Thread Rating:

Poll

3 votes (23.07%)
3 votes (23.07%)
7 votes (53.84%)
4 votes (30.76%)
5 votes (38.46%)
8 votes (61.53%)
No votes (0%)
3 votes (23.07%)
4 votes (30.76%)

13 members have voted

Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 11738
September 23rd, 2018 at 3:41:38 PM permalink
Quote: RealizeGaming

You make a great point Mission146. The autopicker only thinks one pick into the future because the game requires you win in order to keep playing with the current built up string hand. The 99.1% return is based off of 1 billion simulations of the game using the DDB strategy and the programmed logic used by the autopicker. Click on the "I" button in the demo to see some more information about the return and if you have any other questions about it, please post them and we will try to get them answered for you.



Thanks for answering that! When it comes to the 99.1% return, then, does the return not assume that a player with As Ks 7h up top on a five card hand such as:

Jh Js Qs 5d 7h

Would hold JJQ in order to get the 50x multiplier for the following hand? I don't know what DDB strategy the simulation is using, but it occurs to me that it might not account for certain situations in which holding a card that would otherwise make no sense (to go to the top hand) makes sense. It also may not account for those borderline situations where it is better to maximize probability of winning over expected return.

For example, on a hand such as:

6s Jc 2d 3d 5d

On a certain multiplier, would Jc not become a better hold than 2-3-5 given the much greater probability of catching ANY winning hand holding the Jack and then getting the multiplier again for another hand, or perhaps multiple additional hands? Did the simulation consider that?


Quote:

I don't think the autopicker is that bad based on the game, although I do agree with the majority of player that some of the logic pertaining to flushes and straight flushes could be improved. I do like the idea of letting the player pick the cards and maybe that would be very doable, but I think players would only play it for real money if they had some experience with it. I don't think they would just be walking through the casino and take a chance on it because it would come across as too complicated for a new player.



If it takes away cards that set up three-card Royal draws for absolutely no reason, unfortunately, that's not very good.

You'd be surprised what people would play even though they have no idea what they are doing. I have seen some baffling holds just on regular Video Poker.
Vultures can't be choosers.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 11738
Thanks for this post from:
VladAlex1RealizeGaming
September 23rd, 2018 at 4:03:06 PM permalink
Quote: RealizeGaming



Mission148, no need to feel bad about posting your thoughts. I seriously have no problems with anyone's thoughts and feedback and I encourage people to post them because it can only help me in the long run.



Awesome, thanks! I'm glad there are no hard feelings. I generally enjoy the vast majority of your games and you take feedback extremely well! Multidraw Poker is terrific!

Quote:

I understand what you are saying about the jackpot liability. It may be unrealistic to expect a casino to be willing to payout such a high amount. The current math model we use for the game allows the game to be very high risk-high reward, but it could be adjusted very easily to make it a "safer" game for the casino. We had one version of the game where the pair didn't reward a multiplier and the multipliers we used were much lower. We also had a very low multiplier for the dealt royal and the build up royal. These arrangements helped us to get the game down to a much smaller starting wager and lowered the maximum jackpot. My point is we have a starting point that can be adjusted in a number of ways to meet any desired RTP. We've had a number of meetings with companies who told us they are not concerned with the math being perfect as long as we have some basis for what we are doing. The companies told us they have a number of dedicated mathematicians who can do all that work. I agree because we have a number of different models we can use with the game.



The only problem is that the casinos are generally risk-averse, especially more local ones. That's why you have Craps tables with Table Limits of $1,000. In terms of VP & Slots, the volatility is on both sides. The casinos want to see the machines just print money and they get scared when they don't, especially if they don't know that the game will draw enough action to get the casino into the, "Long Run." Imagine the first play was a dealt three-card Royal that eventually led to a five-card Royal, at a 1% House Edge, it takes 1.6 Million hands at the expected loss to make up for that. That's 2,000 playing hours at 800 HPH, which can take greater or lesser amounts of actual hours to hit depending on how popular the game is.

I definitely would have the math ready for a, "Safer," version if I was going to present this to a casino. Of course, the only way to really do that would be to get rid of the 100x multiplier on the dealt three-card royal, which my understanding is you wanted to keep.

I don't like the idea of the pair not rewarding a multiplier because now your hit rate for any multiplier drops below 10%. A player could go many hands without hitting any multipliers and, when they finally do, the multipliers may not help a whole lot. Whatever the gimmick is on a game, I definitely think it should be something that the player gets to have the opportunity to experience as much as possible.

I don't dislike the 50x or 100x multipliers, per se. I actually like them, just not necessarily in conjunction with the theoretically unlimited number of hands in a row they could be played on.


Quote:

Your suggestions:

1. We have played around with this concept and it would definitely work as you stated. Providing the extra hands without requiring a wager would allow us to drop the initial wager down to a more player friendly version. Keeping the same dealt string hand for the entire round without allowing the game to upgrade it would also be another way to make things work.


2. Another great thought that we talked about. I do like this option because it keeps the high multipliers and lowers the initial wager to the player. It kind of proves that there are a number of math models that could be used to make the game work. Unfortunately, there may be way too many potential models that could be used.


