Royal at all costs strategy
Poll
 | 5 votes (41.66%) | ||
| | 3 votes (25%) | ||
| | 4 votes (33.33%) |
12 members have voted
Quote: smoothgrhThanks for the info! But don't establishments also pay to lease the machines? I had heard that Debbie Reynolds's casino was losing money every day from leasing slots. Or was that situation different because she was likely on the hook for paying out jackpots?
Casinos can pay to lease machines if they can't afford or don't want to buy them.
Quote: DRichCasinos can pay to lease machines if they can't afford or don't want to buy them.
Aren't some games only available by leasing them?
Quote: smoothgrhThanks for the info! But don't establishments also pay to lease the machines? I had heard that Debbie Reynolds's casino was losing money every day from leasing slots. Or was that situation different because she was likely on the hook for paying out jackpots?
If the slot route gets 15% of the weekly win, I would hope that would cover everything (maintenance, leasing, etc.) In Illinois that cost is 35% of the net win but certainly covers all those costs. And the state takes 30%, so the establishment only keeps 35% of the net win. And right now they are earning nothing because casinos and bar gaming are shut off statewide again due to Covid-19.
Quote: billryanAren't some games only available by leasing them?
Most of the "big fancy" games like WAP's and themed games are only available on a participation basis. The manufacturer will place the games for free but take 20% or so of the win and many have a daily minimum that must be paid. For example, a game like Wheel of Fortune would be a participation game where IGT might get 20% of the win with a minimum of $30 a day. So IGT would get about $900 a month even if the game made no money. If the machine had a good month IGT would get 20% of the win.
Quote: gordonm888
I found this to be a fairly tough calculation. On the Royal Seeker Return Table from the link above, the Wizard also reports the probability of getting all the other various poker hands on the payout table (Jacks or Better up to a straight flush). I can see how to do that, but I must tell you that, in my opinion, the Royal Seeker Return Table was really an impressive combination math calculation by Wizard!
It's not difficult to get the answer. Just set all payoffs to zero except the RF and the calculators will do the work for you.
| Hand Name | Payout | Probability | Cycle | Variance | Return % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Royal | 800 | 0.000043326 | 23080.7 | 27.726 | 3.4661% |
| Str_Flush | 0 | 0.000031433 | 31813.9 | 0.000 | 0.0000% |
| Quads | 0 | 0.000218609 | 4574.38 | 0.000 | 0.0000% |
| Full_House | 0 | 0.001349264 | 741.144 | 0.000 | 0.0000% |
| Flush | 0 | 0.004307323 | 232.162 | 0.000 | 0.0000% |
| Straight | 0 | 0.004925848 | 203.010 | 0.000 | 0.0000% |
| Trips | 0 | 0.020206871 | 49.4881 | 0.000 | 0.0000% |
| Two_Pair | 0 | 0.046190698 | 21.6493 | 0.000 | 0.0000% |
| JOB | 0 | 0.203925181 | 4.90376 | 0.000 | 0.0000% |
| Nada | 0 | 0.718801446 | 1.39120 | 0.001 | 0.0000% |
| -- | -- | 1.000000000 | -- | 27.728 | 3.4661% |
| # Held | Probability | % of RF | RF Cycle |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.00000020205 | 0.47% | 4949257 |
| 1 | 0.00000373455 | 8.62% | 267770 |
| 2 | 0.00001476432 | 34.08% | 67731 |
| 3 | 0.00001539077 | 35.52% | 64974 |
| 4 | 0.00000769539 | 17.76% | 129948 |
| 5 | 0.00000153908 | 3.55% | 649740 |
| Any | 0.00004332615 | 100.00% | 23081 |
You can easily confirm this with JB's calculator: https://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/analyzer/
Interestingly, if my notes are correct, I've had 21 "true" four to a royal, i.e. the fifth drawn card could complete a royal. 21/52 = 40% and i'm 8200/23081 or 36% of the expected average hands for a royal.
Last time was at the casino playing JOB quarters, hit it when I was half my bankroll down for the week. Was a huge shocker and one of the best feelings you can have in a casino imho.
Quote: smoothgrhSo far, 8,200 games and still no royal.
Interestingly, if my notes are correct, I've had 21 "true" four to a royal, i.e. the fifth drawn card could complete a royal. 21/52 = 40% and i'm 8200/23081 or 36% of the expected average hands for a royal.
21/47? 5 cards are already removed from the deck.
Quote: smoothgrhSo far, 8,200 games and still no royal.
Interestingly, if my notes are correct, I've had 21 "true" four to a royal, i.e. the fifth drawn card could complete a royal. 21/52 = 40% and i'm 8200/23081 or 36% of the expected average hands for a royal.
I assume you mean you ended up with 4/Royal 21 times, rather than being dealt 4/Royal, which should happen only about three times in 8200 deals.
