Vague thoughts on a new poker game

A) raise
B) Raise
C) Fold
D)Raise
E) Fold
F) fold

Not sure I would have come up with all of these without the hint (and I don't know that they are right) but one thing to consider is that players will learn from their mistakes if they end up seeing their draw cards because of the 7 card side bet. That will help them get better at not folding as often...I think a complicated optimal strategy with lots of opportunity for mistakes is what you need with a 0.55% optimal EOR.

How bad are the numbers if you fold every non-pair? Keep in mind, players are getting crushed on UTH....they have to be when the numbers I keep hearing are 30%-35% holds are common.

Quote: Paradigm

How bad are the numbers if you fold every non-pair? Keep in mind, players are getting crushed on UTH....they have to be when the numbers I keep hearing are 30%-35% holds are common.

About 17%, with an element of risk of 8.8%. That's far stronger than the typical "bad player" penalty in UTH. Here's my concern: I don't want the right strategy to be to raise on a bad hand, not fold it. That's counterintuitive and I think that's going to get very frustrating, very quickly. I think I'll adjust the rules some more and see what else I can come up with.

FYI, you were right on the raise/fold choices. But do you really want to raise on 8-high, 4 to an inside straight?

Okay, new version:
1) Player bets Ante and gets 5 cards.
2) Player can fold, giving up the Ante, or can make a Play bet in the amount of either 1x (call) or 2x (raise) the Ante.
3) If the player makes a Play bet, they decide whether to stand or draw 2 cards.
4) After all that, the dealer reveals 7 cards. Dealer qualifies with any pair.
5) On DNQ, Play bets push. Ante bets also push except if the player stood with 5 cards when Ante bets win 1-1. In other words, if you have 7 cards and the dealer doesn't qualify, the total outcome is zero. That should happen about 13.5% of the time.
6) If the player has 7 cards and ties or beats the dealer, they win even money on both Ante and Play bets.
5) If the player has 5 cards and ties or beats the dealer, they win even money on the Ante and at least 2-1 on the Play bet, according to the following schedule:

Player's 5 card hand wins with	Play bet pays
Royal flush	100-1
Straight flush	50-1
Quads	25-1
Full House	10-1
Flush	8-1
Straight	5-1
Trips	3-1
Two pair or one pair	2-1

This yields an edge of -1.38% and element of risk of -0.61%. Plus, these numbers are highly tunable due to the paytable.
You'll fold about 5.2% of the time, stand/raise 16.8% (on good made hands), draw/raise 13.4%, and draw/call 64.6%. You should never stand/call, though I'm sure people will, just like they mistakenly bet 3x instead of 4x in UTH. This is one reason why UTH holds so high, btw, and if the same behavior applies here then this game will also perform really well.

Plus, unlike the prior version, an intuitive strategy is approximately correct here. Under the strategy of
a) Raise and stand pat with 2 pair or better,
b) Raise and draw with a pair of 9s or better,
c) Call and draw with a pair of 8s or lower,
d) Call and draw with a high card of 8 or better, or any 3 or more to a flush,
e) Fold 7-high, unsuited garbage.
With this strategy, the edge is -3.57% with an element of risk of -1.19%. And this is just a quick stab at a strategy; I'm sure Wiz or JB or someone else could put together a very efficient simple player strategy that gets within a few basis points of optimal.

And I still think a 7-card progressive side bet works here, even with the graduated pays on the Play bet, because (a) the probabilities are totally different for 5 cards vs. 7, (b) many players like progressives, and (c) you'll only be standing 16.8% of the time so a lot of 7-card wins will be on the draw, especially to straights and flushes. I'll see if I can afford a 7-card paytable that pays on at least some 2-pairs.

Quote: MathExtremist

About 17%, with an element of risk of 8.8%. That's far stronger than the typical "bad player" penalty in UTH. Here's my concern: I don't want the right strategy to be to raise on a bad hand, not fold it. That's counterintuitive and I think that's going to get very frustrating, very quickly. I think I'll adjust the rules some more and see what else I can come up with.

FYI, you were right on the raise/fold choices. But do you really want to raise on 8-high, 4 to an inside straight?

In my opinion, one of the reasons that UTH is such a good game is that the correct strategy is to raise on many bad hands (or, at least, what people consider to be a bad hand).

People who care about math and odds can play a game with a low house edge. The ploppies can sit and lose at their normal pace. Most people are ploppies, so the house makes money. Everyone is happy.

If you have the ploppies losing slowly as well as the good players, then the house isn't making enough money and won't spread the game. If most people did not check their A2, UTH would have been dead long ago.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

In my opinion, one of the reasons that UTH is such a good game is that the correct strategy is to raise on many bad hands (or, at least, what people consider to be a bad hand).

