VP game: quick opinion poll
Poll
 | 9 votes (75%) | ||
| | 3 votes (25%) |
12 members have voted
Royal Replay: pays on 3-to-a-royal or better This version has higher volatility but much fatter awards.
Royal Replay: pays on 2-to-a-royal or better Lower volatility, far higher hit frequency.
Your feedback is appreciated, thanks.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm prepping my patented VP game for a few demonstrations but I'm not sure which paytable is best. Of the two versions below, which do you like better?
Royal Replay: pays on 3-to-a-royal or better This version has higher volatility but much fatter awards.
Royal Replay: pays on 2-to-a-royal or better Lower volatility, far higher hit frequency.
Your feedback is appreciated, thanks.
This is a terrific game, in general, I'm going to be between this and RealizeGaming's Bonus Discard all night!!!
The first thing I should mention is that the game still does not allow for the player to choose which cards are held toward the Royal hand, will your game allow the player to do that in the live version?
Secondly, I think the Three-to-a-Royal pay table is the superior pay table. I understand the Variance is greater, but I think what you are really trying to do with this game is take some of the sting away from a player who gets close to a Royal but misses it, I've never personally lamented missing a Two-Royal draw, so it just seems that anything greater than Three-Royal gets away from the very purpose that makes the game great.
Ac Jc 10s Qs 3h
I don't like the fact that ONE 2-card royal pays... I should get both, with the draw of 1 card.
Quote: 98ClubsHand as Dealt in a 2-Royal Game...
Ac Jc 10s Qs 3h
I don't like the fact that ONE 2-card royal pays... I should get both, with the draw of 1 card.
But then you can't hit the royal...
I could see a player getting annoyed if, for instance, he has Three-to-a-Royal, say he need a Ten and Ace and he gets one on top and the other on the bottom. Besides, while remote, 1:2209 assuming dealt four-to-a-Royal, the possibility of hitting a Royal on both hands would be really cool, especially for someone who doesn't know how rare that would be.
Quote: Mission146This is a terrific game, in general, I'm going to be between this and RealizeGaming's Bonus Discard all night!!!
The first thing I should mention is that the game still does not allow for the player to choose which cards are held toward the Royal hand, will your game allow the player to do that in the live version?
I'm thinking about letting the player select their lucky suit and having larger pays for wins in that suit. Ex: 3/4/5 to a royal pays 40/125/4000 in non-lucky suit, 60/400/20,000 in lucky suit. A lucky-suit royal makes for a good progressive trigger, too.
But that's a lot more coding so I didn't do that just yet.
Would the lucky suit Royal apply if the selected Royal hits on either hand, or just the Replay hand?
Quote: Mission146
I could see a player getting annoyed if, for instance, he has Three-to-a-Royal, say he need a Ten and Ace and he gets one on top and the other on the bottom. Besides, while remote, 1:2209 assuming dealt four-to-a-Royal, the possibility of hitting a Royal on both hands would be really cool, especially for someone who doesn't know how rare that would be.
I think we definitely need to have the draw aspect be from two separate decks, but maybe some people will disagree with me. I just had a hand in which JQ (Spades) was the best hold and the first card on the bottom hand was a low card while the second two were the Ace and Ten of Spades and I exclaimed at the game, "You incestuous fornicator with a strong maternal preference!!!" The reason is because it immediately occurs to you that, not only have you lost the bottom hand, but you can now do no better than Three-to-a-Royal up top.
I would prefer the decks are separate with the same cards missing also, rather than sharing the deck. I had a royal between the two hands, holding the same 2 cards as the royal w/ optimal strategy, and got the ace in the main hand, the other 2 in the second. That was Juuuust a bit frustrating. However, if that kills the paytables, keep on with the single deck.
Overall impression very positive on the game, Stacey; a great twist. I think it will sell well. Good luck with the pitch!
Quote: Mission146How important to the game math is it that both hands draw from the same deck? Is there any way to have a second deck "remove," the starting cards and then conduct a new draw with the base hand being completed from the original deck and the second hand being completed from a new deck with the base cards removed? Would that screw up the math too badly?
I could see a player getting annoyed if, for instance, he has Three-to-a-Royal, say he need a Ten and Ace and he gets one on top and the other on the bottom. Besides, while remote, 1:2209 assuming dealt four-to-a-Royal, the possibility of hitting a Royal on both hands would be really cool, especially for someone who doesn't know how rare that would be.
Both hands don't have to draw from the same deck at all. It turns out that's the way the demo works because I'm expedient (or lazy) but the RTP doesn't change at all. What changes are the odds of winners in both the main and Replay hands; if the draws are both done from separate decks (with the 5 initial cards removed) it's possible to have both hit but either is individually slightly less likely. It's always been my intention to use separate drawing decks with the paytables I presented.
I'm also working on (and have patented) an approach where if you draw to a royal on your main hand and it improves, you get to use the improvements in the Replay hand. That means if you hit a royal on the main hand, you're guaranteed to hit it on the Replay hand, but if you miss a royal draw below you can still hit it above.
