New Video Poker Game
Poll
 | 15 votes (68.18%) | ||
| | 1 vote (4.54%) | ||
| | 4 votes (18.18%) | ||
| | 2 votes (9.09%) |
22 members have voted
You can play the game by going to Juicy Deck Poker
Briefly, the game works as follows:-
1-5 coins will result in playing the regular game of 'Jacks or better'
6-10 coins will activate the 'Juicy Deck' feature - the more coins played then the more times you get the feature
6 coins ... Average 1 in 30 spins
7 coins ... Average 1 in 15 spins
8 coins ... Average 1 in 10 spins
9 coins ... Average 1 in 7.5 spins
10 coins ..Average 1 in 6 spins
The 'Juicy Deck' feature will result in your next hand only being dealt from a 20-card stripped deck containing 10's, J's, Q's, K's and Aces.
Playing the full 10 coins will result in a 'Royal' being hit 1 in 1,206 rounds rather than 40,000+ rounds however, it does make the game very volatile. (I usually play 7 or 8 coins so I get a mix of volatility and enough hits on the feature).
Why not give it a spin? :-)
I rarely play slots. When I do, I play VP, usually on a 50 times or 100 times machine if I can find it.
I played the simulation, and got bored waiting to hit a juicy deck, then once I got it, I was perplexed what to do strategy-wise, with only 15 cards left to draw from.
Therefore, even if it was on a 100 times machine, I probably would not play it.
I can only think of two vendors who make a reasonable effort to compete in the VP space, at least in Nevada -- IGT and Bally. If it's neither of those, I'd be very curious as to who you're seeing.
The variance profile in the 10-coin version seems similar to Dream Card. I'm not sure how that's faring in the casinos; it's pretty new. I'd expect it'd be too rough a ride for most players, but who knows.
From the standpoint of attracting players, I think you need
a) to simplify - I don't think such a wide range of possible bets is necessary, and would just confuse newcomers. Pick whether you want it to be a 7-coin game, or a 10-coin game, or what. Maybe strip the deck to 24 cards instead of 20, including the 9s, if that would allow you to let the feature come up reasonably often in a 6-coin game. Add-a-coin-to-get-occasional-feature is well accepted and understood by the market thanks to Super Times Pay and others.
b) more pay lines - bonuses for low quads aren't a thematic fit with the juicy deck, but paying more for aces than other quads increases player interest, being dealt two or three aces becomes more interesting. Drop the full house and flush as needed to pay for it.
The concept has merit
Quote: DJTeddyBearI think it's interesting, but requires a whole different strategy when playing the juicy deck.
Yes, the 'Juicy deck' does require a different strategy but it's not that difficult to memorize (of course, you would need to find the strategy first to do that I suppose :-) ). The one that I remember is to discard 3 of a kind if you are dealt 3 to the 'Royal'.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm not so sure that a game with two modes is such a good idea. The strategy implications, as DJ mentioned, are pretty vast. Also, I don't think it's wise to have a game that offers 10-coins max but not have that the best option. You said you only play 7-8 because otherwise it's too volatile, and I understand that. You're basically playing a 49.77% game for 5 out of 6 hands, and then whatever the EV of the 6th hand is. I think it'd only take a few Juicy hands that didn't pay huge awards to turn off a player, because at that point they'd be significantly in the hole. I played for a bit, got two Juicy full houses, and then realized that was only 4.5x my bet. So it didn't actually bring my bankroll back the way hitting a regular full house normally would. I ended my session meaningfully down.
I can only think of two vendors who make a reasonable effort to compete in the VP space, at least in Nevada -- IGT and Bally. If it's neither of those, I'd be very curious as to who you're seeing.
All good points ME and this is why I have a big '?' when it comes to the overall game playability.