People who care about math and odds can play a game with a low house edge. The ploppies can sit and lose at their normal pace. Most people are ploppies, so the house makes money. Everyone is happy.

If you have the ploppies losing slowly as well as the good players, then the house isn't making enough money and won't spread the game. If most people did not check their A2, UTH would have been dead long ago.

That brings up a good question. What should the house edge on the average ploppy be? What do you (the collected you) think the average ploppy strategy yields, from a house edge or element of risk standpoint, in UTH or 3CP? 3CP holds 31% in Nevada, and UTH reportedly holds 30-35%.

I guess another way of asking the question is this: should I design the game to be somewhat forgiving, or to be really difficult/counterintuitive to play properly? I can do either by varying the rules.

I would assume that most people play 3CP fairly close to accurately. The advice that the dealers give (that a queen-high is a borderline hand, but they should definitely play all kings and fold all jacks) is more or less accurate.

People play UTH absolutely terribly. Most will only 4-bet a high pocket pair and maybe AK or AQ. These are extremely expensive mistakes. I haven't bothered to actually figure out how much these mistakes cost, but I would guess that most people lose at a 10% clip or more on the main game.

I have never understood why hold is used by casinos to measure anything. It is completely meaningless. Dollars per hour, minimum bets per hour, average bets per hour... these would all be much more useful.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I would assume that most people play 3CP fairly close to accurately. The advice that the dealers give (that a queen-high is a borderline hand, but they should definitely play all kings and fold all jacks) is more or less accurate.

People play UTH absolutely terribly. Most will only 4-bet a high pocket pair and maybe AK or AQ. These are extremely expensive mistakes. I haven't bothered to actually figure out how much these mistakes cost, but I would guess that most people lose at a 10% clip or more on the main game.

I have never understood why hold is used by casinos to measure anything. It is completely meaningless. Dollars per hour, minimum bets per hour, average bets per hour... these would all be much more useful.

I know that in UTH, if you raise 3x instead of 4x that costs about 7.7%. I haven't looked into other variations. On the other hand, if both 3CP and UTH are holding the same amount -- and for better or for worse, that's how casino operators tend to evaluate games because that's what they report to regulators -- then perhaps the strategy issue isn't as important.

As an update to my quest for the right set of rules, I discovered that an equivalent naive strategy that doesn't over-fold has roughly the same edge in both sets of rules. As a result, I'm inclined to pick the one that gives the player more options; that is, the version with the paytable as above. That will lead to more mistakes, but not necessarily costly ones, so the curve between new player, intermediate player, and well-studied player is smoother. For example:
Js Jh As Kh 9d: optimal play is to raise and stand
Js Jh As Ks 9h: optimal play is to raise and draw 2. Note the 3 suited cards.

You'd never fold with either hand, but how many people are going to play both of these hands properly as opposed to calling and standing or calling and drawing?

I think this version might be the winner...

Quote: MathExtremist

I know that in UTH, if you raise 3x instead of 4x that costs about 7.7%. I haven't looked into other variations. On the other hand, if both 3CP and UTH are holding the same amount -- and for better or for worse, that's how casino operators tend to evaluate games because that's what they report to regulators -- then perhaps the strategy issue isn't as important.

Perhaps there is room to game the system here. Is it possible to devise something that would tend to lead to a high hold percentage, but actually isn't bad for the players? Is there a game mechanic that could somehow influence how much players tend to buy in for (even if it's just a psychological thing?)

The only thing that comes to mind is, in games where the player has to commit more money in order to complete the hand (eg, UTH or MS Stud), the player might tend to buy in for too little for the stakes (because a reasonable buy-in for a $5 blackjack game is less than that for a $5 MS Stud game, or even a $5 UTH game, but the player might not realize that)

But, the fact that the hold in UTH is similar to 3CP might be taken as evidence to contradict this idea (people playing poorly and underestimating the reasonable buy-in amounts should increase the hold in UTH significantly, by my theory) so maybe I'm not thinking this all the way through.

Quote: MathExtremist

About 17%, with an element of risk of 8.8%.

Yes, I think this is way too strong as well.

Quote: MathExtremist

That brings up a good question. What should the house edge on the average ploppy be? What do you (the collected you) think the average ploppy strategy yields, from a house edge or element of risk standpoint, in UTH or 3CP? 3CP holds 31% in Nevada, and UTH reportedly holds 30-35%.

I can only get there using a comparative analysis. Average BJ play I read somewhere, making common mistakes, puts a player at about a 1.3% HE for BJ. The average BJ game seems to "hold" in the 12-14% range. Not sure the math would be linear in comparison, but with a 30%-35% Hold on 3CP & UTH than would mean average player is playing to a 3.25% HE (which is very close to the same EOR for BJ).