I don't think the ratio of Royals to 4/Royals in completed hands is 1/47, although that would be a good question for someone to figure out; of course, it depends on the game and the paytable.
It was not like the fourth card was an offsuit deuce and the fifth card gave me 4 to a royal. The assumption is that each card is randomly generated after the previous card.
Quote: smoothgrhSorry for my wording. No, I wasn't dealt 4 to a royal 21 times. I mean that after I held my cards, the next cards dealt gave me 4 to a royal but the fifth card did not complete the royal — and that has happened 21 times so far.
It was not like the fourth card was an offsuit deuce and the fifth card gave me 4 to a royal. The assumption is that each card is randomly generated after the previous card.
If I recall correctly, you will see 4 to a Royal in your final hand roughly 83 times as often as a paid Royal. Not sure which game was calculated but guessing JOB 9/6, and it was definitely using optimal strategy. Don’t know if/how your strategy will affect this metric.
Quote: AxelWolfI have been in a few rare situations where there was a good reason to play for a Royal and or deuces at all costs.
Can you elaborate on that? I can't imagine throwing away a dealt four aces to go for a royal if i am betting real money.. Or, throwing away a dealt straight flush with no high cards to go for a royal. tournaments maybe but not when betting real money.
Quote: DRichCan you elaborate on that? I can't imagine throwing away a dealt four aces to go for a royal if i am betting real money.. Or, throwing away a dealt straight flush with no high cards to go for a royal. tournaments maybe but not when betting real money.
Guaranteed Play often called for throwing Hail Marys on the last hand with a very negative score.
Quote: AxelWolfI have been in a few rare situations where there was a good reason to play for a Royal and or deuces at all costs.
There are several situations.
Perhaps the most common situation is in a video poker tournament.
The second situation is when you're battling for a progressive and the bank of machines is filled. I've actually done this when the progressive was very high. It was the 25-cent progressive and it was close to $4,000. There were six seats. I had one. If there were royal cards they were the only cards I held. In hands without royal cards I played conventional strategy.
You don't want hopper fills and you are only going for hand pays.Quote: DRichCan you elaborate on that? I can't imagine throwing away a dealt four aces to go for a royal if i am betting real money.. Or, throwing away a dealt straight flush with no high cards to go for a royal. tournaments maybe but not when betting real money.
I have even been in the opposite situation where I tossed out 4 cards to the royal for 40k (tossed out one of the cards) because I wanted to avoid hitting a royal as much as possible(within reason) as that would probably end the play. Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened, I guess you would call it a bitter-sweet moment.
Quote: camaplIf I recall correctly, you will see 4 to a Royal in your final hand roughly 83 times as often as a paid Royal. Not sure which game was calculated but guessing JOB 9/6, and it was definitely using optimal strategy. Don’t know if/how your strategy will affect this metric.
In my simulator, I get 90 4 to a Royals for every Royal in 9/6 Jacks or Better with optimal strategy, and 100 with "Royal or nothing" strategy. I assume that the main difference is the number of 4/Royals you would get when trying to fill a (non-Royal) flush.
Quote: AxelWolfYou don't want hopper fills and you are only going for hand pays.
I have even been in the opposite situation where I tossed out 4 cards to the royal for 40k (tossed out one of the cards) because I wanted to avoid hitting a royal as much as possible(within reason) as that would probably end the play. Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened, I guess you would call it a bitter-sweet moment.
Could you elaborate on this please?
The way I read it, it seems to be saying you had some kind of AP play going on a video poker game that was worth more than a $40k jackpot?
Is that correct?
In theory, that is correct, but you are not giving up anywhere near 40k in value by tossing out a 4 to the royal. And no, if it were possible to toss out a dealt Royal for 40k that wouldn't be smart since you have no clue how long a play will last.Quote: AlanMendelsonCould you elaborate on this please?
The way I read it, it seems to be saying you had some kind of AP play going on a video poker game that was worth more than a $40k jackpot?
Is that correct?
I really don't want to elaborate too much. I probably said too much as it is. I will just say the play was on a 9/6 $10 video poker game where I was getting equivalent to double four of a kind and straight flushes, cashback, mail(I ended up getting no mailed), and comps that could be turned into cash via high-end watches or whatever. The play was worth over 6% with little variance(at least from an AP's perspective) it's hard to say exactly what it was worth per hour since you are tipping well. I'm not sure exactly how many hands per hour I was getting out, because hand-pays would be coming up just over 400 hands-on on average and I was running above average. So, perhaps 800 hands per hour at $50 a wack times 6%.
Quote: ThatDonGuyIn my simulator, I get 90 4 to a Royals for every Royal in 9/6 Jacks or Better with optimal strategy, and 100 with "Royal or nothing" strategy. I assume that the main difference is the number of 4/Royals you would get when trying to fill a (non-Royal) flush.