The volatility is down to having to subsidize the 'Royal' so much when playing with the 'Juicy Deck'. I thought about lowering the payout for a 'Juicy deck Royal' but then that would, IMO, deter players by not offering full odds. I did hit 2 Royals within 8 spins once but, as you stated, unless you hit something good your balance drops rapidly especially if you play 10 coins.
I have a meeting with an ex-IGT employee and I'm looking at developing the machine myself using a 3rd party supplier. I would only invest in this type of venture if I thought that the game had a reasonable chance AND I have looked at all possible ways for a final version.
I do have a very prominent 'Strip' casino that really likes this idea so a lot would be based on whether they would be prepared to install the machines if I produced the game.
Quote: fivespotI'd play it, but only after analyzing it thoroughly, of course. ;-)
The variance profile in the 10-coin version seems similar to Dream Card. I'm not sure how that's faring in the casinos; it's pretty new. I'd expect it'd be too rough a ride for most players, but who knows.
From the standpoint of attracting players, I think you need
a) to simplify - I don't think such a wide range of possible bets is necessary, and would just confuse newcomers. Pick whether you want it to be a 7-coin game, or a 10-coin game, or what. Maybe strip the deck to 24 cards instead of 20, including the 9s, if that would allow you to let the feature come up reasonably often in a 6-coin game. Add-a-coin-to-get-occasional-feature is well accepted and understood by the market thanks to Super Times Pay and others.
b) more pay lines - bonuses for low quads aren't a thematic fit with the juicy deck, but paying more for aces than other quads increases player interest, being dealt two or three aces becomes more interesting. Drop the full house and flush as needed to pay for it.
Some excellent points there Fivespot !! I am beginning to get the impression that I need to simplify the choices mainly so that it doesn't confuse the player.
I originally thought of including a 'roulette-style' wheel with 30 segments. This is because each additional coin gives you a further '1 in 30' chance of hitting the 'bonus' i.e. 6 coins 1 in 30, 7 coins 1 in 15 (30/2), 8 coins 1 in 10 (30/3) etc etc. So, each additional coin would light a 'JUICY DECK' segment on a wheel.
I considered having different types of 'Stripped Deck' - my first idea was to give varying types of 'Stripped Deck' depending on what win you achieved. So, for example, if you hit a flush then your next hand would be dealt from a 7-A 'Juicy Deck', 'Full House' would give '8-A' and '4 of a kind' would give '9-A'. However, I thought that this would be complicated - nevertheless, introducing a 9-A would be interesting if I kept it at that and I can also include the 'Straight Flush' by using that deck.
Rather than changing the type of 'Stripped Deck' I agree with you that it would be better to see what type of 'Stripped Deck' would be needed if it was a 6-coin game. I may well look into that if I continue to get feedback that suggests that I'm offering too many options.
I also like the paying more for 'Aces' concept as quite often you are dealt 2 or 3 Aces in the Juicy Deck round. I think that if the overall concept takes off then this extra payout would lend itself to versions such as 'Double Bonus' or 'Double Double Bonus' whereby you can raise one payout in return for reducing others.
Quote: JIMMYFOCKERA few pros have a bank of similar machines locked up currently at the Poker Palace in North Las Vegas.
The concept has merit
Thanks JF. I will have to make a trip to Poker Palace next month while I'm in Vegas. It will be interesting to see how the games are presented overall.
The underlying feeling I'm getting from the feedback is not to make the game too complicated and to perhaps reduce the volatility either by limiting the amount of extra coins or increasing the size of the 'Juicy Deck'.
I have the analysis on file but don't know how I can post a link to it here. The payback on the game ranges from around 99.3% - 99.86% depending on the number of coins played. Playing regular VP strategy on the 'Juicy Deck' costs the player 0.3% if I remember correctly. (PM me if you are interested in the strategy and house edge and I'll email you a copy).
I will be taking all feedback on board and this will hopefully allow me to throw several suggestions out during my meeting next month.
Quote: MathExtremist
I can only think of two vendors who make a reasonable effort to compete in the VP space, at least in Nevada -- IGT and Bally. If it's neither of those, I'd be very curious as to who you're seeing.
