vpFREE2 Forums

Game to play when chasing a Royal

I was recently at Harrahs Tunica and the 25c Royal had reached $2,900
at one of the bars. These machines were multi-game and was wondering
to myself, which game was the best for chasing a royal?

All the usual games were on the machine, 12/10/4/4 DW, 8/5 JOB, 16/8
2 Pair Joker, 9/6 DB, 9/5 DDB etc... All pay normally in the 97%-98%
range. Of course the Royal adds around 4%, so all are playable. In
the end I played the 15/10 Dbl Deuces as this was the best EV of
98.9%, but I was wondering if perhaps another game might have given
me a better shot at the Royal.

I understand that stategy needs to change (I did make some ad-hoc
adjustments) but was wondering which stategy gave the best shot at it.

Comments?

When I chase progressives ("Big Game Hunting, I call it) I've always felt the best overall strategy is to get the maximum number of hands in. So I go with whatever game a) I'm most familiar with and b) has the lowest variance. For me, that's usually some form of JOB. I pretty much disregard the "long term payout" figure as irrelevent unless I have the bankroll to play for many hours (which I usually don't).

carlos

···

kiwiboy4921 <waynes@kiwiplan.com> wrote:
I was recently at Harrahs Tunica and the 25c Royal had reached $2,900
at one of the bars. These machines were multi-game and was wondering
to myself, which game was the best for chasing a royal?

All the usual games were on the machine, 12/10/4/4 DW, 8/5 JOB, 16/8
2 Pair Joker, 9/6 DB, 9/5 DDB etc... All pay normally in the 97%-98%
range. Of course the Royal adds around 4%, so all are playable. In
the end I played the 15/10 Dbl Deuces as this was the best EV of
98.9%, but I was wondering if perhaps another game might have given
me a better shot at the Royal.

I understand that stategy needs to change (I did make some ad-hoc
adjustments) but was wondering which stategy gave the best shot at it.

Comments?

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

When I chase progressives ("Big Game Hunting, I call it) I've always

felt the best overall strategy is to get the maximum number of hands
in. So I go with whatever game a) I'm most familiar with and b) has
the lowest variance. For me, that's usually some form of JOB. I
pretty much disregard the "long term payout" figure as irrelevent
unless I have the bankroll to play for many hours (which I usually don't).

carlos

kiwiboy4921 <waynes@k...> wrote:
I was recently at Harrahs Tunica and the 25c Royal had reached $2,900
at one of the bars. These machines were multi-game and was wondering
to myself, which game was the best for chasing a royal?

All the usual games were on the machine, 12/10/4/4 DW, 8/5 JOB, 16/8
2 Pair Joker, 9/6 DB, 9/5 DDB etc... All pay normally in the 97%-98%
range. Of course the Royal adds around 4%, so all are playable. In
the end I played the 15/10 Dbl Deuces as this was the best EV of
98.9%, but I was wondering if perhaps another game might have given
me a better shot at the Royal.

I understand that stategy needs to change (I did make some ad-hoc
adjustments) but was wondering which stategy gave the best shot at it.

Comments?

First of all, you don't want to play any Joker game, because the
53-card deck makes it that much harder to get a royal.
You also don't want to play any Deuces game, because (for example),
when dealt two royal cards and a deuce, you will either keep all three
cards or just the deuce; in either case, a play you would never make
in JOB-type games, and obviously precluding ever getting a royal on
this draw. Similarly KQ10 of hearts, 2, x, you draw one card; you will
never get a natural royal. These sort of plays are why you get less
royals on Deuces games than JOB variants. It also is costly and/or
complicated to alter the Deuces strategy for high progressive RF
values, because the "wild RF" plays start dropping off gradually as
the progressive increases in size; you would need ten different
strategy tables, each for succeeding RF levels, to play accurately.
(For instance, QJ10 suited, 2, x becomes a TWO-card draw at something
like $2600/RF; I don't recall the exact figures, since I never play
short-pay progressives due to the ghastly variance.)
I suggest any JOB variant (including DB, DDB, etc.), picking the one
with the best inherent EV among the choices offered. You can add some
obvious strategy changes, such as keeping all two-card royals (even
A10), breaking all high pairs to draw to a three-card royal, etc.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Carlos Lebron <calebr0n@y...> wrote:

I would find a frequency chart for the games at their minimum jackpot
level, and play the game with the highest RF frequency.