Quote: MathExtremist

You'll fold about 5.2% of the time

This is the only thing that concerns me about the new version. Folding is normally a bigger choice/decision in games. You do have a 1x vs 2X call/raise decision, but if you are at least calling on 95% of hands.....that seems like a non-decision.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Perhaps there is room to game the system here. Is it possible to devise something that would tend to lead to a high hold percentage, but actually isn't bad for the players? Is there a game mechanic that could somehow influence how much players tend to buy in for (even if it's just a psychological thing?)

This is tricky, because players DO notice if they get burned quickly by an over-holding game, no matter how fun the game seems to be.
For the SAME house edge/table hold, a game should mask its source of edge while offering some "generous-appearing" features. Players may buy in for less on games that are not very volatile, and have a very steady-state give and take feel to them, Like Pai Gow poker or BJ. Players going into MS or UTH know they need more $$$ to hang in there if a rough start, simply because they are volatile and EXPENSIVE (many unit) games.

Quote: AxiomofChoice

The only thing that comes to mind is, in games where the player has to commit more money in order to complete the hand (eg, UTH or MS Stud), the player might tend to buy in for too little for the stakes (because a reasonable buy-in for a $5 blackjack game is less than that for a $5 MS Stud game, or even a $5 UTH game, but the player might not realize that)

But, the fact that the hold in UTH is similar to 3CP might be taken as evidence to contradict this idea (people playing poorly and underestimating the reasonable buy-in amounts should increase the hold in UTH significantly, by my theory) so maybe I'm not thinking this all the way through.

Some of the house edge and table hold from UTH comes from player misplays (Raising 3x instead of 4x, playing or folding incorrectly on the River, etc.), which is not generally the case on 3CP; if everyone played strong strategy on UTH, it would hold way less, (and the Blind Bonus pay table would be adjusted down).

Quote: MathExtremist

d) Call and draw with a high card of 8 or better, or any 3 or more to a flush,

Players are going to fold these hands.......maybe this helps with the decision of not folding enough, but what is it going to do to the experienced HE/EOR?

My guess is that players fold if they don't have at least two high cards. How bad does that make the HE/EOR if players fold the unpaired hands that aren't at least J/10 High?

Quote: Paigowdan

Some of the house edge and table hold from UTH comes from player misplays (Raising 3x instead of 4x, playing or folding incorrectly on the River, etc.), which is not generally the case on 3CP; if everyone played strong strategy on UTH, it would hold way less, (and the Blind Bonus pay table would be adjusted down).

I'm not sure how much UTH you've played, but I would guess that at least 80% (probably more) of the house's EV on the main game comes from player's misplays. Raising 3x is bad, but checking is worse.

Most people will play a hand like KTs by checking until they spike a pair (at which point they will bet), or calling on the end if they do not spike. The correct strategy is (of course) to 4x bet. I've never bothered to run numbers about the difference in EV (this information is not particularly useful to me since I will never do that) but I'm guessing that it must be huge.

People even play a hand like AK this way. Or JJ. I've seen someone check QQ before.

I guess, what I'm saying is, I don't understand why hold in UTH matches 3CP. The house edge against most players is not even close to the same -- it is probably 5x as high for UTH. If we can answer this question, it might give some insight into designing a game with a high hold, which doesn't necessarily have a high house edge.

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Typical players don't play these games trying to beat the dealer. They play them to win the trips or pair plus bet.

I understand this. But the fact still remains that they play somewhat accurately in 3CP, and horribly in UTH (probbaly giving up 5x the edge), yet the hold numbers are similar. Why?

Quote: Paradigm

Players are going to fold these hands.......maybe this helps with the decision of not folding enough, but what is it going to do to the experienced HE/EOR?

My guess is that players fold if they don't have at least two high cards. How bad does that make the HE/EOR if players fold the unpaired hands that aren't at least J/10 High?

If a player blanket folds any 10-high or lower, regardless of straight/flush draws, HE/EOR is 6.4%/2.2%.
Blanket folding 9-high or lower is 5.7%/1.9%.
Neither of those are remotely close to correct, but on the other hand they don't account for much in the way of folding. Only 4.7% of 7-card hands are 10-high or lower. It turns out you don't always play an Ace-high either. For example:
As 9h 7d 3d 2d: Call/Draw
As 9s 6s 5s 8h: Raise/Draw with 4 to a flush, though I bet many would call/draw. Calling vs. raising here is a big mistake (raise = +33%, call = +22%). Folding would be a disaster because this hand has +EV.
As Jh 6d 4d 2c: Fold (marginal, but still fold)

I'm growing less concerned about the edge vis-a-vis the strategy, because I believe a combination of folding mistakes and under-raising will lead to better performance than the low optimal figures would suggest. And I can still increase the optimal by tightening the paytable.