Is Bally's even puttin out VP anymore. I rareley ever see any of their machines anywhere. I can't think of anywhere I've seen a new one.
I hit a Royal Flush from the regular deck and a 4 of a kind. Also a 4 of a kind from the juicy deck.
All in about 10 minutes playing the 10 coin max.
I would like to see additional VP games like Deuces Wild and some of the bonus variants with a Juicy Deck feature. Would also be pretty cool to see this incorporated with a Super Times Pay mechanism!
Quote: CrystalMathI think I would play this, but my frustration is not understanding the strategy with the Juicy Deck. So, if I played, I would have to thorougly analyze the game and devise the best strategy. But the difference between me and the regular player is that I have the ability to analyze the game.
Here is the condensed strategy - hold the following in order:-
1. Royal Flush
2. Four to a Royal Flush
3. Four of a Kind
4. Three to a Royal Flush
5. Full House
6. Three of a Kind
7. Straight
8. Two Pair
9. Suited JQ, JK, JA, QK, QA, KA
10. Suited TJ, TQ, TK, TA
And there is one exception: Play #10 beats Play #9 if the hand includes a pair of Jacks or Better, and only spans 3 suits. For example, with Jh-Qh-Qc-Td-Ad, the best play is Td Ad, not Jh Qh.
So, it is correct to break up Two Pair as long as you have three to a Royal. It is never a correct play to discard everything, nor should you ever hold a pair (even Jacks or Better) because 2 to a Royal beats a pair.
Quote: ten2winThat was fun!
I hit a Royal Flush from the regular deck and a 4 of a kind. Also a 4 of a kind from the juicy deck.
All in about 10 minutes playing the 10 coin max.
I had similar luck to you ten2win (typical when it's play money :-) ). I hit a Royal with a regular deck and then hit another Royal 8 hands later with a 'Juicy deck'.
Quote: cardsharkI think this is a great game! I don't find it too complex at all. The fact that there are two different strategies keeps the game interesting. Multi-strike VP requires 4 different strategies.
I would like to see additional VP games like Deuces Wild and some of the bonus variants with a Juicy Deck feature. Would also be pretty cool to see this incorporated with a Super Times Pay mechanism!
Thanks for the nice comment cardshark. I think that it suits certain people's style of play and goes against others - I suppose I would be more than happy if even a relatively small % liked the game.
Super Times and Multi-line would be interesting. I'm just thinking of the cost of playing maximum lines on a 100 line machine - if you hit a Royal every 1,206 spins in the regular game then would that equate to every 12 spins on a 100-line game? Talk about volatility :-)
Quote: fivespot
From the standpoint of attracting players, I think you need
a) to simplify - I don't think such a wide range of possible bets is necessary, and would just confuse newcomers.
Another version that I thought of was to activate the 'Juicy Deck' every 6 hands (as in the 10 coin play) but to reduce the payout for the 'Royal' depending on the coins played. So, the player would be exposed to the 'Juicy deck' the same number of times regardless of coins played.
The Royal would reduce by 600 coins for each coin not played, so:-
10 coins - 4,000
9 coins - 3,400
8 coins - 2,800
7 coins - 2,200
6 coins - 1,600
This reduces the volatility but does not reduce the complexity that some posters pointed out.
I suppose I could offer 1 or 2 options i.e. bet 6 coins or bet 10 coins and alter either the ratio that the bonus came up or, alternatively, reduce the payout for the Royal accordingly. One note, if the Royal is hit in a non-bonus round then it would pay the maximum 4,000 coins regardless of the coins in.
Quote: SwitchAnother version that I thought of was to activate the 'Juicy Deck' every 6 hands (as in the 10 coin play) but to reduce the payout for the 'Royal' depending on the coins played. So, the player would be exposed to the 'Juicy deck' the same number of times regardless of coins played.
The Royal would reduce by 600 coins for each coin not played, so:-
10 coins - 4,000
9 coins - 3,400
8 coins - 2,800
7 coins - 2,200
6 coins - 1,600
This reduces the volatility but does not reduce the complexity that some posters pointed out.
I suppose I could offer 1 or 2 options i.e. bet 6 coins or bet 10 coins and alter either the ratio that the bonus came up or, alternatively, reduce the payout for the Royal accordingly. One note, if the Royal is hit in a non-bonus round then it would pay the maximum 4,000 coins regardless of the coins in.
I don't like the idea of reducing the Royal pay. The way it is, it gives players an option to choose their volatility while always having the 4,000 credits available. Of course, both versions should be inlcuded with the IP work. I also think that giving the player this extra choice (between increased frequency or reduced jackpots) might make the player confused or intimidated.
Quote: gofaster87A determining factor in how well a poker game is received is the pay tables the casino uses. I personally would not play JOB with less than a 9/6 paytable because its just not worth it. You're only going to get ploppies or the occasional tourist to play these carnival games and when they lose it all they'll never play again. A savy or seasoned player wont touch these unless they have a shot. Dream card and quick quads have fared well because certain casinos offer them with 99%+ pay tables. The payback percentages need to be sorted out before even considering feedback from potential players. I dislike any game that needs more than 5 coins for full pay. Quick quads is probably my only exception.
The payback worked out quite well for the 6-10 coins. I checked the numbers and the payback ranged from 99.57% (for 6 coins) to 99.86% (for 10 coins).
Of course this is for full pay JOB.
The only reason I play it was to get the chance to play the juicy deck, and to see what would happen, and to see if the strategy was correct.
Frankly, I think the best thing to do is to eliminate the basic game. Or work it differently so that the juicy deck comes out every other hand.
Then I had another couple ideas:
Change the paytable so you're always playing the juicy deck.
If you want to add options, then give them the option of a very juicy deck (20 cards, 10-A), kinda juicy (24 cards, 9-A), somewhat juicy (28 cards, 8-A) or a little juicy (32 cards, 7-A), with their own pay tables.
Quote: SwitchThe payback worked out quite well for the 6-10 coins. I checked the numbers and the payback ranged from 99.57% (for 6 coins) to 99.86% (for 10 coins).
Of course this is for full pay JOB.
Well, I have decided that I love this game.
I calculated the math myself (secretly, in hopes that your mathematician messed up and the real payback was over 100%), and I came up with almost identical numbers:
| Coins | Return |
|---|---|
| 1-4 | 98.37% |
| 5 | 99.54% |
| 6 | 99.65% |
| 7 | 99.73% |
| 8 | 99.78% |
| 9 | 99.83% |
| 10 | 99.86% |
My calculation for odds of a Royal with max bet are a tiny bit (but inconsequentially) different. I get 1 in 1208 instead of 1 in 1206.
Good luck with the game.
Quote: DJTeddyBearI played it some more today, and thought about it for quite a while. Here's my take:
The only reason I play it was to get the chance to play the juicy deck, and to see what would happen, and to see if the strategy was correct.
Frankly, I think the best thing to do is to eliminate the basic game. Or work it differently so that the juicy deck comes out every other hand.
Then I had another couple ideas:
Change the paytable so you're always playing the juicy deck.
If you want to add options, then give them the option of a very juicy deck (20 cards, 10-A), kinda juicy (24 cards, 9-A), somewhat juicy (28 cards, 8-A) or a little juicy (32 cards, 7-A), with their own pay tables.
Hi DJ,
I'm sorta on the same lines of thinking as you. On the one hand I enjoy it when the feature comes, on the other, it takes a lot of coins to get it coming up frequently.
I'm thinking of diluting the 'Juicy Deck' and hoping that it would allow it to come up more often with just one added coin. My only concern about that it that players may not like the 'Juicy Deck' as much if it was, for example, 7-A.