After some serious computing, I get 92.02 Fours to a Royal for every Royal using perfect strategy in 9/6 Jacks or Better, and 104.54 for a "Royal or Nothing" strategy.
Quote: ThatDonGuyAfter some serious computing, I get 92.02 Fours to a Royal for every Royal using perfect strategy in 9/6 Jacks or Better, and 104.54 for a "Royal or Nothing" strategy.
So, with a "Royal or Nothing" strategy you get Royals more frequently than conventional strategy but the frequency of "Four to a Royal" is increased by an even greater factor?
And, I must admit that breaking up a dealt 4oaK, Full House, Flush (including Straight Flush), Straight or Trips to draw to one (or zero) Royal Card is idiocy. If we modified the "Royal or Nothing" strategy to allow standing to those hands (and drawing to Trips in the Trips case) how much would the Royal Frequency be hurt, and how much would the overall EV of the strategy be increased?
Quote: gordonm888So, with a "Royal or Nothing" strategy you get Royals more frequently than conventional strategy but the frequency of "Four to a Royal" is increased by an even greater factor?
And, I must admit that breaking up a dealt 4oaK, Full House, Flush (including Straight Flush), Straight or Trips to draw to one (or zero) Royal Card is idiocy. If we modified the "Royal or Nothing" strategy to allow standing to those hands (and drawing to Trips in the Trips case) how much would the Royal Frequency be hurt, and how much would the overall EV of the strategy be increased?
Remember, I'm doing a "royal at all costs" strategy on my home machine for fun with statistics. It costs me nothing to throw away a 4oaK — I don't advise that when actual cash is wagered.
| Game (ER) | Hands per 4/Royal | Hands per Royal | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9/6 Jacks Or Better (99.5439) | 450 | 41,376 | 90 |
| 8/5 Jacks Or Better (97.2984) | 451 | 41,144 | 89 |
| 10/7 Bonus Poker (100.1725) | 505 | 49,448 | 96 |
| 9/6/4 Double Double Bonus (98.9808) | 448 | 41,804 | 91 |
And at the end, I tried to get the infamous video poker bug to work on a three of a kind (it's supposed to work no matter what winning hand you have — I just wanted to do it with style), but I couldn't get it to work.
I played 8,300 hands, or about 35.96% of the hands that a royal, on average, will occur (23,081) using this strategy. I had 2,526 winning hands out of 8,300, or 30.4% of plays. (I noticed that the 30.4 winning percentage was also true at 4,900 plays.)
Here's the final accounting — I played 5x$0.10/hand, but I screwed up for about 100 hands and was playing 5x$0.20/hand. A 45.39% payback percentage!
Do you know for a fact that your machine has the bug? Are you sure you know the steps to get it to work? Does your machine allow you to set the denominations, hand-pay requirements, etc? I think a vast majority of us would be very interested in seeing this in action and finally put to rest the question if one actually needs a hand pay or not.Quote: smoothgrhI'm sorry to let the Forum down — if anyone actually did care — but I abandoned my quest to get a royal flush with 9-6 JoB using the "Royal or Nothing" strategy on my garage Game King. It was just too boring and depressing.
And at the end, I tried to get the infamous video poker bug to work on a three of a kind (it's supposed to work no matter what winning hand you have — I just wanted to do it with style), but I couldn't get it to work.
I played 8,300 hands, or about 35.96% of the hands that a royal, on average, will occur (23,081) using this strategy. I had 2,526 winning hands out of 8,300, or 30.4% of plays. (I noticed that the 30.4 winning percentage was also true at 4,900 plays.)
Here's the final accounting — I played 5x$0.10/hand, but I screwed up for about 100 hands and was playing 5x$0.20/hand. A 45.39% payback percentage!
link to original post
I could set the denominations and turned on the Double Up feature. I'm not sure if the hand-pay setting affects the bug — all my cash outs must be hand paid because my machine doesn't have a hopper or TITO.
I also would like to see a video of the bug!
If it doesn't have a bill validator then I don't think it will work.Quote: smoothgrhMy software was among the affected chips that IGT listed in its "Mandatory Notice" for compromised programs.
I could set the denominations and turned on the Double Up feature. I'm not sure if the hand-pay setting affects the bug — all my cash outs must be hand paid because my machine doesn't have a hopper or TITO.
I also would like to see a video of the bug!
link to original post
Quote: AxelWolfIf it doesn't have a bill validator then I don't think it will work.Quote: smoothgrhMy software was among the affected chips that IGT listed in its "Mandatory Notice" for compromised programs.
I could set the denominations and turned on the Double Up feature. I'm not sure if the hand-pay setting affects the bug — all my cash outs must be hand paid because my machine doesn't have a hopper or TITO.
I also would like to see a video of the bug!
link to original post
link to original post
Do we really know how the bug was operated?
