vpFREE2 Forums

Proper hold JOB 3 card royal vs. 4 card flush?????

#1

I haven’t seen Nudge for several years now. I used to run into him at a couple of casinos I don’t visit anymore (Gold Coast and Sam’s Town). Anyway it’s good to have him back here posting again — even occasionally.

The list he posted of when 4-card flushes were superior to 3-card royals got 2/3 of them — and the most important ones at that. But on a hand that starts out with a suited AKT2 and the fifth card is an off-suit T, you can’t accurately call that T a straight penalty. It’s actually a “two pair penalty” — because it makes it harder to end up with two pair.

Seedub’s “offsuit, unpaired, and higher than a 9” is 100% accurate.

Bob

···
#2

Thank you Bob and Nudge…Bob was correct. I just got Winpoker for my Iphone and did NOT changed the coins from 1 to 5. ergo the payoffs were based on the 250 coin return for the Royal. I feed pretty stupid about it.

Thank you Nudge…I have always played the same strategy for Bonus poker as I did for JOB. Your strategy sheet will come
in handy…

And thank both of you for the strategy for when a 4 card flush beats a 3 card royal. it’s really not that hard to remember…

Wife
and I are coming up on Saturday, staying a couple of nights at the ‘D’,
the El Cortez, and Main St. Station. Pretty good perks at all three of those casinos when playing JOB or Bonus Poker…

Thanks again, guys. I do appreciate the help.

Mike

#3

aclinmil wrote : “I just got Winpoker for
my Iphone and did NOT changed the coins from 1 to 5. ergo the payoffs
were based on the 250 coin return for the Royal.”

The 250-9-6 Jacks strategy is a good “under the radar” strategy, you still get around 99% return but with substantially less royals. Why would you want to purposely get less royals? Dealing with W2G’s would be one reason. What’s wrong with W2G’s? Taxes and identity theft, for one, and heat and reduced offers, for two. Also getting the royal is a longshot, fine if you’re planning on playing for awhile (probably millions of hands per tax year) but in today’s hit it and split environment where you should play at as many casinos as possible and as little as possible at each (just enough at the right time to get the promo) you’re better off concentrating on the short term, imho of course. 250-9-6 Jacks strategy would also be the mathematically optimal strategy for min-cost-royal and close to the Kelly optimal if you’re getting around 2% total kickbacks.

#4

NOTI wrote: The 250-9-6 Jacks strategy is a good “under the radar” strategy, you still get around 99% return but with substantially less royals. Why would you want to purposely get less royals? Dealing with W2G’s would be
one reason. What’s wrong with W2G’s? Taxes and identity theft, for one,
and heat and reduced offers, for two.

···

It’s actually 98.37% — which is quite a bit less than around 99%. Still, it’s a valid consideration.

one reason to use this strategy is if you are picking up free play for somebody else while playing for stakes that would generate a W2G for a royal. Although some casinos tolerate you playing on somebody else’s card (and some only on spouse’s cards), other casinos will take revenge by kicking both of you out after paying off the jackpot. If you had a “lot” of free play (say $1,000 or more) to pick up and didn’t have an hour’s time to play it off on quarters, using this strategy on a $1 or $2 denomination might be a “mostly safe” alternative. (You can’t play $5 unless the straight flush pays 239 coins rather than 250. Getting a W2G every 9000 hands is MUCH too often if you’re trying to keep a low profile.)

Royals come about every 51,500 hands using this strategy rather than 40,000. It’s not “totally” safe — but it’s safer.

Bob

#5

Bob wrote: “It’s actually 98.37% — which is quite a bit less than around 99%. Still, it’s a valid consideration. … Royals come about every 51,500 hands using this strategy rather than 40,000. It’s not “totally” safe — but it’s safer.”

Good points, but let me correct myself a bit. Actually 0-9-6 is the better strategy, you get it by setting the royal to 0 on a strategy generator, such as the wizard’s. The result is a royal cycle of 77,750, almost double the maxEV royal cycle. The return as such is 97.95% . I made the assumption you would actually be playing for an 800 royal, and that you would accept that, so adding that back in: 800/77,750 = 1.03% additional for a net 98.98%, almost 99%.

http://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/strategy/calculator/

#6

No doubt a “better strategy”, noti. But a miserable one by most any definition, particular for a game of moderate risk such as JOB.

