Thread Rating:

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

Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1452
  • Posts: 25269
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
January 25th, 2023 at 10:54:03 AM permalink
Fortune X Poker is a new game found at VideoPoker.com. It is an optional feature on top of a conventional multi-play game.

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?

Last edited by: Wizard on Jan 26, 2023
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” -- Carl Sagan
rsactuary
rsactuary
Joined: Sep 6, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 2168
January 25th, 2023 at 12:05:53 PM permalink
Curious what the decision point is to take a multiplier lower than 12x? ie: where does it tilt from passing to taking the multiplier?
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1452
  • Posts: 25269
January 25th, 2023 at 12:57:50 PM permalink
Quote: rsactuary

Curious 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.
Last edited by: Wizard on Jan 26, 2023
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” -- Carl Sagan
miplet
miplet
Joined: Dec 1, 2009
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 2067
January 25th, 2023 at 1:28:09 PM permalink
"four of eights" typo instead of "pair of eights" in the 8x section.
“Man Babes” #AxelFabulous
gordonm888
Administrator
gordonm888 
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 59
  • Posts: 4319
January 25th, 2023 at 1:52:41 PM permalink
Quote: rsactuary

Curious 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.)
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
gordonm888
Administrator
gordonm888 
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
  • Threads: 59
  • Posts: 4319
January 25th, 2023 at 1:58:43 PM permalink
typo: replace the first "enough" with "not"

"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. "
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
Johnzimbo
Johnzimbo
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 1069
January 25th, 2023 at 2:06:58 PM permalink
Is it Fever X or Fortune X?
Mental
Mental
Joined: Dec 10, 2018
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 467
January 25th, 2023 at 5:39:02 PM permalink
Are 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.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1452
  • Posts: 25269
January 26th, 2023 at 5:36:39 AM permalink
Quote: Johnzimbo

Is it Fever X or Fortune X?
link to original post



Fever X.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” -- Carl Sagan
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1452
  • Posts: 25269
January 26th, 2023 at 5:40:58 AM permalink
Quote: Mental

Are 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.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” -- Carl Sagan

  • Jump to: