New Video Poker Game?

There are a limited number of Video Poker games that I have played mainly due to the fact that there have been a limited number of Video Poker games I have come across in casinos.

Thus, if this game already exists, please let me know.

If this game does not exist, and someone likes the idea, then you are welcome to develop/sell this game if you have the ability to do that.

Death Card Aces and Faces Video Poker

This game will largely be the same as Deuces Wild, except, A-K-O-J of Spades are the Wild Cards. The paytable will be virtually the same, except with a few exceptions:

(Deuces Wild Paytable-per the Wizard)


Natural royal flush 800
Four deuces 200
Wild royal flush 25
Five of a kind 15
Straight flush 9
Four of a kind 5
Full house 3
Flush 2
Straight 2
Three of a kind 1

The only difference at my regular casino is that Four of a Kind pays 4:1 rather than 5:1. I'd actually rather make the Four of a Kind 4:1 for purposes that you will see later, though.

The return on 4OAK according to the payscale above is 0.324691 per unit bet. We're going to knock 20% off of that by making it 4:1, so: 0.2597528

That makes the difference in expected return -.0649382 or .9426818 total expected return.

The other thing we are going to do is have a new payout for a Natural Royal Flush in Diamonds, Hearts or Clubs. The current payout is 800, 3/4th's of that (4 possible Naturals - Spades = 3 Naturals for payout) is 600, but we're going to make it 525 each instead of 600. The normal return on the 800 for a Natural is 0.017667. We're going to take that and subtract 25% (Spades don't count) and get .01325025. which we're going to subtract 12.5% from because we are reducing the would-be payout by 1/8th. The payout for NRF Diamonds/Clubs/Hearts is .0115939687.

The old NRF was .017667, this is .011593968 making a difference of .06073032 on that and an overall payout of .88195148.

SPADES

The payout for Four Deuces will be replaced exactly by A, K, Q, J, Spades + x.

We have to reverse engineer a payout for Natural Royal Flush in Spades. I want this game to have an overall payout of around 97%, so I have to take .97 and subtract .88195148 which results in .08804852.

The Wizard says the possibility of a NRF in DW is .000022, thus the possibility of it in Spades is .000022 -75% or .0000055.

If we make the payout for a NRF in Spades 15000, then the expected return 15000 * .0000055 = .0825

That makes the total expected payout: .88195148 + .0825 = .96445148, which is close to 97%.

Our new Paytable is as follows:

Natural Royal Flush in Spades: 15000
Natural royal flush of Diamonds, Hearts or Clubs: 525
AKQ+J of Spades, no Royal: 200
Wild royal flush 25
Five of a kind 15
Straight flush 9
Four of a kind 5
Full house 3
Flush 2
Straight 2
Three of a kind 1

I think that this would attract the average player because the Natural Royal Flush in Spades looks outstanding. The expected payout on the machine is less than between the Wizard's Paytable and the Paytable I am used to by which 4OAK pays 4:1, which benefits the casino in the case of Wizard's paytable.

I think that there is also the potential for a Progressive Payout here by having a Network of Games on this machine with a NRF-Spades Base Pay (After Progressive is won or when machines first start) of 12,000 credits with 3% of every credit wagered also going into the Progressive pool whereby the casino would still only be giving an overall payout of .96995148 - [.0825 -80% (12,000/15,000 difference in Base Pay = 20% of which the inverse is 80%)]

.96995148 - .33 (Difference in Expected Value of Base Pay)

Results in .96995148 -.0165 = .95345148 (New Expected Value, Including Base Pay)

We're giving back 3% of everything the players bet in the form of a Progressive (even if they are not betting Max, 1% will still go to Progressive, which improves the overall expected take for the casino on those bets).

If you take the new expected value (including Base Pay) of .095345148 and add to it the 3% that goes to the Progressive Pool, the expected value of the machine is 0.98345148 to the player (with Max Credits Bet) with a Take of 1.654852% of all credits bet for the casino.

Technically, the expected value to the player COULD be higher than that with Max Credits bet because even those who are not betting max credits will be feeding the Progressive. This can do nothing but improve the expected value of Max Credits Bet for the player while doing nothing to the casino and resultant in an Expected Value of .95345148 to the player betting less than Max.

Theoretically, the Expected Value to the player betting Max COULD exceed 100% if there are enough players not betting Max.