You cut the cost of any RF drought in half, but at the cost of a permanent 1/4 RF shave on play.

What I find a bit perverse is that typically when there’s discussion of minimizing bankroll risk for a game, what has been advocated by some is “min-cost-royal”. For 9/6 JB, this actually involves playing a little more aggressively for the royal, eschewing all 4 card F’s in preference for 3RF holds.

See vpFREE FAQ Strategies - MCR

vpFREE FAQ Strategies
1 1038.6796 Royal Flush 2 48.8386 Straight Flush 3 24.7133 4/Kind 4 23.7749 4/royal 5 8.9654 Full House 6 5.9856 Flush 7 4.2856 trips 8 3.9942 Straight

View on www.west-point.org

Preview by Yahoo

—In vpF…@…com, <nightoftheiguana2000@…> wrote :

Bob wrote: “It’s actually 98.37% — which is quite a bit less than around 99%. Still, it’s a valid consideration. … Royals come about every 51,500 hands using this strategy rather than 40,000. It’s not “totally” safe — but it’s safer.”

Good points, but let me correct myself a bit. Actually 0-9-6 is the better strategy, you get it by setting the royal to 0 on a strategy generator, such as the wizard’s. The result is a royal cycle of 77,750, almost double the maxEV royal cycle. The return as such is 97.95% . I made the assumption you would actually be playing for an 800 royal, and that you would accept that, so adding that back in: 800/77,750 = 1.03% additional for a net 98.98%, almost 99%.

http://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/strategy/calculator/

#7

Harry wrote:

What I find a bit perverse is that typically when there's discussion of minimizing bankroll risk for a game, what has been advocated by some is "min-cost-royal". For 9/6 JB, this actually involves playing a little more aggressively for the royal, eschewing all 4 card F's in preference for 3RF holds.

That sounds like at least approximately the strategy that would
minimize bankroll risk. There was a 10s or better progressive at
Harvey's that had a huge hold and huge meter movement. They were so
huge that it was basic strategy to keep 2 to a royal over a low pair
because we didn't play it until it was far over the breaking numbers
for those hands and since those breaking numbers were below the break
even for the game, doing so, besides adding to expected value, reduced
the cost of hitting the royal. One player, for the sake of minimizing
bankroll requirement, wanted to play "conservatively" and keep the
pair until I explained this to him. That he ended a royal drought of
several cycles by hitting a big jackpot on this kind of hand is a
nearly meaningless anecdote, but it's why I remember it.

#8

vp_wiz wrote: “What I find a bit perverse is that typically when there’s discussion of minimizing bankroll risk for a game, what has been advocated by some is “min-cost-royal”. For 9/6 JB, this actually involves playing a little more aggressively for the royal, eschewing all 4 card F’s in preference for 3RF holds.”

If your total promotion package to play is 1%, then 0-9-6 strategy is the correct min-cost-royal strategy. You are correct that if there is no promotion package, you are just playing straight 9/6 jacks, then min-cost-royal would involve more aggressively going for the royal, as you say. As always, the promotion package changes everything.

[Possibly unnecessary additional explanation: min-cost-royal strategy is found by adjusting the royal to get an even return, since 0-9-6 strategy with an actual 800 royal returns about 99%, if there is an additional 1% promotion package, the net return is even hence one is also at min-cost-royal strategy. I previously mistakenly said 2%, 1% is all that is needed.]

vpFREE FAQ Strategies

vpFREE FAQ Strategies
1 1038.6796 Royal Flush 2 48.8386 Straight Flush 3 24.7133 4/Kind 4 23.7749 4/royal 5 8.9654 Full House 6 5.9856 Flush 7 4.2856 trips 8 3.9942 Straight

View on www.west-point.org

Preview by Yahoo

#9

Just to clarify and summarize a bit:

At 1.02% promo and above, 0-9-6 strategy is the correct min-cost-royal strategy

At 0.46% promo, 800-9-6 strategy is the correct min-cost-royal strategy.

With no promo, 976-9-6 strategy is the correct min-cost-royal strategy.

As always, promo’s change everything.

[The first number in the sequence represents the value to set the royal at in a strategy generator to get the strategy, so: royal = 0, 800, or 976 results in different strategies. The assumption is made that the royal actually always returns 800.]