However, I'm not sure I share your worry about a too-low fold percentage. There may be nothing wrong with a game where most of your hands are playable. I think I'd prefer that to a game where you're frequently throwing away garbage (correctly, that is.) Part of the issue is that all of the other games like this only use 5 cards so lousy hands are more frequent. It's much harder to have a bad hand with 7 cards. Any pair or better in 5 cards is only 49.8% of hands but in 7 cards is 82.6% of hands. So players will just need to learn they're playing a 7-stud game instead of a 5-stud game and get used to at least calling on everything other than total garbage. I have a feeling that a few neighboring wins on the 7-card paytable will get that to happen in short order.

BTW, if the player always folds unless they have at least Q-high, they're folding 9.7% of the time with a -7.6% edge / -2.7% EOR.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I understand this. But the fact still remains that they play somewhat accurately in 3CP, and horribly in UTH (probbaly giving up 5x the edge), yet the hold numbers are similar. Why?

Probably game speed. I'd assume 3CP is far faster than UTH, no?
Edit: also, if everyone's playing Pair Plus, that's going to have a huge impact. Casinos don't report individual side bet action, just overall table win. PairPlus on 3CP has at least 2x the edge as Trips in UTH, so there's a big distinction right there. Does anyone know what the rough participation is on 3CP PairPlus vs. UTH Trips?

I enjoyed versions 2,3,6,and 7 so far, but wouldn't discourage you from continuing to play with ideas. Might be multiple marketable versions in there.

If you do a progressive table, please please please pay 3 pair in a 7 card hand? That is a universal wish on every PGP game I've ever played; comes up every time.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

...play somewhat accurately in 3CP...

Interesting thread - in the UK I would suggest very few people play correctly, some play blind or act on hunches when they don't have a hand - others go the other way and fold most borderline hands but nearly always play King-high. However, due to the reasonable pay-table used, nearly everyone plays pair-plus so isn't very worried about the basic game.

I guess a good game allows you to bet odds-on (c.f. 3CP, Caribbean by playing blind) or play everything; and the house edge is increased (rather like a golf drive might miss the fairway) if you're not too accurate. The casino knows enough people don't "hit the fairway" so are happy with the take even if perfect play has a low HE. However hopefully it still allows the "ploppie" a good run for their money (and a few pleasant winning surprises) rather than being heavily penalised for their errors [and so never playing again].

As an aside most poker or similar based games which rely on higher payouts for rarer better hands typically have the drip-drip lose unless the player gets a hit. 3CP has shown that most players prefer this, but its advantage is it provides a range of bets to suit the risk factor for most punters: the basic game with a low variance, then "Prime" with a medium, to Pair-Plus with the higher payouts.

I'm guessing from your game, if I stumbled across it in real life, one might stand on 5-cards with a "good" hand (whatever that is) and draw on a "medium" hand or draw (especially if you have a flush or straight draw). One thing 3CP does is payout a bonus for good hands even if DNQ or the player loses - personally I like this feature (rather than the Caribbean where a good hand doesn't always pay).

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I'm not sure how much UTH you've played, but I would guess that at least 80% (probably more) of the house's EV on the main game comes from player's misplays. Raising 3x is bad, but checking is worse.

I've played a lot of UTH, and designed Heads Up Hold 'em as a similar game.
This may sound nutty, but the quality of play is geographical. Tourist places with a lot of visitors can have very spotty play with a game running with an over-strong house edge; card rooms with hard-core locals can have very strong and generally correct play, where the game under-holds with the same pay tables. I've seen it. We actually provide multiple pay tables for the Odds (Blind) bet to adjust the house edge on the main bets of the H.U.H. game itself.

Quote: AxiomofChoice

Most people will play a hand like KTs by checking until they spike a pair (at which point they will bet), or calling on the end if they do not spike. The correct strategy is (of course) to 4x bet. I've never bothered to run numbers about the difference in EV (this information is not particularly useful to me since I will never do that) but I'm guessing that it must be huge.

People even play a hand like AK this way. Or JJ. I've seen someone check QQ before.

I guess, what I'm saying is, I don't understand why hold in UTH matches 3CP. The house edge against most players is not even close to the same -- it is probably 5x as high for UTH. If we can answer this question, it might give some insight into designing a game with a high hold, which doesn't necessarily have a high house edge.

There are enough weak players to account for this, thought it isn't 5x as high for UTH. UTH is about 0.52% EoR, and 3CP is 2.01% EoR, so you COULD argue playing errors give it about 2% Eor.

We noticed our Heads Up Hold 'em table hold to be VERY low with a 0.62% EoR because we allow only 3x raises on the hole cards - thereby taking away a HUGE portion of player error opportunity who play 3x on a 4x proper game. The operator-selectable pay tables allowed the adjustment of the House Edge and table hold to good ranges.

deleted

Best of luck. I think your current version is excellent.