Do you think people would play? Would you play?

This link should help you:-

Aces & Faces

You should rename it because Aces & Faces is already taken, and possibly copyrighted.

Quote: Switch

This link should help you:-

Aces & Faces

If you will peruse my post, you will find that the two games happen to be called the same thing but have nothing to do with one another.

Quote: JB

You should rename it because Aces & Faces is already taken, and possibly copyrighted.

I had to change the numbers, if you'd kindly glance over it again.

Did you like it? Would it work?

The new name is:

Death Card Aces & Faces

Quote: Mission146

The only difference at my regular casino is that Four of a Kind pays 4:1 rather than 5:1. I'd actually rather make the Four of a Kind 4:1 for purposes that you will see later, though.

The return on 4OAK according to the payscale above is 0.324691 per unit bet. We're going to knock 20% off of that by making it 4:1, so: 0.2597528

That makes the difference in expected return -.0649382 or .9426818 total expected return.

First of all, the prize in Full Pay Deuces is 5-for-1, not 5-to-1. 5-for-1 is the same as 4-to-1. Reducing it to 4 (like the paytable at your casino) makes it 4-for-1 or 3-to-1.

Second of all, that is not how you calculate the difference in return for video poker, though it would probably give you a (very) rough estimate.

I also apologize for all of the Edits.

It's a combination of the keyboard starting to go bad and the fact that I am an idiot.

I missed one number because the keyboard was starting to go bad, I didn't notice the problem sooner because I am an idiot. I could not correct it in one Edit, also, because I am an idiot.

Quote: JB

First of all, the prize in Full Pay Deuces is 5-for-1, not 5-to-1. 5-for-1 is the same as 4-to-1. Reducing it to 4 (like the paytable at your casino) makes it 4-for-1 or 3-to-1.

Second of all, that is not how you calculate the difference in return for video poker, though it would probably give you a (very) rough estimate.

Might I kindly inquire as to the problem with the Wizard's figure -20%?

Quote: Mission146

Might I kindly inquire as to the problem with the Wizard's figure -20%?

Anytime you change a payout in video poker, you need to reanalyze the entire game, because it results in strategy changes. Doing it the way you did assumes that there would be no strategy changes as a result of the modified payout, which is very wrong.

For the game(s) you have listed, a custom analyzer would need to be written to analyze it/them correctly. Using the method you used to "calculate" the return is like using a sledgehammer to fix a pair of glasses, when what is needed is a tiny precision screwdriver.

Quote: JB

Anytime you change a payout in video poker, you need to reanalyze the entire game, because it results in strategy changes. Doing it the way you did assumes that there would be no strategy changes as a result of the modified payout, which is very wrong.

For the game(s) you have listed, a custom analyzer would need to be written to analyze it/them correctly. Using the method you used to "calculate" the return is like using a sledgehammer to fix a pair of glasses, when what is needed is a tiny precision screwdriver.

I understand what you are saying. Theoretically, since the Wizard's paytable automatically assumes optimal strategy, then would the changes I have made not benefit the casino rather than detract from the casino's profits?

Secondly, in a Deuces Wild game, you would always keep Deuces. In the J-Q-K-A Wild game, you would always keep those. The only srategy change I would see as being likely would be that you may not go for a Royal Flush with Wilds if you had three of the Aces & Faces in Spades already. I can't think of any other areas where the strategy should be affected, can you?

Quote: Mission146

I understand what you are saying. Theoretically, since the Wizard's paytable automatically assumes optimal strategy, then would the changes I have made not benefit the casino rather than detract from the casino's profits?

No, the return should always be higher than using the rough calculation method, because perfect strategy always adapts to changes in the paytable.

Quote: Mission146

Secondly, in a Deuces Wild game, you would always keep Deuces. In the J-Q-K-A Wild game, you would always keep those. The only srategy change I would see as being likely would be that you may not go for a Royal Flush with Wilds if you had three of the Aces & Faces in Spades already. I can't think of any other areas where the strategy should be affected, can you?

There are going to be quite a few more. Having certain spades be wild introduces an imbalance among the suits - they are no longer all equal. For example, if you're holding 3579 of hearts you have a better chance of making a flush than if you hold 3579 of spades. Having a certain suit's AKQJ be wild would also affect plays that aim to get a straight.

First Paragraph: Crap.