I was recently at Harrahs Tunica and the 25c Royal had reached

$2,900

at one of the bars. These machines were multi-game and was

wondering

to myself, which game was the best for chasing a royal?

All the usual games were on the machine, 12/10/4/4 DW, 8/5 JOB,

16/8

2 Pair Joker, 9/6 DB, 9/5 DDB etc... All pay normally in the 97%-

98%

range. Of course the Royal adds around 4%, so all are playable.

In

the end I played the 15/10 Dbl Deuces as this was the best EV of
98.9%, but I was wondering if perhaps another game might have given
me a better shot at the Royal.

I understand that stategy needs to change (I did make some ad-hoc
adjustments) but was wondering which stategy gave the best shot at

it.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "kiwiboy4921" <waynes@k...> wrote:

Comments?

-------------
This could be very costly. If you have a very very BIG bankroll, I
guess it doesn't matter which game you choose. You can even go for
the Royal on every single draw, if you can afford it.

If you don't see an expert/pro or a team of experts playing the
progressive, then maybe it's not that good of jackpot yet anyway. If
it reaches a certain level that is almost too good to be true, you
can almost bet that the machines at the bar you mentioned will be
occupied for a long while. The RF frequency is very much the same
for all the vp games. How much are you willing to risk for throwing
away winning hands such as two High Pairs, etc. should be something
you may want to consider.

Several good points made here by several posters. I think the key
determinant is how should you look at royal chasing, and in my mind
for my objectives the answer is you should look at it as a long term
affair – ignore competitors and time limits and one-night funds-
availability limits, and play the game as if it would always be
there. So whether you plan to sit there until it gets hit or until
$100 is gone or just until your wife gets back, you simply want to
play for the best EV possible.

My rationale for ignoring competitors and the time limit imposed by
it eventually being hit is as follows – there are certain play
opportunities that I'm always going to take advantage of and that are
going to happen repeatedly in my VP career. Therefore, these plays
should be grouped together as one long session over my career, and
not as individual do-or-die sessions.

Thus, although the poster is correct that Deuces and Joker Poker put
you at an inherent disadvantage in chasing royals, I wouldn't rule
them out. If they still have a higher EV, then they are the better
game to play. Keep in mind your objective isn't the $2900 jackpot
itself, but rather the higher EV this jackpot causes. (Otherwise,
you'd be willing to play a 90% EV game that had a $2900 jackpot, and
you can find those all day over in the reel slot section.) To the
extent that royals are less frequent in Deuces, this will be
reflected in the EV (if properly calculated*). If, nonetheless,
Deuces still produce the highest EV, then I say go for that.

*Proper calculation requires a frequency distribution by hand, not
just an overall EV. Sometimes you'll see a "value" calculation by
hand – you can convert this to frequencies by dividing by the
paytable. In JOB, the royal frequency is generally around .000025.
This converts to the standard 2%-of-overall-return rule-of thumb by
being multiplied by 800. In Deuces, the frequency is usually
around .000022, which converts to 1.76% of overall return. (If you
can get more precise numbers for the exact game you're playing, use
those, as each one/millionth (.000001) change the return about 8-
hundredths of a percent, but if not then use the .000022 number.)

So, while the $2900 royal adds 3.80% to the standard EV on a JB game,
it adds 3.34% to the deuces return. That 0.46% difference in the
return adjustment takes into account all the disadvantages of Deuces
mentioned by the poster above. Now, for some reason Double Deuces
seems to the best paying game by far on a lot of machines, sometimes
by over 1% at its standard rate. If this were the case where you were
at, DD would still be the better game after adjusting for the royal.