Quote: Paigowdan

I've played a lot of UTH, and designed Heads Up Hold 'em as a similar game.
This may sound nutty, but the quality of play is geographical. Tourist places with a lot of visitors can have very spotty play with a game running with an over-strong house edge; card rooms with hard-core locals can have very strong and generally correct play, where the game under-holds with the same pay tables. I've seen it. We actually provide multiple pay tables for the Odds (Blind) bet to adjust the house edge on the main bets of the H.U.H. game itself.

Indeed, that's one of the features I'm going to bring to market with this game. The paytable on winning with a 5-card hand is easily adjusted to dial the EoR up or down by 1% or so, tweaking the house edge by up to 2% or 3%.

Quote:

We noticed our Heads Up Hold 'em table hold to be VERY low with a 0.62% EoR because we allow only 3x raises on the hole cards - thereby taking away a HUGE portion of player error opportunity who play 3x on a 4x proper game. The operator-selectable pay tables allowed the adjustment of the House Edge and table hold to good ranges.

Yes, as you found out, your game is much easier to play correctly than UTH. Giving operators the ability to adjust the game on the fly based on local conditions is a smart move. I'm hopeful that the paytables I'm going to launch with will allow any operator to target a given hold% no matter the average skill level of their players.

Quote: MathExtremist

However, I'm not sure I share your worry about a too-low fold percentage. There may be nothing wrong with a game where most of your hands are playable.

You could be right on this ME and it represents my only concern. Time to come up with a name.......I haven't been able to think of any good ones, but I am working on it and will PM you if I think of a good one.

Perhaps you already have a good one, let me know and I will stop thinking about it :-).

Quote: Paradigm

You could be right on this ME and it represents my only concern. Time to come up with a name.......I haven't been able to think of any good ones, but I am working on it and will PM you if I think of a good one.

Perhaps you already have a good one, let me know and I will stop thinking about it :-).

Portland Poker

" Simplicity is good.....you have to put out games that are comprehendible by the lowest common intelligence denominator of both dealers and players to reach the broadest audience."

I think the fold rate would be very high by the average ploppie. No pair, half the time and he has to beat a 7 card hand. And you think he will stay 8 high, or even q high. I think he will need two face cards, straight draw, or 4 to a flush.

I think you are right here Buzz......ME needs to make sure if the game is played really poorly, that it won't be an 8.5% EOR. People expect to fold more than 5% so they will incorrectly fold a lot........without at least J/10 IMHO.....maybe even need K/Q. As long as you don't get clobbered by playing this poorly, this would be a very good situation for operators, much like UTH is now. The key will be the design and if these common mistakes are such that it brings the game to a 3-5% "experienced" EOR, that would work.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Portland Poker

Not bad......I am trying to think of more of a descriptive name vs. pure geographic....but geographic is an option.

Doubt the younger ploppies would recognize ? P****** Poker !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgvxu8QY01s

Two Rivers Poker. The Columbia and Willamette meet at Portland, and the two hands (5 card and 7 card) meet on the table.

Quote: Buzzard

" Simplicity is good.....you have to put out games that are comprehendible by the lowest common intelligence denominator of both dealers and players to reach the broadest audience."

I think the fold rate would be very high by the average ploppie. No pair, half the time and he has to beat a 7 card hand. And you think he will stay 8 high, or even q high. I think he will need two face cards, straight draw, or 4 to a flush.

If the player strategy is:
a) Raise/stand on two pair or better,
b) Raise/draw on one pair, A-9
c) Call/draw on one pair 8-2
d) Call/draw on high card with either two ace/face cards, an outside straight draw, or a 4-flush
e) Fold on everything else
then the player will fold roughly 21% of the time and be bucking a 6.9% edge / 2.7% EOR. I think this is pretty reasonable considering you're folding 4x as much as optimal. It's 7 cards; overfolding is a mistake.

Compare to UTH where the edge jumps to about 9.9% (2.6%-ish EOR) if you 3x raise instead of 4x raise, and most UTH players are making other mistakes as well. UTH is really, really hard to play well.

I think those numbers work ME! And that is where the game will perform and that could be good!

I'm pretty happy with the current version too. However, just to shake things up again, here's a version where you only start with 4 cards, you can either draw 1 or 3, and you can surrender rather than completely fold:

a) Player Antes and receives four (4) cards
b) Player has three bet options: make a 2x Play bet, make a 1x Play bet, or surrender half the Ante and fold.
c) If the player makes a Play bet, they choose to draw 1 or 3 cards, to a total of either 5 or 7 cards.
d) Dealer gets 7 as before, and qualifies with a pair as before.
e) On DNQ, Ante pays even money (always), Play bet pushes.
f) Dealer reveals. Winning or tying 5 card hands pay 2-1, winning or tying 7 card hands pay 1-1.
That's it, no paytables.
Edge is -1.95%; EoR is -0.94% Optimal play is:
17.1% surrender
58.6% call/draw3
8.7% raise/draw1. This option is for hands like two pair, trips, etc.
15.6% raise/draw3

This is also going to be prone to mistakes, especially when it comes to calling vs. raising and when to surrender vs. play. No analysis yet though.