*I'm not worried about removing the "streak" component of the game, even though I actually like it because it's different. Our next game called Lightning Poker takes advantage of that concept!

*Thanks for taking the time to respond. I do appreciate it.



1.) Sweet! I honestly think it eliminates two headaches:

-Getting the three-card string feature to be optimal

AND

-The fact that, even if Optimal, the three-card string feature might put a new card up there that the player doesn't like.

2.) Thanks! I don't think that there are too many potential models, it's really just a question of whether or not you want to prioritize:

-High Multipliers
-Lower Bet Amounts
-One Bet Paying for Multiple Hands
-Multiplier Frequency
-Whether or not the Three-Card Hand can Improve

So, really, you're talking about the difference between entirely different games, but that's a good thing. More games are better than fewer games and, just like they did with games such as Ultimate X (and other initial multiplier games) you can take the same basic concept and apply it to multiple entirely new games.

Super Times Pay and Hot Roll Poker, for instance, are really the same fundamental thing, but they are two totally different games.

I think the first option gets the base bet under control without eliminating the, "Streak," option. My ultimate problem with the current version is that the probability of a net losing play is just entirely too high, it's tough to even win 2x the bet.

You're welcome, it's always fun talking with you!
Vultures can't be choosers.
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 483
September 24th, 2018 at 2:49:41 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Thanks for answering that! When it comes to the 99.1% return, then, does the return not assume that a player with As Ks 7h up top on a five card hand such as:

Jh Js Qs 5d 7h

Would hold JJQ in order to get the 50x multiplier for the following hand? I don't know what DDB strategy the simulation is using, but it occurs to me that it might not account for certain situations in which holding a card that would otherwise make no sense (to go to the top hand) makes sense. It also may not account for those borderline situations where it is better to maximize probability of winning over expected return.

For example, on a hand such as:

6s Jc 2d 3d 5d

On a certain multiplier, would Jc not become a better hold than 2-3-5 given the much greater probability of catching ANY winning hand holding the Jack and then getting the multiplier again for another hand, or perhaps multiple additional hands? Did the simulation consider that?


If it takes away cards that set up three-card Royal draws for absolutely no reason, unfortunately, that's not very good.

You'd be surprised what people would play even though they have no idea what they are doing. I have seen some baffling holds just on regular Video Poker.



Mission148,

I'll try to answer this the best I can. My math guys may be able to correct me if I'm saying the wrong things here. Since the RTP was based on a billion simulations, the five card hand follows the strategy for DDB and will hold only those cards that would be held if playing a regular five card game. It doesn't take into consideration what other cards could/should be held to improve the string hand because it only sees one hand in the future and follows the understanding that it must win in the main hand in order to upgrade or use the string hand. I don't have the correct answer for whether or not it should look at the other cards if the hand is already a winning hand, but from previous conversations with players most people will look at the other cards in the hand if they have a guaranteed win. The autopicker doesn't do that.
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 483
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
September 24th, 2018 at 4:44:03 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146




2.) Thanks! I don't think that there are too many potential models, it's really just a question of whether or not you want to prioritize:

-High Multipliers
-Lower Bet Amounts
-One Bet Paying for Multiple Hands
-Multiplier Frequency
-Whether or not the Three-Card Hand can Improve



I think you pretty much covered the majority of options for the game and I can see any of these working very well with the game. It goes back to my original thought that the game can be adjusted in a number of ways. I could also see some company taking the concept of the game and offering all these various options very similar to what MultiStrike did with their game. The game still played the base game with the concept of winning to go to the next round, but they added a number of features to the game to satisfy a wide range of players.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 11738
September 24th, 2018 at 4:50:48 PM permalink
Quote: RealizeGaming

Mission148,

I'll try to answer this the best I can. My math guys may be able to correct me if I'm saying the wrong things here. Since the RTP was based on a billion simulations, the five card hand follows the strategy for DDB and will hold only those cards that would be held if playing a regular five card game. It doesn't take into consideration what other cards could/should be held to improve the string hand because it only sees one hand in the future and follows the understanding that it must win in the main hand in order to upgrade or use the string hand. I don't have the correct answer for whether or not it should look at the other cards if the hand is already a winning hand, but from previous conversations with players most people will look at the other cards in the hand if they have a guaranteed win. The autopicker doesn't do that.



I would say that there are a few VP games upon which the best hold for the base game is not the best hold for a particular variation, and this one would be no exception. Ultimately, it really just makes 99.1% a minimum case Optimal RTP.
Vultures can't be choosers.
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 483
Thanks for this post from:
MrCasinoGamesVladAlex1
September 25th, 2018 at 2:43:52 PM permalink
We have an update to the game based on some of the early feedback regarding which cards are used to upgrade the string hand. Babs and LoquaciousMoFo's examples are used to test some of the errors they mentioned. To test their example, make sure to choose the pull down for both the string and main hands to make sure they are matching. After the deal, click to hold all cards and notice what the autopicker is choosing to place in the string hand. You can also test any other hands you have an interest in. We think we are close with the flush-straight flush logic for the autopicker, so if you notice anything else, please let me know.