Does anyone know what % of the time the 'Dream Card' comes up on that game? That would be a good basis to work from I feel.
One thing I definitely know that I can't do is to appeal to everyone's play style. Trouble is, the more options of credits I allow the player then the more confusing it may appear to a casual VP player.
Quote: CrystalMathWell, I have decided that I love this game.
I calculated the math myself (secretly, in hopes that your mathematician messed up and the real payback was over 100%), and I came up with almost identical numbers:
Coins Return 1-4 98.37% 5 99.54% 6 99.65% 7 99.73% 8 99.78% 9 99.83% 10 99.86%
My calculation for odds of a Royal with max bet are a tiny bit (but inconsequentially) different. I get 1 in 1208 instead of 1 in 1206.
Good luck with the game.
I believe that you are correct in both cases. How did you manage to do the numbers so quickly? - very impressive!!!
99.65% rings a bell for the 6 coins and I know that there was an error in earlier calculations so I may have got my data from that. I can never remember whether it was 1,206 or 1,208 - I was always picking the wrong one from memory so I will agree with your number and that I recalled the wrong number.
As a matter of interest, if you were to find this game in a casino, how many coins would you play it at?
Quote: Switch
I believe that you are correct in both cases. How did you manage to do the numbers so quickly? - very impressive!!!
99.65% rings a bell for the 6 coins and I know that there was an error in earlier calculations so I may have got my data from that. I can never remember whether it was 1,206 or 1,208 - I was always picking the wrong one from memory so I will agree with your number and that I recalled the wrong number.
Wow, thanks. I have a program that I wrote to analyze poker games. It was flexible enough that I was able (within a few hours) to modify it so that I could use a smaller deck and I already had the framework in place for Jacks or Better. Now, I could do a game with any level of "juiciness" and apply it to JOB, Deuces, Joker, Deuces and Joker, or Double Double Bonus (or any variety of Bonus).
Quote: Switch
As a matter of interest, if you were to find this game in a casino, how many coins would you play it at?
I think I would play it at 10 coins, even though my favorite game is ultra-low volatility 50 play poker. But, this has some features that attract me to it just like 50 play - basically, when I get a decent dealt hand, I have some level of confidence that I will complete it.
Quote: DJTeddyBearIf you want to add options, then give them the option of a very juicy deck (20 cards, 10-A), kinda juicy (24 cards, 9-A), somewhat juicy (28 cards, 8-A) or a little juicy (32 cards, 7-A), with their own pay tables.
You may have missed my point.Quote: SwitchHi DJ,
I'm thinking of diluting the 'Juicy Deck' and hoping that it would allow it to come up more often with just one added coin. My only concern about that it that players may not like the 'Juicy Deck' as much if it was, for example, 7-A.
I did not mean to make these options based upon the coin-in, but rather an option when first stepping up to the machine. Kinda like the machines that give several choices between Jacks or Better, Deuces Wild, Etc. I.E. Pick a Juicy game, check it's paytable, play or pick a different Juicy game.
Quote: SwitchHere is the condensed strategy - hold the following in order:-
1. Royal Flush
2. Four to a Royal Flush
3. Four of a Kind
4. Three to a Royal Flush
5. Full House
6. Three of a Kind
7. Straight
8. Two Pair
9. Suited JQ, JK, JA, QK, QA, KA
10. Suited TJ, TQ, TK, TA
And there is one exception: Play #10 beats Play #9 if the hand includes a pair of Jacks or Better, and only spans 3 suits. For example, with Jh-Qh-Qc-Td-Ad, the best play is Td Ad, not Jh Qh.
So, it is correct to break up Two Pair as long as you have three to a Royal. It is never a correct play to discard everything, nor should you ever hold a pair (even Jacks or Better) because 2 to a Royal beats a pair.
I just want to make some slight modifications to what you've written here.