What do you think about this 4-card version as opposed to the previous 5-card version?

Also, what do you think of the names "Underdog Poker" or "Underdog Stud"?

I like the simplicity of this. It can still host a progressive on a 5 and/or 7 card hand, but the base game is very natural. Again, nice to pay ties.

I think it's enough different from the last one that they're both viable.

Mr. Peabody Poker for me. I did love Underdog, too, but if we're gonna talk cartoon dogs, Mr. Peabody's the one.

Quote: MathExtremist

I'm pretty happy with the current version too. However, just to shake things up again, here's a version where you only start with 4 cards, you can either draw 1 or 3, and you can surrender rather than completely fold:

a) Player Antes and receives four (4) cards
b) Player has three bet options: make a 2x Play bet, make a 1x Play bet, or surrender half the Ante and fold.
c) If the player makes a Play bet, they choose to draw 1 or 3 cards, to a total of either 5 or 7 cards.
d) Dealer gets 7 as before, and qualifies with a pair as before.
e) On DNQ, Ante pays even money (always), Play bet pushes.
f) Dealer reveals. Winning or tying 5 card hands pay 2-1, winning or tying 7 card hands pay 1-1.
That's it, no paytables.
Edge is -1.95%; EoR is -0.94% Optimal play is:
17.1% surrender
58.6% call/draw3
8.7% raise/draw1. This option is for hands like two pair, trips, etc.
15.6% raise/draw3

This is also going to be prone to mistakes, especially when it comes to calling vs. raising and when to surrender vs. play. No analysis yet though.

What do you think about this 4-card version as opposed to the previous 5-card version?

Also, what do you think of the names "Underdog Poker" or "Underdog Stud"?

Hi MathExtremist

I like your old one better:

1) Player bets Ante and gets 5 cards.
2) Player can fold, giving up the Ante, or can make a Play bet in the amount of either 1x (call) or 2x (raise) the Ante.
3) If the player makes a Play bet, they decide whether to stand or draw 2 cards.
4) After all that, the dealer reveals 7 cards. Dealer qualifies with any pair.
5) On DNQ, Play bets push. Ante bets also push except if the player stood with 5 cards when Ante bets win 1-1. In other words, if you have 7 cards and the dealer doesn't qualify, the total outcome is zero. That should happen about 13.5% of the time.
6) If the player has 7 cards and ties or beats the dealer, they win even money on both Ante and Play bets.
5) If the player has 5 cards and ties or beats the dealer, they win even money on the Ante and at least 2-1 on the Play bet, according to the following schedule:

Name: 5-Card Plus Poker or 5/7 Stud Poker (5-7 Stud Poker).

Yeah, Stephen, I agree. The one you list is the best so far. But a couple of the others seem workable, too.

Introducing Daredevil Poker (or Daredevil Stud, I haven't decided yet):

You can be cautious, be bold, or be a daredevil and play in the dark! (I'm expecting Dan to make a crack about "daredevil", "stud", and "playing in the dark"...)

Okay, that's enough of the marketing talk for now. This version is really two games in one. Here's what I added:

1) The player has a choice to either make an Ante bet or a Daredevil bet. A 7-card bonus bet is optional. The layout is:
[Bonus]
[Ante] or [Daredevil]
[Play]
2) If the player makes the Daredevil bet, 5 cards are dealt face-down under the Daredevil bet and the player doesn't touch them. They're finished; there is no strategy with this option.
3) If the player makes the Ante bet, they get 5 cards and can look at them.
4) Player can fold, giving up the Ante, or can make a Play bet in the amount of either 1x (call) or 2x (raise) the Ante.
5) If the player makes a Play bet, they decide whether to stand or draw 2 cards.
6) After all that, the dealer reveals 7 cards. Dealer qualifies with any pair.
7) On DNQ, the following happens: All Play bets push. The Ante bet wins even money if the player has 5 cards and pushes if the player has 7 cards. The Daredevil bet also wins even money on DNQ.
8) If the player has 7 cards and ties or beats the dealer, they win even money on both Ante and Play bets.
9) If the player has 5 cards and ties or beats the dealer, they win even money on the Ante and at least 2-1 on the Play bet, according to the following schedule:

Player's 5 card hand wins with	Play bet pays
Royal flush	100-1
Straight flush	50-1
Quads	25-1
Full House	10-1
Flush	7-1
Straight	5-1
Trips	3-1
Two pair or one pair	2-1