Try the test hands here:
http://www.realizegamingllc.com/dev/stringPoker/
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 95
  • Posts: 13085
Thanks for this post from:
VladAlex1
September 25th, 2018 at 8:10:01 PM permalink
Quote: RealizeGaming

We have an update to the game based on some of the early feedback regarding which cards are used to upgrade the string hand. Babs and LoquaciousMoFo's examples are used to test some of the errors they mentioned. To test their example, make sure to choose the pull down for both the string and main hands to make sure they are matching. After the deal, click to hold all cards and notice what the autopicker is choosing to place in the string hand. You can also test any other hands you have an interest in. We think we are close with the flush-straight flush logic for the autopicker, so if you notice anything else, please let me know.



Try the test hands here:
http://www.realizegamingllc.com/dev/stringPoker/



Ok. I'm vain enough to spend some time on something with my name on it. Lol...

I played for about an hour. I only saw one very minor issue (math-wise) Top hand 36Jc. Bottom hand Kc9cKh etc. Game replaced the 6c with the 9c. Should have been the Kc. Equal value this hand, more value overall because game can progress that to a RF. Not that it would have on that actual hand.

When game evaluates 2 cards to be equally valuable, it seems to select the left-most to move up. I think the 9c was left of the Kc, and I expect if the cards were slotted the other way, it would have selected the Kc.

Otherwise logic is much stronger. Good follow-up, guys!
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
LoquaciousMoFW
LoquaciousMoFW
Joined: Aug 24, 2014
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 65
Thanks for this post from:
VladAlex1
September 25th, 2018 at 8:43:37 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

[
Ok. I'm vain enough to spend some time on something with my name on it. Lol...

I played for about an hour. I only saw one very minor issue (math-wise) Top hand 36Jc. Bottom hand Kc9cKh etc. Game replaced the 6c with the 9c. Should have been the Kc. Equal value this hand, more value overall because game can progress that to a RF. Not that it would have on that actual hand.

When game evaluates 2 cards to be equally valuable, it seems to select the left-most to move up. I think the 9c was left of the Kc, and I expect if the cards were slotted the other way, it would have selected the Kc.

Otherwise logic is much stronger. Good follow-up, guys!



Heh, apparently I'm vain too, but only a half-hours worth, so only half as vain as BBB ;-)
I agree that the pick'em procedure is much more robust. Previously, I'd often rage-quit in about 30 minutes, but didn't encounter a quit-inducing error this session.
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 483
September 26th, 2018 at 2:27:34 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: RealizeGaming

We have an update to the game based on some of the early feedback regarding which cards are used to upgrade the string hand. Babs and LoquaciousMoFo's examples are used to test some of the errors they mentioned. To test their example, make sure to choose the pull down for both the string and main hands to make sure they are matching. After the deal, click to hold all cards and notice what the autopicker is choosing to place in the string hand. You can also test any other hands you have an interest in. We think we are close with the flush-straight flush logic for the autopicker, so if you notice anything else, please let me know.



Try the test hands here:
http://www.realizegamingllc.com/dev/stringPoker/



Ok. I'm vain enough to spend some time on something with my name on it. Lol...

I played for about an hour. I only saw one very minor issue (math-wise) Top hand 36Jc. Bottom hand Kc9cKh etc. Game replaced the 6c with the 9c. Should have been the Kc. Equal value this hand, more value overall because game can progress that to a RF. Not that it would have on that actual hand.

When game evaluates 2 cards to be equally valuable, it seems to select the left-most to move up. I think the 9c was left of the Kc, and I expect if the cards were slotted the other way, it would have selected the Kc.

Otherwise logic is much stronger. Good follow-up, guys!



Thanks Babs! We apologize for taking advantage of your vain personality trait, but we are happy you had a chance to go back and give it some play.

Keep an eye on this thread as we may be updating a few more deal possibilities to test the autopicker. We think we caught most of them, but there might be some others that people find, so please post if you find anything.
RealizeGaming
RealizeGaming
Joined: Aug 1, 2013
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 483
September 26th, 2018 at 2:28:55 PM permalink
Quote: LoquaciousMoFW

Quote: beachbumbabs

[
Ok. I'm vain enough to spend some time on something with my name on it. Lol...

I played for about an hour. I only saw one very minor issue (math-wise) Top hand 36Jc. Bottom hand Kc9cKh etc. Game replaced the 6c with the 9c. Should have been the Kc. Equal value this hand, more value overall because game can progress that to a RF. Not that it would have on that actual hand.

When game evaluates 2 cards to be equally valuable, it seems to select the left-most to move up. I think the 9c was left of the Kc, and I expect if the cards were slotted the other way, it would have selected the Kc.

Otherwise logic is much stronger. Good follow-up, guys!



Heh, apparently I'm vain too, but only a half-hours worth, so only half as vain as BBB ;-)
I agree that the pick'em procedure is much more robust. Previously, I'd often rage-quit in about 30 minutes, but didn't encounter a quit-inducing error this session.




LoquaciousMoFW, we have no issues with vain players. Thanks for helping us out. We really appreciate it.

  • Jump to: