 3200, a SF payout of 250 would be an ER of pretty much exactly 100%. A flush pay of 34 (with a Royal of 3200 and an SF of 250) makes the ER 100.1808%.
link to original post

Just to clarify: yes, that should be 4000 for a standard 5-credit Royal, not 3200. The 451 / 452 and 34 numbers are correct for a 4000 Royal payout.

Also, here is what the payouts would have to be in a 5-credit game to make 9/6 Jacks or Better 100% if every payout except one was standard:

Royal - 4880 (RTP 100.0000%)

Straight Flush - 452 (100.0010%)

4 Of A Kind - 136 (100.0637%)

Full House - 47 (100.0044%)

Flush - 33 (100.2416%)

Straight - 22 (100.018%)

3 Of A Kind - 16 (101.0329%)

2 Pair - 11 (102.1295%)

Jacks Or Better - 6 (103.8465%)

It looks like Straight Flushes are being singled out because the payout has to be increased by 80.8%, while no other payout has to be increased by more than 22% (Royal - 22%; Jacks or Better - 20%; 2 Pair, Straight, Flush - 10%; everything else is < 10%).
link to original post

This imaginary paytable really explains it. Thank you.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Quote: ThatDonGuy

It depends on the game and the rest of the pay table, as whatever a straight flush paid would affect the strategy.

For an otherwise standard 5-credit 9/6 Jacks or Better machine, a SF payout of 451 has an ER of 99.9986%, and 452 has an ER of 100.001%.

Of course, keep in mind that the other payouts are probably also shorted, so this would affect what a SF would need to be. If a Royal paid 4880 instead of 3200, a SF payout of 250 would be an ER of pretty much exactly 100%. A flush pay of 34 (with a Royal of 3200 and an SF of 250) makes the ER 100.1808%.
link to original post

Just to clarify: yes, that should be 4000 for a standard 5-credit Royal, not 3200. The 451 / 452 and 34 numbers are correct for a 4000 Royal payout.

Also, here is what the payouts would have to be in a 5-credit game to make 9/6 Jacks or Better 100% if every payout except one was standard:

Royal - 4880 (RTP 100.0000%)

Straight Flush - 452 (100.0010%)

4 Of A Kind - 136 (100.0637%)

Full House - 47 (100.0044%)

Flush - 33 (100.2416%)

Straight - 22 (100.018%)

3 Of A Kind - 16 (101.0329%)

2 Pair - 11 (102.1295%)

Jacks Or Better - 6 (103.8465%)

It looks like Straight Flushes are being singled out because the payout has to be increased by 80.8%, while no other payout has to be increased by more than 22% (Royal - 22%; Jacks or Better - 20%; 2 Pair, Straight, Flush - 10%; everything else is < 10%).
link to original post

This imaginary paytable really explains it. Thank you.
link to original post

That's not "a" paytable, but nine different ones.
"Royal" is 4880 / 250 / 125 / 45 / 30 / 20 / 15 / 10 / 5
"Straight Flush" is 4000 / 452 / 125 / 45 / 30 / 20 / 15 / 10 / 5
"4 Of A Kind" is 4000 / 250 / 136 / 45 / 30 / 20 / 15 / 10 / 5
and so on.

My point was, in the Straight Flush table, the SF value has to be raised by 80% to make the RTP 100%, whereas in all of the other tables, the one value that you raise doesn't have to be raised by more than 22%.

The game is designed to attract players to play. Quad happens every 420 hands combined and the minimum pay is 250 on games where 2 pair pays 1 for 1, while SF happens about every 9000 hands. Most players care more about hitting quads since they happen a lot more frequently. This is how casino runs a successful business by attracting people play the games.

For people who really like SF, switch to Joker poker where SF happens about 1700 hands depending on pay schedule (1300 for AC Joker). And SF pays 250 credits. (500 Credits for AC Joker.)

I wish game makers can offer 4000/400/119/45/30 Job so I can avoid lots of tax forms on $10 machine. But it may not happen at all since casino may not like it.