Just because 2 games are over 100% doesn't make them equally
playable. If one is 100.1% and another is 101.1%, that difference is
just as large as between 99.5% and 100.5%. True, you might play a
100.1% game if that's the best available, but that's no reason to say
100.1% is an acceptable return. Your objective in game selection is
the highest weighted average EV over the course of your career, not
just to get over 100%. In fact, due to inevitable human error (not to
mention beer and the pretty legs on those cocktail waitresses), true
breakeven is probably 100.25% or higher.

To properly evaluate progressives and to determine what strategy
changes are necessary, you need a strategy chart that lists hand
values in addition to ranking the hands. If you have that, strategy
changes are easy. For two card royals, add 0.005% (80/16215, the
number of 3 card combinations possible from 47 cards) to EV for each
10% increase in the progressive, and for 3 card royals add 0.074%
(80/1081, 2 card combinations). Nothing else changes. (Forget
strategy changes for one high card – the odds of drawing 4 are so
long that progressive values don't matter. Four card royals already
beat any pat hand other than a 4OAK and those are mutually exclusive.
Now, it's true that a royal value of 300% of normal would dictate
tossing a 250-coin 9-10-J-Q-K pat SF, but not a lot of people would
be willing to do that under any odds.)

In my experience, people tend to over-adjust for high royals, and
thus pay a significant cost in EV. For example, a low pair still
beats suited JQ all the way up to $5000 on the royal, and suited KA
up to almost $6000, but I see these tossed much sooner. Likewise, 4-
card straights and 3 card SFs (like 9-10-J) outperform two card
royals until a fairly high level is reached, but most people take the
two royal cards.

gilbert_616 wrote:

snip

... If you have a very very BIG bankroll, I
guess it doesn't matter which game you choose. You can even go for
the Royal on every single draw, if you can afford it.

snip

Obviously you must mean that you would ignore losses just for the thrill of the occasional Royal, because following that strategy will statistically cause you to lose ... BIG TIME.

Cheers.

Bill

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:
First of all, you don't want to play any Joker game, because the

53-card deck makes it that much harder to get a royal.

If that is true, then why is the Royal Flush cycle for DB over 41,000
and that for KoB Joker just a little over 38,000?

The answer depends on just exactly what you mean by "best shot".

Suppose you start with a 100 unit bankroll. If you want to maximize
the probability that you will hit a royal before losing that bankroll,
then the playing strategy is different than max-EV strategy. If you
want to play in such a way that you maximize the average number
of dollars in your pocket right after hitting the royal, then a third
strategy is optimal. Maximizing the probability of hitting a royal
on the very next play gives another (very expensive) strategy.

I personally feel that the "maximimum survival" strategy, which
maximize the probability that you hit a royal before going broke,
is probably the best definition of "best shot at a royal." I know
how to compute such strategies, but as far as I know they have
never been published.

···

On Friday 04 June 2004 08:47 am, kiwiboy4921 wrote:

I understand that stategy needs to change (I did make some ad-hoc
adjustments) but was wondering which stategy gave the best shot at it.

Rich wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:
First of all, you don't want to play any Joker game, because the
> 53-card deck makes it that much harder to get a royal.

If that is true, then why is the Royal Flush cycle for DB over 41,000
and that for KoB Joker just a little over 38,000?

I would guess that it's because with KoB Joker, whenever you are dealt a pair of Jacks or a pair of Queens, they are not dealt-winners but rather are treated just like any other 'low-pair'. That shifts the strategy considerably, and the result is more frequent Royals despite the additional 53rd card.

Cheers.

