gordonm888
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
• Posts: 2367
Thanks for this post from:
February 9th, 2019 at 12:00:28 PM permalink
Quote: miplet

Here is my return table for Q532 all different suits:

HandOutcomeDealer QualifyPaysCombinationsProb.Return
High CardWinNo053970.3120374650
High CardTieNo-1260.001503238-0.001503238
High CardLoseNo-215460.089384829-0.178769658
High CardLoseYes-3103270.597074468-1.791223404
Total 172961-1.9714963

Folding is -2 so you play this hand.

1. BTW, Q532 with two suits, such as Qh5h3d2d would have an even lower EV than Q532 rainbow because with two suits there is a higher probability of a dealer making a flush. Probably closer to about -1.98.*

2. The reason that Q532 is so significantly better than JT87 is because the Q in your hand deprives the dealer of a card that will (almost certainly) beat you if it appears in the dealer's hand.

*Edit: actually the calculation in my head is that I expect Qh5h3d2d to be about -1.975. The two suited hand will result in the dealer having about 22 additional combinations that make a flush, but only about 30% of those will promote a losing hand to a winner; thus the EV should be greater than the EV of the rainbow hand by 0.3*22/c(49,3) which I think is about 0.3*0.0011. So -1.9715 + 0.0033 is about -1.975. That's how I do the calc when I am standing at the table. : 0
Last edited by: gordonm888 on Feb 9, 2019
So many better men, a few of them friends, were dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things lived on, and so did I.
miplet

Joined: Dec 1, 2009
• Posts: 1935
February 9th, 2019 at 12:38:19 PM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

1. BTW, Q532 with two suits, such as Qh5h3d2d would have an even lower EV than Q532 rainbow because with two suits there is a higher probability of a dealer making a flush. Probably closer to about -1.98.*

2. The reason that Q532 is so significantly better than JT87 is because the Q in your hand deprives the dealer of a card that will (almost certainly) beat you if it appears in the dealer's hand.

*Edit: actually the calculation in my head is that I expect Qh5h3d2d to be about -1.975. The two suited hand will result in the dealer having about 22 additional combinations that make a flush, but only about 30% of those will promote a losing hand to a winner; thus the EV should be greater than the EV of the rainbow hand by 0.3*22/c(49,3) which I think is about 0.3*0.0011. So -1.9715 + 0.0033 is about -1.975. That's how I do the calc when I am standing at the table. : 0

Here is the exact return table for Qh5h3d2d:
HandOutcomeDealer QualifyPaysCombinationsProb.Return
High CardWinNo053880.3115171140
High CardTieNo-1250.001445421-0.001445421
High CardLoseNo-215390.088980111-0.177960222
High CardLoseYes-3103440.598057354-1.794172063
Total 172961-1.973577706
“Man Babes” #AxelFabulous
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
• Posts: 8623
Thanks for this post from:
February 9th, 2019 at 12:50:01 PM permalink
I played the game on my labtop for a few minutes and thought it was pretty fun. I would expect it to be popular in the casino.
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
• Posts: 1316
February 9th, 2019 at 1:11:39 PM permalink
Quote: RS

I played the game on my labtop for a few minutes and thought it was pretty fun. I would expect it to be popular in the casino.

Thank you for that RS.
.
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
• Posts: 1316
Thanks for this post from:
February 9th, 2019 at 2:07:11 PM permalink
Do you all think the rules are clear enough and like the look of this player space layout? I am hoping the placement of the rules in between the Ante and Play wager circles will avoid any confusion on the Ante must beat the dealer rule.

.
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
• Posts: 14214
February 9th, 2019 at 3:15:22 PM permalink
I'm not loving the phrasing on the ante spot.

Are you using the center table arc/banner for any of that? I would want the arc to say Dealer qualifies with King high or better. Then not put it on the player spots.

Must beat dealer to win, whether dealer qualifies or not. It doesn't say that on UTH, but everyone seems to get it.

I don't know why it has to say" *Only highest event pays " twice. Could just say *Only highest event pays bonuses once.

"1x Ante" under Play would do it.

Sorry, Brent, it just seems busy and redundant.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
• Posts: 1316
Thanks for this post from:
February 9th, 2019 at 3:37:35 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

I'm not loving the phrasing on the ante spot.

Are you using the center table arc/banner for any of that? I would want the arc to say Dealer qualifies with King high or better. Then not put it on the player spots.

Must beat dealer to win, whether dealer qualifies or not. It doesn't say that on UTH, but everyone seems to get it.

I don't know why it has to say" *Only highest event pays " twice. Could just say *Only highest event pays bonuses once.

"1x Ante" under Play would do it.

Sorry, Brent, it just seems busy and redundant.

This is the first round. I never like using the arch as I like showcasing the logo.

I want feedback to see what needs to be changed. Need other eyes like yours and everyone for that. No need to apologize! I am having the "1x Ante" change made to draw less attention, removing the "highest event pays" language as I agree and am minimizing the language a bit in between the Ante/Play wager circles and will see how that looks. That will be the first batch of changes.

This is what the Table looks like at the moment

.
Last edited by: mrsuit31 on Feb 9, 2019
.
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
• Posts: 5994
Thanks for this post from:
February 9th, 2019 at 9:55:02 PM permalink
Played this for awhile and liked it. Of course the game will mar!etc to existing 3CP and 4CP players. The bonus bet I think people will like, especially the 200-500 unit payoffs, such that they will gladly accept losing the pair and for that chance.

It looks like there is an introduction of a number of new games that force you to take a high variance wager in order to offer better rules for the player. Obviously the math and the pay table has to work out but it offers a much more interesting push table and significantly more play opportunities.

This game is a winner. A couple of thoughts on the bonus bet:
- you could offer a payout on a four card two pair at say 2:1
,- you couple progressive the jackpot bets to make them more exciting and have a 25% payout for 4ofak and the full meter for the 4 card royal and mandate the bet at \$5.

Good work.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
mrsuit31
Joined: May 29, 2010
• Posts: 1316
Thanks for this post from:
February 9th, 2019 at 10:07:08 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

Played this for awhile and liked it. Of course the game will mar!etc to existing 3CP and 4CP players. The bonus bet I think people will like, especially the 200-500 unit payoffs, such that they will gladly accept losing the pair and for that chance.

It looks like there is an introduction of a number of new games that force you to take a high variance wager in order to offer better rules for the player. Obviously the math and the pay table has to work out but it offers a much more interesting push table and significantly more play opportunities.

This game is a winner. A couple of thoughts on the bonus bet:
- you could offer a payout on a four card two pair at say 2:1
,- you couple progressive the jackpot bets to make them more exciting and have a 25% payout for 4ofak and the full meter for the 4 card royal and mandate the bet at \$5.

Good work.

Thank you!

I had originally fiddled with the two pair payoff in the Royal Family wager but in the end decided it really isn't a good hand in this game (only a pair in the grand scheme) so didn’t think it really fit the overall feel to the game. That said, it can always be added depending on what I hear from live players.

The progressive is an option and is included in the patent application. There are a few options. I can incorporate something like you describe, can incorporate a seven card (player 4 + dealer 3) or can incorporate the top pays for the busted monsters as well. There is a lot of versatility to this one, the key and hopeful factor being “once the game is established and accepted”.

Keeping my fingers crossed, but the feedback has been overwhelming positive (with a few exceptions, but very few) so far. I should be able to release trial info already within the next few weeks :)
.
jackmagic777
Joined: Jan 11, 2019