Second Paragraph: I also understand that.

***I see that I am going to have some work to do. I believe that we have established that it is going to change the probabilities of Straights/Flushes, but it shouldn't have any affect on ToaK, FoaK, FH, 5oaK, AKQJx Spades (vs. Four Deuces) or anything like that, right?

Quote: Mission146

First Paragraph: Crap.

Second Paragraph: I also understand that.

***I see that I am going to have some work to do. I believe that we have established that it is going to change the probabilities of Straights/Flushes, but it shouldn't have any affect on ToaK, FoaK, FH, 5oaK, AKQJx Spades (vs. Four Deuces) or anything like that, right?

It is most likely that everything will be affected. You can't just say "well game X returns this much, so game Y should return about this much" - that's not how an analysis is done with video poker.

Yes, it will affect 3, 4, 5OAK in AKQ or J. There will be 7 cards that can combine for 3, 4, 5OAK in AKQJ and 8 that can combine in all other ranks, making them more likely to hit, thus of higher value to hold - requiring strategy adjustments there too.

Quote: QuadDeuces

Yes, it will affect 3, 4, 5OAK in AKQ or J. There will be 7 cards that can combine for 3, 4, 5OAK in AKQJ and 8 that can combine in all other ranks, making them more likely to hit, thus of higher value to hold - requiring strategy adjustments there too.

I would contest that this fact is offset by the fact that 3OaK in Deuces is now an actual playable hand, per se, where as before it would have just become a 4OaK in something else. You're basically replacing four cards that could have contributed to a 3, 4 or 5OaK, namely AKQJs with DDDD.

I think the only thing this really affects is a FH-Type play that you would never make in the first place. In the hand of Qd, Qh, 3d, 3h, x (or an equivalent hand) you would do well to hold the two 3's as opposed to the two Q's. After that, given that you are holding a pair, the odds are unaffected from that point on. They're unaffected either way because either way you would hold a pair (and it would not matter which), but instinctually you'd probably hold the Q's despite the fact that it is immaterial.

Aside from that, if you had Qd, Qh, x, x, x (No Wild, no other pairs,) you would still hold the Q's, it'd still be your best play.

If you had, Qd, Qh, Jh, 10h, 9h, you would hold the H's, which you would do anyway.

You would keep a dealt FH with one or fewer Wilds in either case.

The 4OaK is the same thing as the 3OaK because you are adding the Deuces back in. Same per 5OaK.

AKQJs replaces 2-2-2-2 perfectly.


I'm hoping that puts the baby to bed on FH, 3OaK, 4OaK, 5OaK and AKQJs v. 2-2-2-2, but I could be wrong.

Against my better judgement, I went ahead and analyzed this bizarre game:

Hand	Prize (coins)	Combinations	Probability	Hit Frequency	Return	Variance
Natural Royal Flush (Spades)	75,000	66,116,030	0.000010	1 in 100,496.21	0.149259	2,238.566501
Natural Royal Flush (Other)	2,625	105,277,880	0.000016	1 in 63,113.07	0.008318	4.349124
Four Wilds	1,000	1,360,673,420	0.000205	1 in 4,883.18	0.040957	8.102722
Wild Royal	125	7,597,702,050	0.001143	1 in 874.53	0.028587	0.653963
Five of a Kind	75	18,279,212,768	0.002751	1 in 363.50	0.041266	0.532654
Straight Flush	45	28,172,451,236	0.004240	1 in 235.85	0.038160	0.265601
Four of a Kind	25	400,476,782,669	0.060273	1 in 16.59	0.301364	0.923642
Full House	15	118,966,980,235	0.017905	1 in 55.85	0.053714	0.065636
Flush	10	127,354,623,846	0.019167	1 in 52.17	0.038334	0.016035
Straight	10	360,152,196,234	0.054204	1 in 18.45	0.108408	0.045345
Three of a Kind	5	1,840,470,137,021	0.276995	1 in 3.61	0.276995	0.002018
All Other	0	3,741,408,019,011	0.563091	1 in 1.78	0.000000	0.663329
Totals		6,644,410,172,400	1.000000	1 in 2.29	1.085363	2,254.186570

Somewhere there's supposed to be a progressive jackpot for an extra 3%. Add that in and the game's return is 111.54% when played perfectly.

Hopefully this gives you an idea of why you should never use the "sledgehammer approach" with video poker math.