Bill Velek

Because of DB plays like:

AK2 suited, xx keep the AK2
AKJ3 suited, x keep the AKJ3
KJ suited, 109, x keep KJ109
etc.
Many draws are made in DB that preclude the royal because of the high
value of the straight and flush. Obviously, if you were playing DB and
chasing a progressive, some of these plays would start leaning toward
the royal. With proper strategy adjustments, your "royal cycle" would
drop by several thousand hands in a progressive game with the royal at
$2600+.
Obviously, you make similar adjustments in Joker Poker, but they are
not as widespread, and they don't gain you all that much (keeping A10
suited rather than just the A, for example).

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Rich" <canoebum@h...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:
First of all, you don't want to play any Joker game, because the
> 53-card deck makes it that much harder to get a royal.

If that is true, then why is the Royal Flush cycle for DB over 41,000
and that for KoB Joker just a little over 38,000?

Thanks for everyones input. There were a lot of good ideas here.

I have created a couple of strategy cards for DD with +50%, +100%
and +200% Royal. I'll keep these in the gambling wallet should the
progressive get high again.

Interestingly, I went to the Sheraton Tunica afterwards and the
Royal on the 1c 100-coin was over double, at $1650. The best game
by miles on these machines is 9/6 JOB, so the decision was pretty
easy here. No luck though...

Cheers

Wayne

Several good points made here by several posters. I think the key
determinant is how should you look at royal chasing, and in my

mind

for my objectives the answer is you should look at it as a long

term

affair – ignore competitors and time limits and one-night funds-
availability limits, and play the game as if it would always be
there. So whether you plan to sit there until it gets hit or until
$100 is gone or just until your wife gets back, you simply want to
play for the best EV possible.

My rationale for ignoring competitors and the time limit imposed

by

it eventually being hit is as follows – there are certain play
opportunities that I'm always going to take advantage of and that

are

going to happen repeatedly in my VP career. Therefore, these plays
should be grouped together as one long session over my career, and
not as individual do-or-die sessions.

Thus, although the poster is correct that Deuces and Joker Poker

put

you at an inherent disadvantage in chasing royals, I wouldn't rule
them out. If they still have a higher EV, then they are the better
game to play. Keep in mind your objective isn't the $2900 jackpot
itself, but rather the higher EV this jackpot causes. (Otherwise,
you'd be willing to play a 90% EV game that had a $2900 jackpot,

and

you can find those all day over in the reel slot section.) To the
extent that royals are less frequent in Deuces, this will be
reflected in the EV (if properly calculated*). If, nonetheless,
Deuces still produce the highest EV, then I say go for that.

*Proper calculation requires a frequency distribution by hand, not
just an overall EV. Sometimes you'll see a "value" calculation by
hand – you can convert this to frequencies by dividing by the
paytable. In JOB, the royal frequency is generally around .000025.
This converts to the standard 2%-of-overall-return rule-of thumb

by

being multiplied by 800. In Deuces, the frequency is usually
around .000022, which converts to 1.76% of overall return. (If you
can get more precise numbers for the exact game you're playing,

use

those, as each one/millionth (.000001) change the return about 8-
hundredths of a percent, but if not then use the .000022 number.)

So, while the $2900 royal adds 3.80% to the standard EV on a JB

game,

it adds 3.34% to the deuces return. That 0.46% difference in the
return adjustment takes into account all the disadvantages of

Deuces

mentioned by the poster above. Now, for some reason Double Deuces
seems to the best paying game by far on a lot of machines,

sometimes

by over 1% at its standard rate. If this were the case where you

were

at, DD would still be the better game after adjusting for the

royal.

Just because 2 games are over 100% doesn't make them equally
playable. If one is 100.1% and another is 101.1%, that difference

is

just as large as between 99.5% and 100.5%. True, you might play a
100.1% game if that's the best available, but that's no reason to

say

100.1% is an acceptable return. Your objective in game selection

is

the highest weighted average EV over the course of your career,

not

just to get over 100%. In fact, due to inevitable human error (not

to

mention beer and the pretty legs on those cocktail waitresses),

true

breakeven is probably 100.25% or higher.