#10

Now, I’m going to have to sit back and do some thinking, NOTI. Seems my intuition is skipping a cog.

Say a given strategy represents the min-cost-royal strategy for a game. If you modify the game to add a constant kickback to the player with each play, it’s not at all evident that the MCR strategy is impacted at all.

It seems to me that the MCR strategy for a given game is also the MCR strategy when add any fixed component of additional return to game. (Adding a constant doesn’t change the minimum point on the graph of an equation).

Can you shed a little light on my confusion?

—In vpF…@…com, <nightoftheiguana2000@…> wrote :

[Possibly unnecessary additional explanation: min-cost-royal strategy is found by adjusting the royal to get an even return, since 0-9-6 strategy with an actual 800 royal returns about 99%, if there is an additional 1% promotion package, the net return is even hence one is also at min-cost-royal strategy. I previously mistakenly said 2%, 1% is all that is needed.]

#11

vp_wiz wrote: “Say a given strategy represents the min-cost-royal strategy for a game.
If you modify the game to add a constant kickback to the player with each play, it’s not at all evident that the MCR strategy is impacted at all.”

Of course it is. If you change the paytable, that would change the MCR strategy? Well, a constant kickback is the same as changing the paytable, you simply add it to each payoff as well as the null payoff. If the net return is less than 100%, you need to play more aggressively for the royal, if the net return is over 100%, you can afford to play less aggressively for the royal and instead maximize the return of the non-royal hands. The 0-9-6 strategy maximizes the return of the non-royal hands. If you are getting enough “kickback” (over about 1%), you can afford to play it. Of course, if you can’t get enough kickback, then you have to go for the royal and take some loss from the non-royal hands, essentially if you are playing negative, time is not on your side. The better alternative would be to not play and to invest instead in scouting for better situations to get your bankroll in. Scouting after all is practically free, sometimes you can even make a little from the no-play required handouts casinos offer.

#12

Another way to look at it: MCR strategy is found by finding the value of the royal that gives a net return of 100%. If you add a constant kickback, that changes the net return of the game, and hence changes the value of the royal needed to get a net return of 100%, and hence changes MCR strategy.

#13

NOTI, I generally strongly defer to you. However, here I’m going to firmly object.

3 terms of college calculus, along with a couple of advanced courses, have me firmly versed in the essentials of min/max analysis (though by no means an expert).

And I firmly grasp the prinicples of MCR strategy calculation, and can relate the concept to evaluation of a derivative.

It’s a given that the addition of a constant to an equation has no impact on the determination of the related derivative, or on its evaluation. I see nothing re MCR strategy determination that would indicate that a constant plays any role there as well.

I’m always open to further education. But the idea that addition of a constant game kickback would impact the determination of MCR strategy goes against every gut feeling I have. Most importantly, it simply offends my common sense – how the hell could a fixed kickback alter the MCR math.

At heart, a fixed kick back isn’t additional return – it’s a net reduction to your wager. And if you run MCR for a game, assume a smaller wager (or no wager whatsoever), I’m very firm that it has no impact on the MCR math.

However, occasionally I’m simply blind. If so, please enlighten, in the manner that you do so well.

—In vpF…@…com, <nightoftheiguana2000@…> wrote :

Another way to look at it: MCR strategy is found by finding the value of the royal that gives a net return of 100%. If you add a constant kickback, that changes the net return of the game, and hence changes the value of the royal needed to get a net return of 100%, and hence changes MCR strategy.

#14

Obviously, sometimes spelling things out a little helps open ones eyes … with 2 seconds of additional contemplation, it’s clear that a reduction of the wager has a direct impact on MCR strategy. (As I suggested, I can be a little slow :wink:

Ultimately I return to a general dislike MCR vs max-ER as a bankroll preservation strategy, except in extreme cases (e.g. chasing high progressives).

Humor me a bit, NOTI. At your convenience, assuming play of $1 9/6 JB w/ 1% in game incentives, what’s the 1% ROR bankroll requirement for the 2 respective strategies. That, at least for me, will more strongly cement relative potential advantages. (mind you, I’m not sure that MCR equates to bankroll requirement minimization.)

#15

vp_wiz wrote: “I’m always open to further education. But the idea that addition of a constant game kickback would impact the determination of MCR strategy goes against every gut feeling I have. Most importantly, it simply offends my common sense – how the hell could a fixed kickback alter the
MCR math.”