JB,

I can't tell you how much I appreciate you doing that, or how much I would like to know how you did that so quickly! I was still in the process of working on analyzing the probability of Flushes!

The only difference between the paytable you have used and my proposal (a key difference, though) is that Four of a Kind would be 20, not 25. That would reduce the expected return by around 20% on 4OaK from about .30 to .24 bringing the total EP down to 1.025363.

We could also reduce the Jackpot to 10,000 coins, since that seems to be a much greater portion of the return than I expected. That would still be a Max Prize of 50,000 credits and would chop nearly 5% off of the return. That would bring the total EP down to .975363.

We could also reduce (Other) Natural Royal Flush to 2,500, that almost reads better, anyway.

If you think those things would work, then I suppose 1% of each credit bet could feed the Progressive.

Quote: Mission146

I would contest that this fact is offset by the fact that 3OaK in Deuces is now an actual playable hand, per se, where as before it would have just become a 4OaK in something else. You're basically replacing four cards that could have contributed to a 3, 4 or 5OaK, namely AKQJs with DDDD.

It really doesn't matter that you can now hold 222 as you would 333, the bottom line is there are more possible ways to make 4OAK, etc in the ranks other than JQKA.

I was thinking more along the lines of: 3d 3h Jc Jh X

In Full-Pay Deuces, you hold one pair. In NSU, you hold two pair because of the increased payout for the full house. In this game, I suspect the best play would be to hold the low pair, thus the strategy changes I was referring to. I'll leave it to the big brains to figure out the payback.

This paytable basically penalizes the traditional "high cards," just like deuces being wild penalizes straight and straight flush draws that contain the deuce position as a possible out.

All this aside, I think any game that pays less than 4000 coins for any natural royal is going to fail horribly.

You should also probably stay away from names like "Spades are Wild" or "Wild Spades."

I agree with you about holding the low pair, as I had stated prior to your post. I actually saw that one when I was trying to figure out what the differences in play would be. I concluded that, as far as that particular play was concerned, the odds wouldn't be skewed at all because you are holding one pair in either game. Optimal play has you holding a pair, in the Spades-Game case, you just have to pick the right pair. (Low)

I don't think the payout gets affected as long as you make the right play, though, bcause the right play is always to hold one pair with two of the 3's left and Fou Wilds. The same thing happens from that point on. Many players will make the wrong play by instinctively holding the higher pair, so that's good for the casino.

I'm sorry to hear that you think the game would not be popular. It was my goal to take one of the items that people love about Slots (The HUGE max payouts and Progressives, if such could be done) and apply them to a Video Poker game.

I'm also working on a design for a Scrabble-Based slot machine. That's going to take me some time because I need to figure out some kind of free games and what that will do to the expected take. That's a really tough part. I'm not entirely sure it will have free games, but it seems (from walking around and looking at the penny machines) that people expect for there to be free games, so we'll see.

Seems wires were crossed. I was talking about strategy changes, not changes to the overall payout.

I just don't think people will like seeing a Royal Flush in Hearts/Diamonds/Clubs and what will look like a short payout. Even the sequential machines pay 800 for a non-sequential.

Quote: QuadDeuces

Seems wires were crossed. I was talking about strategy changes, not changes to the overall payout.

I just don't think people will like seeing a Royal Flush in Hearts/Diamonds/Clubs and what will look like a short payout. Even the sequential machines pay 800 for a non-sequential.

I meant that I had covered that change with:

Quote: Myself

I think the only thing this really affects is a FH-Type play that you would never make in the first place. In the hand of Qd, Qh, 3d, 3h, x (or an equivalent hand) you would do well to hold the two 3's as opposed to the two Q's. After that, given that you are holding a pair, the odds are unaffected from that point on. They're unaffected either way because either way you would hold a pair (and it would not matter which), but instinctually you'd probably hold the Q's despite the fact that it is immaterial.

I understand what you mean about the other Naturals. I think that is somewhat offset by the fact that you can have a hand where you keep 2-3 WildCards only (or even one Wild, for that matter) and you still have a shot at the Jackpot. You cannot achieve the Jackpot while keeping a WildCard in Deuces Wild because then you would not have a Natural Royal Flush. The jackpot here demands a Natural in Spades, cards that you would keep anyway. I think your average player might think that makes the Jackpot somehow more likely.