To properly evaluate progressives and to determine what strategy
changes are necessary, you need a strategy chart that lists hand
values in addition to ranking the hands. If you have that,

strategy

changes are easy. For two card royals, add 0.005% (80/16215, the
number of 3 card combinations possible from 47 cards) to EV for

each

10% increase in the progressive, and for 3 card royals add 0.074%
(80/1081, 2 card combinations). Nothing else changes. (Forget
strategy changes for one high card – the odds of drawing 4 are so
long that progressive values don't matter. Four card royals

already

beat any pat hand other than a 4OAK and those are mutually

exclusive.

Now, it's true that a royal value of 300% of normal would dictate
tossing a 250-coin 9-10-J-Q-K pat SF, but not a lot of people

would

be willing to do that under any odds.)

In my experience, people tend to over-adjust for high royals, and
thus pay a significant cost in EV. For example, a low pair still
beats suited JQ all the way up to $5000 on the royal, and suited

KA

up to almost $6000, but I see these tossed much sooner. Likewise,

4-

card straights and 3 card SFs (like 9-10-J) outperform two card
royals until a fairly high level is reached, but most people take

the

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "blaw57" <blaw57@y...> wrote:

two royal cards.

The answer depends on just exactly what you mean by "best shot".

Suppose you start with a 100 unit bankroll. If you want to maximize
the probability that you will hit a royal before losing that

bankroll,

then the playing strategy is different than max-EV strategy. If you
want to play in such a way that you maximize the average number
of dollars in your pocket right after hitting the royal, then a

third

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@x> wrote:

strategy is optimal. Maximizing the probability of hitting a royal
on the very next play gives another (very expensive) strategy.

I personally feel that the "maximimum survival" strategy, which
maximize the probability that you hit a royal before going broke,
is probably the best definition of "best shot at a royal." I know
how to compute such strategies, but as far as I know they have
never been published.

-----------
Steve,

That sounds very interesting. Please publish your strategy here for
the "maximum survival" for the "best shot at a royal", if you don't
mind. If that's something you can only publish in books, then that's
okay too.

Thanks.
Gilbert

"I understand that stategy needs to change (I did make some ad-hoc
adjustments) but was wondering which stategy gave the best shot at
it."

Steve jacobs responded with:

The answer depends on just exactly what you mean by "best shot".

Suppose you start with a 100 unit bankroll. If you want to

maximize the probability that you will hit a royal before losing
that bankroll, then the playing strategy is different than max-EV
strategy.

Wouldn't it be a variance-adjusted strategy; i.e. for a 8/5 JOB with
RF at 2400 for 1 (ev is ~102%), you would still keep high pair over
3 to the RF. Almost like in full-pay Pick'em, keeping High Pair
over any three to the RF.

If you want to play in such a way that you maximize the average

number of dollars in your pocket right after hitting the royal, then
a third strategy is optimal.

Wouldn't that be a Max EV strategy because you said max average
number of dollars?

Maximizing the probability of hitting a royal on the very next

play gives another (very expensive) strategy.

This is one is easy. That's when you throw away everything except
for RF cards. For example, when flopped quad Kings and Th, you
would only keep the KTh and discard the other 3 kings.

I personally feel that the "maximimum survival" strategy, which
maximize the probability that you hit a royal before going broke,
is probably the best definition of "best shot at a royal." I know
how to compute such strategies, but as far as I know they have
never been published.

I can share you my strategy if you like so we can compare notes. I
developed one for a 9/6 JOB with a static RF at 1,500 for 1. I can
send to you via e-mail (I just have to dig it out).

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@x> wrote:
On Friday 04 June 2004 08:47 am, kiwiboy4921 wrote:

"I understand that stategy needs to change (I did make some ad-hoc
adjustments) but was wondering which stategy gave the best shot at
it."

Steve jacobs responded with:
> The answer depends on just exactly what you mean by "best shot".
>
> Suppose you start with a 100 unit bankroll. If you want to

maximize the probability that you will hit a royal before losing
that bankroll, then the playing strategy is different than max-EV
strategy.