OK, let me take another approach here. First off, the “kickback amount” isn’t constant correct? The kickback amount is the kickback percentage times the royal cycle, so obviously if the royal cycle is longer, you get more kickback? Does that make sense? Another way is to simply do the math, which gives me a chance to make a correction in one of my statements, ok, ready?, math:

Put 0 as the royal value, the return (per wizard’s calculator) is 97.94%. So, if the kickback percentage is 2.06%, the net return is 100%, and this is the correct MCR strategy. The cost of the royal is zero, zip, nada. It’s a freeroll, how sweet is that?

Now, let’s say instead you play 800-9-6 strategy in this same situation. The return of the game is 99.54%, plus you’re getting 2.06% kickback for a net return of 101.6%. What’s the cost of the royal now? It’s 800 minus 1.6% of the royal cycle which is 40,391, I get 154. Not bad, but that’s a long way from zero my friend.

OK, let’s say instead you play 976-9-6 strategy in this same situation. The cost of the royal is 976, minus 2.06% of the royal cycle which is now 35,939, I get 236. That’s worse, not surprising, to me at least, because this is not the MCR strategy for this situation.

How you like dem apples?

#16

vp_wiz wrote: “Humor me a bit, NOTI. At your convenience, assuming play of $1 9/6 JB w/ 1% in game incentives, what’s the 1% ROR bankroll requirement for the
2 respective strategies. That, at least for me, will more strongly cement relative potential advantages. (mind you, I’m not sure that MCR equates to bankroll requirement minimization.)”

There is such a thing as the min-ROR strategy. Obviously that’s the strategy that would minimize the longterm ROR. It only works if you have an overlay, and you get the strategy by discounting every win by an amount proportional to the overlay, so both MCR and min-ROR discount the royal for overlays, so they are similar, but not identical, and the min-ROR is between the MCR and maxEV. If you want to do the math, it’s doable with a spreadsheet, the adjustment formula is (1-R(1)^W)/(1-R(1)) where R(1) is the familiar risk of ruin number.

But, it doesn’t have to be this complicated. The N0 for Jacks+2.06% is about variance/edge^2 = 19.51/.016^ is about 76,211. So, if you’re willing to play at least this many hands in a tax year, maxEV or min-ROR are the better strategies. Below this number you should really be thinking MCR. This number is around the royal cycle, so it makes sense that MCR is the better fit, around the royal cycle and less. If you’re willing to go beyond, and the casino will let you (think about it, that’s a big pregnant if with this kind of overlay), you’re going to play more than one royal cycle, and maxEV and min-ROR now become the better fits as you are less concerned with the cost of one particular royal cycle and more concerned with longer term survival. Make sense? I know you personally are a 7-stars player, and I assume you got it the hard way, by playing millions of hands per tax year, so for you MCR makes little sense while min-ROR would be a no brainer, IMHO.

#17

Say a new casino opens and is looking to take over all the business and wipe out the competition, so they put in 9-6 Jacks and you get a 2.06% promotional package with it. Pretty sweet, right? But, there’s a catch, they will only allow you one royal, at which point you are 86’d from video poker for life and the afterlife as well, the casino is thinking if you can hit a royal, you must know how to play the game, and they don’t want your business ever again. Doesn’t make total sense, but a common line of reasoning in modern casinos.

A sharp walks in, and he always plays maxEV, so maxEV it is, perfectly of course, never making a single mistake, and for the highest denomination, of course. The casino knows the sharp will get the best of them, but they are cool with letting him have one royal, perhaps his presense will bring in more players with weaker skills that the casino can exploit. So, for Mr. maxEV, the average cost of one royal is 976 bets. That kinda sucks considering a royal only pays 800 bets. So, already he’s 176 in the hole. But wait, there’s that 2.06% promotion, which gets him an additional 40,391 x 2.06% = 832 bets, so he nets 656 bets or about 80% of a royal on average. Not bad.