First: in your exception, you state that it spans 3 suits. Based on the cards that you have, it is only possible to span 3 suits. If it spans only two suits, then you have 3 to a royal and it cannot span 4 suits.
Second: Within decision 9 and 10, if you have two qualifying suited sets, then you will always keep the set that does not have the kicker - this is just like your exception, but it applies within the group as well. For example, with JH QH QD KC AC, you will keep KC AC. If, however, you have JH QH KD KC AC, you will keep JH QH.
Quote: CrystalMathI just want to make some slight modifications to what you've written here.
First: in your exception, you state that it spans 3 suits. Based on the cards that you have, it is only possible to span 3 suits. If it spans only two suits, then you have 3 to a royal and it cannot span 4 suits.
Second: Within decision 9 and 10, if you have two qualifying suited sets, then you will always keep the set that does not have the kicker - this is just like your exception, but it applies within the group as well. For example, with JH QH QD KC AC, you will keep KC AC. If, however, you have JH QH KD KC AC, you will keep JH QH.
Very comprehensive!!
Thanks for all your input - you clearly know your stuff. Out of curiousity, did you find out what the payback would be if you just played the 'Juicy Deck' game? For example, the 10 coin in is 99.86% payback - in order to play 'Juicy Deck' all of the time then you would need to play 35 coins.
As each coin-in increases the payback I'm wondering if that increase reaches a max' value (less than 100%). My gut feeling is that playing 'juicy deck' all of the time would give the player an advantage (although I'm quite often wrong :-) ).
Quote: SwitchVery comprehensive!!
Thanks for all your input - you clearly know your stuff. Out of curiousity, did you find out what the payback would be if you just played the 'Juicy Deck' game? For example, the 10 coin in is 99.86% payback - in order to play 'Juicy Deck' all of the time then you would need to play 35 coins.
As each coin-in increases the payback I'm wondering if that increase reaches a max' value (less than 100%). My gut feeling is that playing 'juicy deck' all of the time would give the player an advantage (although I'm quite often wrong :-) ).
If you were to wager 10 coins to get the juicy deck all the time, the return would be 350.3187%. So, if you were to wager 35 coins to get it on every single hand, the return would be 100.0911%
If you want the odds of getting the juicy deck to remain proportionate to the number of extra coins wagered (over 5), then you reach a limit at 17 coins. The return would be 99.9945% and you would get the juicy deck 40% of the time.
If you increased the coins beyond 17, you could, but you would need to adjust the likelyood of getting the juicy deck and it would not be proportionate to the lower wagers.
GAME DESCRIPTION - Payscale 5-coin 10-coin DreamCard
JACKS OR BETTER - 9/6 99.54% 99.56% 50.5%
JACKS OR BETTER - 8/6 98.39% 98.40% 50.5%
JACKS OR BETTER - 8/5 97.70% 97.73% 50.5%
JACKS OR BETTER - 7/5 96.15% 96.57% 50.5%
BONUS POKER - 8/5 99.17% 99.27% 46.7%
BONUS POKER - 7/5 98.02% 98.15% 46.7%
BONUS POKER - 6/5 96.87% 97.04% 46.7%
DOUBLE BONUS POKER - 9/7/5 99.11% 99.17% 33.7%
DOUBLE BONUS POKER - 9/6/5 97.81% 98.44% 33.7%
DOUBLE BONUS POKER - 9/6/4 96.38% 97.25% 33.7%
DOUBLE BONUS POKER - 9/5 95.27% 96.61% 33.7%
DOUBLE DOUBLE BONUS - 9/6/4 98.98% 99.04% 31.0%
DOUBLE DOUBLE BONUS - 9/5 97.87% 98.41% 31.0%
DOUBLE DOUBLE BONUS - 8/5 96.79% 97.52% 31.0%
DOUBLE DOUBLE BONUS - 7/5 95.71% 96.66% 31.0%
