Maybe he meant 1 in every 460 hands after the hand has been
completed, i.e. after the draw.
Just a thought.
OOps, yes, that seems likely. Sorry!
I which case, I'm still confused as to how this is supposed to work.
Say you are dealt three to the royal, let's say clubs, and you draw
one royal card and one rag, say the three of hearts. Do you look at
the card on the wall and say "Aha! If that 3 of hearts was actually
that jack of clubs on the wall, I'd have made my royal", and get the
100 coin bonus then?
So you need to complete to a 4 to the royal of the right suit, and
missing the card of the right rank, to win the bonus? I see some are
hoping that the suit isn't important. That would be nice, but I doubt
it. With the suit requirement, that's a one-in-460 event times
one-in-four (matching the suit) times one-in-five (matching the rank)
equals one in 9200, about five per royal, or about half as often as
quad deuces, and half the payoff too. By my calculations, this adds
just over 1% to the EV. If it is true that this bonus pays 100 bets
(i.e. if playing 5 coins per bet, bonus is 500 coins), that adds about
100/9200*100% = 1.09% to EV. That turns 9/6 jacks played perfectly
from about 99.54% to about 100.63%, plus other benefits (if any),
minus mistakes. You might be able to do better if you adjust the
strategy a bit, e.g. if the card of the day is the king of clubs, you
might keep QcJcTc over QQ, or Ac over AcKh.
M.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Van Emmerik" <emmerik@>
wrote:
>
> > Four to a royal occurs about every 460 hands when playing 9/6
JOB
> > properly. A little less often than a four of a kind.
>
> That doesn't sound right to me. Presumably, you keep every 4 to the
> royal, except a few KQJT9s pat straight flushes. There is a 1 in 47
> chance of completing the royal from a 4-to-the, so that would mean
a
> royal every 460*47 = 21,620 hands. Plus royals from 3-to-the-
royals,
> 2-to-the-royals, some high cards, and the occasional deal royal.
That
> would make the royal cycle way too short.
>
> I'm too lazy to do the calculation, but your figure fails my
sanity check.
>
> Of course, I may have my figures wrong... if so, please point out
the
> problem.
>
> M.
>