10) If the player has 5 cards, ties or beats the dealer, and made the Daredevil bet, they win at least 2-1 on the Daredevil bet according to the following schedule:

Player's 5 card hand wins with	Daredevil bet pays
Royal flush	250-1
Straight flush	125-1
Quads	60-1
Full House	35-1
Flush	20-1
Straight	10-1
Trips	6-1
Two pair	4-1
One pair	2-1

11) If the player made the bonus bet, two cards are added to their hand if needed (if they don't already have 7) and their 7-card hand is paid according the following schedule:

Player's 7 card hand rank	Bonus bet pays
Royal flush	1000-1
Straight flush	250-1
Quads	25-1
Full House	10-1
Flush	7-1
Straight	5-1
Anything else	lose

This is a straight-or-better 7-card paytable with a win frequency of about 10.4%, but it could also be a trips-or-better paytable like UTH.

Math:
Daredevil: 2.02% edge. There is no strategy so this won't change.
Ante with optimal strategy based on 5 cards: 1.71% edge, 0.76% element of risk. I lowered one payout so the edge is slightly higher than previously reported, and as discussed in this thread, this edge is dependent on proper strategy.
Bonus bet: 4.93% edge.
Thanks to Steve How for iteratively confirming my simulation numbers.

The name "Daredevil" pretty much nails the image I'm trying to project. I was going to go with Longshot or Underdog but got some feedback that those terms were potentially negative in a gambling sense. But the point is that you can either play the standard Ante and make strategy choices or you can play completely blind and hope your 5-card hand can beat the dealer's 7-card hand. Note that I was briefly considering allowing the player to make both Daredevil and Ante bets but I fear the procedure would get too complicated and error-prone. When the player wants to draw, you'd have to keep the first five cards separate and I see that getting screwed up a lot.

I would expect the typical player to either make Daredevil + Bonus, Ante + Bonus, or Ante alone. Any and all comments welcome.

Do you think this is too much? I could always scrap the Daredevil bet but still call the game Daredevil, after all.

I like it. I like being able to go between playing with strategy and playing blind. I'm feeling lucky, I'm going in blind.

You could allow for betting both by having two play spots one for play&stand and one for play&draw. The dealer could then deal the two cards while resolving the hand as is done in the 7-card bonus. There isn't really anything to do with those cards but look at them anyway.

But I think playing both makes the game go from choose "strategy or blind" to something with a lot of bonus bets.

And speaking of bonus bets, how can you fit in a 6-card bonus for Harrahs? :)

Brain is on Sludge setting. Looking forward to examining this in the morning. Cool that you're moving ahead on it. Night!

Its been a bit since I thought about this game, so forgive me, but what is the DNQ rate for the dealer on one pair qualifier?

Quote: Paradigm

Its been a bit since I thought about this game, so forgive me, but what is the DNQ rate for the dealer on one pair qualifier?

About 17.4%.

Quote: ChampagneFireball

I like it. I like being able to go between playing with strategy and playing blind. I'm feeling lucky, I'm going in blind.

You could allow for betting both by having two play spots one for play&stand and one for play&draw. The dealer could then deal the two cards while resolving the hand as is done in the 7-card bonus. There isn't really anything to do with those cards but look at them anyway.

But I think playing both makes the game go from choose "strategy or blind" to something with a lot of bonus bets.

And speaking of bonus bets, how can you fit in a 6-card bonus for Harrahs? :)

I tend to agree, and I don't want this to degenerate into "poker with too many bonus bets" because I think that dilutes the fundamental gameplay. Ironically, having too many options can make the game earn less, even if individual hands take in more action overall, because the dealer procedure becomes slower. I think I'll call the game Daredevil but make the actual blind-bet feature an implementation choice on the casino's part. They can offer it or not; if not, the game is basically the way it was before.

And 6-card bonuses are so passe. I should do a 14-card bonus, your cards plus the dealer's cards, with the top prize being awarded for a perfect hand: all cards of one suit. The odds are about 1 in 11 billion, so if you hit it, you win the casino. :)
And then I'd have to throw in payouts for things like "three quads" (1 in 8 million) or "two royals" (1 in 2.6 million).

Can you imagine a dealer trying to figure all that out, though? What a mess that'd make for surveillance.

OK, so a player is going to have action on their Play bets on 5 out of 5.7 hands.....I think that is good and much better than the 3 out of 4.4 hands in Caribbean Stud. The big issue with CP was it always seemed that when you got a good hand, the dealer DNQ'd and after risking 3 units you got paid 1.

I don't think I like the Dare Devil bet for a several easons:

1) No strategy games tend not to be exciting for players that would be drawn to a poker based table game. I don't think it would get much play after the novelty wore off.