Another player walks in, and she’s not buying all the maxEV hype and maxEV classes and zombie robot stuff like that. Instead, it’s MCR. Why not? I mean, it’s a freeroll to the whole royal. It takes a while, but she finally gets her royal, and she gets to keep it all, netting 800 bets or 100% of the royal on average. But wait, it took her so long to hit a royal the casino reconsiders, she must not be that great of a player really, right? I mean the hot players can snap off royals just like that, right? The casino gives her a second chance to try again, she stubbornly sticks to MCR, hey why change horses in midstream?, and she gets to eventually net a second royal, also rake free. Does the casino wish to “laissez les bons temps rouler”? Might actually make business sense, here’s a player that is winning, but they are not being a pig at it and grinding the casino’s nose into it by scoring massive numbers of royals?

Which player would you rather be?

#18

While that’s certainly a possible scenario, because you are creating a fictional casino management team, you can make them think in whatever way supports your point of view. Someone who wants to defend maxEV over MCR could easily say casino management thinks the following:

Wow, this lady had a real royal drought before finally getting her royal, and somehow she still made a profit?! She must be a REALLY good player, because everyone else that goes that long without hitting a royal gets crushed. We definitely should stick with our one royal and you are out of here policy, because when she starts hitting royals at a normal rate she’ll destroy us.

And with that story, the maxEV defender will say, “We both got kicked out after one royal. Sure she made more from that one royal than I did, but while she was playing all those hands to get that first royal, I was making money off of other plays elsewhere.”

Both stories are equally plausible and equally fictional. Hopefully no reader thinks either story is “proof” of why one is better than the other. They point out possible things to consider when deciding which strategy is best for you, but no one should place too much weight in how either story ends.

—In vpF…@…com, <nightoftheiguana2000@…> wrote :

Say a new casino opens and is looking to take over all the business and wipe out the competition, so they put in 9-6 Jacks and you get a 2.06% promotional package with it. Pretty sweet, right? But, there’s a catch, they will only allow you one royal, at which point you are 86’d from video poker for life and the afterlife as well, the casino is thinking if you can hit a royal, you must know how to play the game, and they don’t want your business ever again. Doesn’t make total sense, but a common line of reasoning in modern casinos.

A sharp walks in, and he always plays maxEV, so maxEV it is, perfectly of course, never making a single mistake, and for the highest denomination, of course. The casino knows the sharp will get the best of them, but they are cool with letting him have one royal, perhaps his presense will bring in more players with weaker skills that the casino can exploit. So, for Mr. maxEV, the average cost of one royal is 976 bets. That kinda sucks considering a royal only pays 800 bets. So, already he’s 176 in the hole. But wait, there’s that 2.06% promotion, which gets him an additional 40,391 x 2.06% = 832 bets, so he nets 656 bets or about 80% of a royal on average. Not bad.

Another player walks in, and she’s not buying all the maxEV hype and maxEV classes and zombie robot stuff like that. Instead, it’s MCR. Why not? I mean, it’s a freeroll to the whole royal. It takes a while, but she finally gets her royal, and she gets to keep it all, netting 800 bets or 100% of the royal on average. But wait, it took her so long to hit a royal the casino reconsiders, she must not be that great of a player really, right? I mean the hot players can snap off royals just like that, right? The casino gives her a second chance to try again, she stubbornly sticks to MCR, hey why change horses in midstream?, and she gets to eventually net a second royal, also rake free. Does the casino wish to “laissez les bons temps rouler”? Might actually make business sense, here’s a player that is winning, but they are not being a pig at it and grinding the casino’s nose into it by scoring massive numbers of royals?

Which player would you rather be?

#19

At the risk of beating a dead horse, another option is the Kelly strategy.

To get Kelly strategy at a 1 Royal bankroll (=800 bets), set the Royal to 554 in the strategy generator.

To get Kelly strategy at a 2 Royal bankroll, set the Royal to 648 in the strategy generator.

To get Kelly strategy at a 3 Royal bankroll, set the Royal to 690 in the strategy generator.

To get Kelly strategy at a 5 Royal bankroll, set the Royal to 729 in the strategy generator.

To get Kelly strategy at a 10 Royal bankroll, set the Royal to 762 in the strategy generator.

To get Kelly strategy at a 100 Royal bankroll, set the Royal to 795 in the strategy generator.

Above roughly a 100 Royal bankroll, Kelly strategy is virtually the same as maxEV strategy. Included in Kelly strategy is the tactic of not betting at all once your current bankroll falls below the Kelly threshold which is roughly variance/edge bets.

···

Adjusted Kelly Win = (ln(BR+Win-1)-ln(BR))/(ln(BR+1)-ln(BR))