## Poll

2 votes (20%) | |||

4 votes (40%) | |||

No votes (0%) | |||

4 votes (40%) | |||

1 vote (10%) | |||

No votes (0%) | |||

1 vote (10%) | |||

1 vote (10%) | |||

4 votes (40%) | |||

2 votes (20%) |

**10 members have voted**

With the feature enabled, the game awards a 2x multiplier randomly on the deal. The player may either accept it or play the hand normally and get a higher multiplier on the next hand. The player must make a bet on all hands. The multiplier progression goes 2x, 3x, 5x, 8x, 12x. At 12x, the player must accept the multiplier.

On this one, I'm getting a different RTP than VideoPoker.com and would love a third opinion.

For a more detailed explanation and some math, please see my new page at WoO on Fortune X Poker.

It's easy to see this game would be ripe for vulturing if left in a state with a multiplier on the next hand (shut up Wiz!).

The question for the poll is would you play Fortune X Poker?

Quote:rsactuaryCurious what the decision point is to take a multiplier lower than 12x? ie: where does it tilt from passing to taking the multiplier?

link to original post

The answer to that question can be found in my page on Fever X Poker.

Quote:rsactuaryCurious what the decision point is to take a multiplier lower than 12x? ie: where does it tilt from passing to taking the multiplier?

link to original post

I've been scratching my ahead about that as well.

Wizard says for 9/6 DDB

2X multiplier: Indifferent EV = 8.901087

3X multiplier: Indifferent EV = 4.889740

5X multiplier: Indifferent EV = 2.567263

8X multiplier: Indifferent EV = 1.411099

I have been looking at that and I think

2X multiplier: made Full House or better, which includes

'4 to a Royal Flush'

'3 of a kind: Aces'

3X multiplier: made Flush or better

5X multiplier: made Two Pair or better, which includes

'4 to a Straight Flush'

'1 pair: Aces'

8X multiplier: Indifferent EV = 1.411099 (TBD - haven't done this one yet.)

"I am now at the fourth stage of the multiplier progression, at 8x. Like the previous hand, a low pair is enough enough to keep the multiplier, so I declined it. "

It seems that there is a tension between extending the sequence to get a larger denominator in the RTP and getting the lowest loss per cycle back to the starting point. If you were playing for points, then you want to take the decisions that get the highest RTP. If you are approaching it from the point of view that you will play one bonus cycle and want to lose the least amount, you would get a different strategy and EV.

Quote:JohnzimboIs it Fever X or Fortune X?

link to original post

Fever X.

Quote:MentalAre you using a Markov chain to do the calculations?

It seems that there is a tension between extending the sequence to get a larger denominator in the RTP and getting the lowest loss per cycle back to the starting point. If you were playing for points, then you want to take the decisions that get the highest RTP. If you are approaching it from the point of view that you will play one bonus cycle and want to lose the least amount, you would get a different strategy and EV.

link to original post

Yes, I'm using a Markov Chain, at least I think you could call my method that. At every decision point, my goal for the player is to win the most money, deducuting subsequent wagers until a multiplier is accepted. I don't factor points into it.

The strategy for what cards to hold are the same as conventional video poker. This game just adds another decision, to accept a multiplier or play on.