2) It adds complication to the dealing procedure because you are really playing two games together and the players may go back and forth between which bet to make......I think that is a dealer's nightmare, but actual dealers can chime in here.

3) Finally, and most importantly, I don't think the Dare Devil bet offers the players much. The odds payouts are certainly better, but with the Five Card Raise 2X option, I have twice as much on my play bet than is on the Dare Devil bet. I guess I don't see the any reason to play the Dare Devil bet unless you are planning on getting one pair and having it hold up against a 7 card dealer hand. That doesn't seem like a great opportunity to me.

The game doesn't need the Dare Devil component and I query what could be done with the additional house edge by eliminating it to strengthen the main game of Ante, Five Cards, 1X or 2X with the choice of no cards or 2 more drawn cards. That game all by itself with a bonus bet is a winner.

That's all good feedback. After I wrote it up I started reconsidering, and I think you're probably right. But what do you think of the name "Daredevil"? I haven't come up with anything better.

Dare Devil could work, it may be too extreme, but has potential.

I would want you focused on what else can you do pay table-wise etc. taking away the Dare Devil option......a new name/idea may come out of using that recovered HE in the game.

Once the game is set in stone, math complete on the final version, then you can focus on name/logo/branding.

All that said, I think you have a winner here if the IP path is clean and their aren't any lurking infringement issues. I know you are good at that side of the business, so confidence is high :-).

Sorry, ME, I think the Daredevil bet is not attractive. There's no decision point, just blind luck. But I like the Daredevil Stud name; you're still being a Daredevil if you bet your 5 card hand against the 7 dealer cards, in the Evel Kneivel sense, if not in the Marvel Comics blind superhero sense.

Quote: MathExtremist

That's all good feedback. After I wrote it up I started reconsidering, and I think you're probably right. But what do you think of the name "Daredevil"? I haven't come up with anything better.

I dislike the DareDevil name. I think it has negative connotations.

Quote: DRich

I dislike the DareDevil name. I think it has negative connotations.

What about Double Dog Dare?

Quote: allinriverking

What about Double Dog Dare?

I'm really wracking my brains on the name issue, mostly because I'm now convinced the gameplay is solid without the Daredevil/no-strategy bet and now it's time to do some marketing materials.

I think Double Dog Dare has one too many words in it if the last word is going to be either Poker or Stud, but that hasn't stopped other games with long names. Ultimate Texas Hold'em is pretty long, syllable-wise. Maybe Double Dare Poker?

I've had several people point out that the name doesn't really matter. "Caribbean Stud" doesn't mean anything, neither does "Mississippi Stud," and a name like "Four Card Poker" is just telling you how many cards you'll get. I could do something similar, as Stephen suggested, and call it "Five or Seven Stud" but that seems like an afterthought. Maybe "Plus Two Poker" is better, but that still seems generic.

Here's what I've got so far:
Longshot or Underdog Poker (or Stud). Some people like betting on longshots or underdogs, others see a negative connotation.
Slingshot Stud, suggested by Paradigm as a reference to David vs. Goliath. Similar intention to Underdog. There are lots of other underdog-type military victories throughout history, including the victory by the Maccabees over the Syrians that gave rise to the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, but Hanukkah already has a gambling game associated with it. And I'm certainly not calling the game Maccabee Poker.
Daredevil Poker / Stud. Perhaps too extreme, but anyone with a religious objection to the word "devil" isn't likely to be in a casino anyway, and many slot games use devil symbols.
Dare or Draw Poker / Dare or Draw Stud. Doesn't roll off the tongue as well as Daredevil or Slingshot but is perhaps more related to the fundamental choice in the game.
Truth or Dare Poker. You can "dare" the dealer to beat you or you can draw two more cards and find out the "truth" of your side bet. Perhaps too much of a stretch, but the name is catchy and would likely get a lot of younger players to try it out even though it has nothing to do with the actual "truth or dare" game.
Double Dare Poker, see above. Could be problematic due to the TV game show of the similar name.
Geographic names like Portland Poker or Stumptown Stud. They don't mean anything but they're alliterative. Not that I have to name the game based on where I live; I could call it Saskatoon Stud or Peruvian Poker. Lunar Poker got placements, after all.
Two Rivers Poker / Twin Rivers Poker. Babs suggested this as a geographic name, but you could also interpret drawing the two cards as getting "two rivers". There's a casino called Twin Rivers in Rhode Island...
Runner Runner Stud, similar idea as above.
Double Tap Poker. Guns and poker seem to go back a ways, and the hand signal for drawing could be tapping twice on the table to get your two cards.

I'm all tapped out for now, no pun intended. Any feedback, good or bad, is welcomed.

How about Blind Man's Bluff ?

Quote: Buzzard

How about Blind Man's Bluff ?

Not for this game, but if you and I work on another poker game together it's going to be called Buzzard's Bluff.