Quote: US 8,403,737Example 4, using the best-cards-to-a-royal in the final main hand rather than the initial hand:
1) Side bet paytable is 20,000-to-1 for royal flush, 0 otherwise. Player makes 5 coin main wager and 1 coin side wager.
2) Player's initial hand is Kc Ac Qc 7h 7s. Above this, in smaller cards, is a copy of the hand.
3) Player holds Kc Ac Qc and presses draw button
4) 7h 7s are discarded and replaced with Tc 3c for a final hand of Kc Ac Qc Tc 3—a flush, but also 4-to-a-royal.
5) Because the player improved the chances to a royal on the draw (four cards to a royal vs. the initial three cards), the smaller copy of the final hand is played out as Kc Ac Qc Tc is held, 3c is discarded and replaced randomly. If the Jc is drawn, the side bet would win.
This example uses an all-or-nothing paytable, but I'd expect to use a 2- or 3-to-a-royal paytable like the two examples I've already shown. This version would require additional analysis that I haven't done yet, and it would involve slightly lower payouts but probably be more fun.
Quote: Mission146Lucky suit Royal would be a great feature for a Progressive, I agree wholeheartedly.
Would the lucky suit Royal apply if the selected Royal hits on either hand, or just the Replay hand?
It could be either, but changing the base game would change other strategy choices. And then you'd be expecting flushes and straight flushes in your lucky suit to pay more too, and then things get wonky. If lucky suit is spades and you have 8h 8s 9s 3s 4c, what do you hold? If a flush pays enough, you hold 3-flush instead of the pair. So I tend to think unequal suits on the base game is a bad idea. On the Replay hand, where you're not actively making any strategy decisions, it's a different story. You're still holding the cards that give you the best draw to a royal flush, with ties going to your lucky suit. So As Js Kc Tc 5h would hold As Js, but if it were As Js Kc Tc Ac, you're holding 3-to-a-royal (and getting paid).
Quote: MathExtremist
Both hands don't have to draw from the same deck at all. It turns out that's the way the demo works because I'm expedient (or lazy) but the RTP doesn't change at all. What changes are the odds of winners in both the main and Replay hands; if the draws are both done from separate decks (with the 5 initial cards removed) it's possible to have both hit but either is individually slightly less likely. It's always been my intention to use separate drawing decks with the paytables I presented.
I'm sorry, what did you say? I'm too busy playing this game! Seriously, though, it's awesome and will be much better with this change. It's even annoying on hands like 2c-2d-As-10s-Jc because you hold the deuces and pull one of the JsQsKs, which is probably going to be unrelated to the Deuces, but you know it screws your hand up top.
Quote:I'm also working on (and have patented) an approach where if you draw to a royal on your main hand and it improves, you get to use the improvements in the Replay hand. That means if you hit a royal on the main hand, you're guaranteed to hit it on the Replay hand, but if you miss a royal draw below you can still hit it above.
This example uses an all-or-nothing paytable, but I'd expect to use a 2- or 3-to-a-royal paytable like the two examples I've already shown. This version would require additional analysis that I haven't done yet, and it would involve slightly lower payouts but probably be more fun.
I don't know, I look at the game as taking the sting off of missed Royal draws rather than essentially being a side bet in and of itself. I understand that it plays as a side bet, either way, but I like the simplicity of the current game.
EDIT: I agree with everything in your post immediately before this one about the Progressive.
Quote: beachbumbabsI would prefer the decks are separate with the same cards missing also, rather than sharing the deck. I had a royal between the two hands, holding the same 2 cards as the royal w/ optimal strategy, and got the ace in the main hand, the other 2 in the second. That was Juuuust a bit frustrating.
Quote: Mission146I'm sorry, what did you say? I'm too busy playing this game! Seriously, though, it's awesome and will be much better with this change. It's even annoying on hands like 2c-2d-As-10s-Jc because you hold the deuces and pull one of the JsQsKs, which is probably going to be unrelated to the Deuces, but you know it screws your hand up top.
Keeping me honest?
Ok, fixed. The Replay cards are now drawn from a separate deck, minus the initial 5 cards. I just did this, so please let me know if something crashes...
Although you may not want to do it because it might confuse the casual player, but you could offer both paytables as a selectable option.
The math dork in me is curious to know the payback/variance of each version currently if you're willing to share.
Quote: MathExtremistKeeping me honest?
Ok, fixed. The Replay cards are now drawn from a separate deck, minus the initial 5 cards. I just did this, so please let me know if something crashes...
I don't think it worked, I paid no attention to the cards initially dealt and re-drew all five cards just to test it and not a single drawn card from the bottom hand matched a single drawn card from the top hand in fifty hands.
EDIT: I had closed the page and re-navigated to it and it still wasn't doing it, but after I refreshed a few times, it is.
Quote: MathExtremistKeeping me honest?
Ok, fixed. The Replay cards are now drawn from a separate deck, minus the initial 5 cards. I just did this, so please let me know if something crashes...
So, ok, I've played another 200 hands on the 3TAR (my definite favorite) with no bugs noted after the deck change. Really an attractive game; I think you're going to have a hit with this. Well done, ME!