Have the actual details ever been published?
The details are in this Wired article.
I think how the bug works is this: when you win, you can hear the physical win meters inside the machine clicking and counting up. However, the meter doesn't start running immediately after a win — you have to do something else to trigger it, like pressing Deal. My guess is that in some software, it doesn't count up when you change games, so if you come back to that game in a higher denomination, it then registers the win.
Quote: smoothgrhMy machine has a bill validator.
The details are in this Wired article.
I think how the bug works is this: when you win, you can hear the physical win meters inside the machine clicking and counting up. However, the meter doesn't start running immediately after a win — you have to do something else to trigger it, like pressing Deal. My guess is that in some software, it doesn't count up when you change games, so if you come back to that game in a higher denomination, it then registers the win.
link to original post
I have heard from NON OFFICIAL SOURCES that the Wired article deliberately published false information about how the bug operated.
Do you know for a fact the exact procedure for using the bug?
I figured there'd be no reason to publish false information because the affected chips would be long gone by the time the article was published. (Or at least if some distributor or casino were foolish enough to not update the chips, they'd at least turn off the Double Up feature.)
Quote: smoothgrhIf it's false, then I have no idea how it works.
I figured there'd be no reason to publish false information because the affected chips would be long gone by the time the article was published. (Or at least if some distributor or casino were foolish enough to not update the chips, they'd at least turn off the Double Up feature.)
link to original post
I've read the Wired article several times and I've never seen anything specific about pushing buttons including what buttons to push or when. All I've seen is some phrasing about magical buttons.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: smoothgrhIf it's false, then I have no idea how it works.
I figured there'd be no reason to publish false information because the affected chips would be long gone by the time the article was published. (Or at least if some distributor or casino were foolish enough to not update the chips, they'd at least turn off the Double Up feature.)
link to original post
I've read the Wired article several times and I've never seen anything specific about pushing buttons including what buttons to push or when. All I've seen is some phrasing about magical buttons.
link to original post
The Wired article spells out a 10-step procedure to utilize the bug.
Search for the word "locate" in the article to find step 1.
Quote: ChesterDogQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: smoothgrhIf it's false, then I have no idea how it works.
I figured there'd be no reason to publish false information because the affected chips would be long gone by the time the article was published. (Or at least if some distributor or casino were foolish enough to not update the chips, they'd at least turn off the Double Up feature.)
link to original post
I've read the Wired article several times and I've never seen anything specific about pushing buttons including what buttons to push or when. All I've seen is some phrasing about magical buttons.
link to original post
The Wired article spells out a 10-step procedure to utilize the bug.
Search for the word "locate" in the article to find step 1.
link to original post
There are NON OFFICIAL SOURCES who said Wired deliberately published the wrong sequence.
So again... who has confirmed this sequence?
Quote: smoothgrhIf it's false, then I have no idea how it works.
I figured there'd be no reason to publish false information because the affected chips would be long gone by the time the article was published. (Or at least if some distributor or casino were foolish enough to not update the chips, they'd at least turn off the Double Up feature.)
link to original post
I found one of the chips in Southern Nevada about two years ago.
Quote: DRichQuote: smoothgrhIf it's false, then I have no idea how it works.
I figured there'd be no reason to publish false information because the affected chips would be long gone by the time the article was published. (Or at least if some distributor or casino were foolish enough to not update the chips, they'd at least turn off the Double Up feature.)
link to original post
I found one of the chips in Southern Nevada about two years ago.
link to original post
Are you going to keep us in suspense? Was the Wired article correct?
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: DRichQuote: smoothgrhIf it's false, then I have no idea how it works.
I figured there'd be no reason to publish false information because the affected chips would be long gone by the time the article was published. (Or at least if some distributor or casino were foolish enough to not update the chips, they'd at least turn off the Double Up feature.)
link to original post
I found one of the chips in Southern Nevada about two years ago.
link to original post
Are you going to keep us in suspense? Was the Wired article correct?
link to original post
I have no idea. I notified the Nevada Gaming Board and had it replaced.
I sent you intrusions for a key aspect, if it doesn't allow this, then it's not glitched.Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: ChesterDogQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: smoothgrhIf it's false, then I have no idea how it works.
I figured there'd be no reason to publish false information because the affected chips would be long gone by the time the article was published. (Or at least if some distributor or casino were foolish enough to not update the chips, they'd at least turn off the Double Up feature.)
link to original post
I've read the Wired article several times and I've never seen anything specific about pushing buttons including what buttons to push or when. All I've seen is some phrasing about magical buttons.
link to original post
The Wired article spells out a 10-step procedure to utilize the bug.
Search for the word "locate" in the article to find step 1.
link to original post
There are NON OFFICIAL SOURCES who said Wired deliberately published the wrong sequence.
So again... who has confirmed this sequence?
link to original post