DEUCES WILD - 25/15/9/4/4/3 98.91% 99.91% 59.0%
DEUCES WILD - 20/12/10/4/4/3 97.58% 98.10% 59.0%
DEUCES WILD - 20/11/9/4/4/3 96.75% 97.04% 59.0%
DEUCES WILD - 20/10/8/4/4/3 95.96% 96.02% 59.0%
BONUS POKER DELUXE - 9/6 99.64% 99.67% 31.3%
BONUS POKER DELUXE - 9/5 98.49% 99.05% 31.3%
BONUS POKER DELUXE - 8/5 97.40% 98.11% 31.3%
BONUS POKER DELUXE - 7/5 96.25% 97.17% 31.3%
TRIPLE DOUBLE BONUS - 9/6 98.15% 98.21% 26.7%
TRIPLE DOUBLE BONUS - 8/6 97.11% 97.44% 26.7%
TRIPLE DOUBLE BONUS - 7/5 94.92% 96.01% 26.7%
TRIPLE BONUS POKER - 10/7 98.52% 98.54% 27.0%
TRIPLE BONUS POKER - 9/7 97.45% 97.71% 27.0%
TRIPLE BONUS POKER - 9/6 95.88% 96.85% 27.0%
TRIPLE BONUS POKER - 9/5 94.53% 96.08% 27.0%
Quote: CrystalMathIf you were to wager 10 coins to get the juicy deck all the time, the return would be 350.3187%. So, if you were to wager 35 coins to get it on every single hand, the return would be 100.0911%
If you want the odds of getting the juicy deck to remain proportionate to the number of extra coins wagered (over 5), then you reach a limit at 17 coins. The return would be 99.9945% and you would get the juicy deck 40% of the time.
If you increased the coins beyond 17, you could, but you would need to adjust the likelyood of getting the juicy deck and it would not be proportionate to the lower wagers.
Thanks CM,
Another concise answer. Much appreciated again!!!
So, in Dream Card JOB, you are looking at getting the bonus around 50% of the time?
Hmmm, the only way I could match that would be to lower the value of the 'Juicy Deck' by using more cards i.e. 8-Ace.
Hopefully I will be able to collate all of this excellent feedback and come up with the right game :-) Easier said than done.
Quote: JIMMYFOCKERA few pros have a bank of similar machines locked up currently at the Poker Palace in North Las Vegas.
The concept has merit
They are up over $69,000 at last count and running bad.
Quote: JIMMYFOCKERThey are up over $69,000 at last count and running bad.
Running bad? Is it the casino or the players that are up over $69,000?
It is a fair point that the strategy in Fever Mode would be unconventional, and players may make errors. However, that is also true of Multi-Strike, and that is a big success. One possible remedy would be to offer advice to the player on Fever Hands.
Quote: NowTheSerpentQuote: Switch
Link is gone. Is there another?
I've just tried to get on myself and it just goes to my webmaster's page??
I'm not sure what has happened but I will email him and update you as soon as I hear back.
Thanks for alerting me to the problem.
As an alternate implementation, rather than a random chance of a juicy deck, one could gradually strip low cards from the deck with extra coins (i.e. strip 2s, 3s, 4s, etc). Although the curve there would be very non-linear.
I'll post an update as soon as the site is back up and running.
Juicy Deck Poker
There is also another version that I developed called 'ShowMe Video Poker' whereby you can see some of you next draw cards depending on the previous win. If anyone wishes to take a look then it's at:-
ShowMe Poker
Any comments/suggestions, good or bad, are appreciated.
Quote: SwitchThe video poker game is back up and running:-
Juicy Deck Poker
Still redirects to http://www.studio-six.co.uk/.
Quote: SwitchShowMe Poker
Any comments/suggestions, good or bad, are appreciated.
This one works (technically).
But I'm not sure I quite understand how exactly the draw works in this case. Do draw card positions match dealt card positions in any way? Or is it unrelated, just the order in which draw cards will come? The preview is a bit not-intuitive that way.