Wouldn't it be a variance-adjusted strategy; i.e. for a 8/5 JOB with
RF at 2400 for 1 (ev is ~102%), you would still keep high pair over
3 to the RF. Almost like in full-pay Pick'em, keeping High Pair
over any three to the RF.

I'm not sure what "variance-adjusted" means, but the strategy is
close to the min-risk strategies that I've posted about previously.

The bet-shot strategy is independent of the payoff for the royal, so
for an 8/5 JOB game the strategy is the same whether the jackpot
is 1000 units or 2400 units.

>If you want to play in such a way that you maximize the average

number of dollars in your pocket right after hitting the royal, then
a third strategy is optimal.

Wouldn't that be a Max EV strategy because you said max average
number of dollars?

Max-EV maximizes the average number of dollars in your pocket at
the end of the very next play, taking into account the value of the
royal flush for computing the average. Maximizing dollars in your
pocket at the time you hit a royal calls for a significantly different
strategy, and the value of the royal isn't a factor. I usually call this
strategy min-cost-royal. It minimizes the average loss from the
string of non-royal payoffs that occur before hitting a royal flush.

The min-cost-royal strategy is also very close, but not identical to
the best-shot strategy and the strategy that I call min-risk. The
min-risk strategy maximizes the probability of surviving until you
reach a specific dollar target. With the best-shot strategy, you
care only about hitting a royal and you don't care (directly)
about how many dollars you end up with as a result.

> Maximizing the probability of hitting a royal on the very next

play gives another (very expensive) strategy.

This is one is easy. That's when you throw away everything except
for RF cards. For example, when flopped quad Kings and Th, you
would only keep the KTh and discard the other 3 kings.

Correct.

> I personally feel that the "maximimum survival" strategy, which
> maximize the probability that you hit a royal before going broke,
> is probably the best definition of "best shot at a royal." I know
> how to compute such strategies, but as far as I know they have
> never been published.

I can share you my strategy if you like so we can compare notes. I
developed one for a 9/6 JOB with a static RF at 1,500 for 1. I can
send to you via e-mail (I just have to dig it out).

I will probably post a best-shot strategy for 9/6, as soon as my hectic
work schedule eases up a bit so that I'll have enough free time to
dig it up. The same concept can be applied to any payoff -- you can
take your best shot at surviving until you hit a Flush or 3/kind or
any other payoff. In those cases the target payoff becomes more
valuable than any other, and royal-flush becomes a tiny bit lower
in value than the target hand. If your target is a Flush and you hit
a royal, your bankroll grows to the point where you are _almost_
certain to survive until hitting a flush. Payoffs become weighted in
terms of how much the payoff improves your probability of surviving.

···

On Monday 07 June 2004 12:58 pm, fordscks wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@x> wrote:
On Friday 04 June 2004 08:47 am, kiwiboy4921 wrote:

I don't mind posting it here, but at the moment my work schedule is
very hectic. Perhaps this weekend...

···

On Monday 07 June 2004 10:04 am, gilbert_616 wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@x> wrote:
> The answer depends on just exactly what you mean by "best shot".
>
> Suppose you start with a 100 unit bankroll. If you want to maximize
> the probability that you will hit a royal before losing that

bankroll,

> then the playing strategy is different than max-EV strategy. If you
> want to play in such a way that you maximize the average number
> of dollars in your pocket right after hitting the royal, then a

third

> strategy is optimal. Maximizing the probability of hitting a royal
> on the very next play gives another (very expensive) strategy.
>
> I personally feel that the "maximimum survival" strategy, which
> maximize the probability that you hit a royal before going broke,
> is probably the best definition of "best shot at a royal." I know
> how to compute such strategies, but as far as I know they have
> never been published.

-----------
Steve,

That sounds very interesting. Please publish your strategy here for
the "maximum survival" for the "best shot at a royal", if you don't
mind. If that's something you can only publish in books, then that's
okay too.