Dropping a wild royal
There's a video poker group on Facebook. A player posted a photo of a dealt one card wild royal on a 10 play machine. She held the wild royal but asked on Facebook should she have gone for the natural royal?
I seem to be the only one who says she should not go for the natural.
The machine has multipliers ranging from 2x to 7x on the dealt wild royal.
One Facebooker says the player has a 20% chance of hitting one natural royal and I disagreed with that too.
Am I wrong again?
Quote: AlanMendelsonAm I wrong again?
There's a video poker group on Facebook. A player posted a photo of a dealt one card wild royal on a 10 play machine. She held the wild royal but asked on Facebook should she have gone for the natural royal?
I seem to be the only one who says she should not go for the natural.
The machine has multipliers ranging from 2x to 7x on the dealt wild royal.
One Facebooker says the player has a 20% chance of hitting one natural royal and I disagreed with that too.
Am I wrong again?
link to original post
Possibly 1/2 and 1/2.
I can't think of a reason why the royal draw odds are not 10/47, or 22.17%
Using that, it is probably better to hold the wild royal:
If wild royal pay times 10 hands times dealt wild royal multiplier is less than .2217 times Natural Royal, then throw the wild and draw for the natural. Otherwise take the dealt wild royal.
Numbers: (assuming Wild Royal is 125 pay, drawn Natural Royal 4000, worst case 2x on dealt wild royal)
125*10*2= 2500 for lowest multiplier dealt Wild royal
0.2217 * 4000=887
So best play is keep dealt wild royal; even without the multiplier it is the correct play.
Quote: AlanMendelsonAm I wrong again?
There's a video poker group on Facebook. A player posted a photo of a dealt one card wild royal on a 10 play machine. She held the wild royal but asked on Facebook should she have gone for the natural royal?
I seem to be the only one who says she should not go for the natural.
The machine has multipliers ranging from 2x to 7x on the dealt wild royal.
One Facebooker says the player has a 20% chance of hitting one natural royal and I disagreed with that too.
Am I wrong again?
link to original post
The probability of hitting a Royal on a four-to-a-royal draw is 1/47, so the inverse of the probability of missing all of them (the probability of hitting AT LEAST one) is:
1 - ((46/47)^10) = 0.19350860594
So, the probability of hitting AT LEAST one rounds down closer to 19% than 20%, but calling it 20% isn't unreasonable.
My logic on whether or not to keep the Royal is as follows: We know that, on most Deuces Wild paytables (maybe all?) I think it's all of them, because the best worst case scenario for the Wild Royal would be it only pays 20-FOR-1, SF Pays 11-FOR-1 and Flush Pays 3-FOR-1 and the Natural cards are KQJ10 (To make Straight Flushes Available)...and even then you would keep the WRF.
In the case of Ultimate X, the WRF and RF multiplier (4x) should be the same, so no multiplier value is added by going for the Natural Royal. In fact, future multiplier value favors keeping the pat hand. Even if the SF is possible, the only card that would do it would be the Natural Nine as another deuce would just give WRF back. The only possible winning hands are:
RF (1)
WRF (3)
SF (1)
Flush (6)
Straight (6)
The only possibilities that would yield more than a 4x multiplier are the Flush (5x) and SF (12x), but then you have thirty cards that miss and would result in no multiplier. In short, no actual analysis on that is really needed to know that the average multiplier for the following hand is better keeping WRF.
With that, you're quite correct (unless I am missing something) that not only is WRF the right hold, but it's even more favored (multiplier value) than it would be if the game were not UX.
Thanks, Mission.
At deuces wild, this is not an especially close play. Just take your 125 and go on to the next hand...
Quote: 3for3The .22 number is the expected number of royals,
Let me be sure I understand. In a 10 play game you can expect 22% or 2 of the ten hands to draw a natural royal?
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: 3for3The .22 number is the expected number of royals,
Let me be sure I understand. In a 10 play game you can expect 22% or 2 of the ten hands to draw a natural royal?
link to original post
Not correct, he's talking about the Expected Number of royals. The Expected Number of Royals factors in the probabilities of hitting zero, one, two, three, five, six, seven, eight, nine or all ten Royals.
It does not include four Royals because the number four is bad luck and you will probably die within four days if you draw four Royals on ten handed.
I'm kidding, of course, the expected number also includes four royals.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: 3for3The .22 number is the expected number of royals,
Let me be sure I understand. In a 10 play game you can expect 22% or 2 of the ten hands to draw a natural royal?
link to original post
I read it to mean that in a 10 play game, holding 4 to a royal, you can expect that you will make a royal on 1 of the 10 hands about 22% of the time.
Quote: DieterQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: 3for3The .22 number is the expected number of royals,
Let me be sure I understand. In a 10 play game you can expect 22% or 2 of the ten hands to draw a natural royal?
link to original post
I read it to mean that in a 10 play game, holding 4 to a royal, you can expect that you will make a royal on 1 of the 10 hands about 22% of the time.
link to original post
This interpretation makes sense to me.
The .22 is the average TOTAL number of Royals, which factors in hitting them on multiple hands.
Quote: ChallengedMillyMath is what it is. Ultimately the reason for why she's playing is whether she should hold it or not. For me, I gamble to get insanely lucky and make so much money I can either retire or go back to school full time and get a degree. I would have went for it, because 4000 x amount of hits x the betting structure would be a major improvement to my bankroll.
link to original post
You should be playing Triple Double Bonus and not Deuces Wild.
Or maybe buy lottery tickets.