ShowMe will reveal 1 - 5 cards. Each time you hold a current card then the ShowMe cards are replaced from right to left in the small screen in order to show you your holding.
You only see the final draw card if you end up with a full 5-card reveal.
It can be frustrating at times - say you are dealt 3,3,5,7,9, and your reveal cards are X,X,X,3,K. If you hold 3,3 then the 3,K draw cards are now not available. On the flip side:-
You are dealt A,Q,9,4,2 and your reveal cards are X,9,2,J,6 - so you hold 9,2 to give X,9,2,9,2.
At the top left of the screen is a scroll box which highlights some of the tricky decisions in the game.
As to the frustrating points of Showme, I mostly find them to be this:
1) You get to see all the draws, and see that your hand has no chance. However you arrange it, you lose.
2) You get Jacks or Better and still lose 1 credit.
What's the return percentage? Is it feasible to modify the paytable for JoB pairs to pay 6 credits when playing 6 coins?
Also, an unpleasant point is when you don't get any showme cards. This is worsened by the condition (you have to win to see them), and serves to maintain losing streaks. I presume return % effect of draw cards is substantially affected by the draw card's position, later draws being much less valuable. What if the player were guaranteed at least one revealed card, but its position was randomized, including with JoB pair?
Some excellent suggestions there and you raise the same frustrations as I found when I devised the version. In fact, this particular version has a +ev to the player and the payback is somewhere around 104%. Subsequently, a couple of new versions have been analyzed but not made into a demo as yet.
You're right about the position of the draw card being valuable - the later on the draw card then the better it it for the player. I quite like the idea of randomizing the position of the draw card although I have to be careful as there are some patent issues that I need to avoid if I allow the final draw card to be shown on just 1-card ShowMe.
Personally, I have always preferred 'Juicy Deck' out of the 2 games although there is something about seeing upcoming draw cards that is very enticing - just getting it into the right format that is tricky.
Thanks for all your input -much appreciated!
Quote: SwitchIn fact, this particular version has a +ev to the player and the payback is somewhere around 104%.
You're right about the position of the draw card being valuable - the later on the draw card then the better it it for the player.
I see, so there's clearly no room for payout increase.
So later draws revealed are better? Why then is the first draw card almost always hidden - or is it actually more valuable?
If there are issues with randomizing the position outright, perhaps it can be made dependent on the winning cards' position in the hand (for two pair, the higher pair).
Quote: SwitchPersonally, I have always preferred 'Juicy Deck' out of the 2 games although there is something about seeing upcoming draw cards that is very enticing - just getting it into the right format that is tricky.
Since fixing the issue, I've played Juicy Deck a little.
At first I was somewhat skeptical of the game. But my opinion changed quickly in practice. Then, in this little time, and without ever using the "cheat button" -
Wish it was real money.
How many more times are you likely to get a royal in this game (playing max coins)? Clearly at least twice, but most payouts are effectively halved in comparison to the bet, so I guess more.
The dynamics of juicy deck feel substantially different from normal VP, and clearly much simpler, it's almost all about chasing the royal. The game feels very intense, with barely any notice to full houses, just playing through to get a juicy deck. You're definitely going to grab the attention of action junkies and just players who find regular VP boring (I'm one, though my preference is for live NLH).
Between increased bet size, faster action and the advertising value of players celebrating their royals, I can't see this game being any less than an all-around winner. The only concern is that it can be somewhat harder on the bankroll, but only for short-session players
Quote: P90Also, an unpleasant point is when you don't get any showme cards. This is worsened by the condition (you have to win to see them), and serves to maintain losing streaks. I presume return % effect of draw cards is substantially affected by the draw card's position, later draws being much less valuable. What if the player were guaranteed at least one revealed card, but its position was randomized, including with JoB pair?
On the flip side, the more cards you reveal, you are more likely to win and reveal cards on the following hands.
