vpFREE2 Forums

Request Regarding The Wiz's Ultimate X Strategy

#1

The Wizard of Odds Ultimate X strategy is shown below. My request is that I'd appreciate it if someone (preferably the Wiz himself) would post a few examples of the use of the strategy. Thanx!

The strategy in Ultimate X will depend not only on your cards, but the sum of the current multipliers. One could get good, but not perfect, advice by using a video poker calculator, putting into the pay field for each hand cm*w+nm-1, where cm is the average current multiplier, w is the pay table win, and nm is the pay table multiplier for the next hand. However, be warned that using a "device" to alter the odds in Nevada is a felony. If you want to memorize proper strategy, you will need a separate strategy for all possible total multipliers, and there are hundreds of possibilities between 3-play, 5-play, and 10-play. In my opinion, the number of players who will ever know strategy within 0.1% of optimal strategy, will be zero.<<

Source: http://wizardofodds.com/ultimatex

#2

If I were to approach the game, I would want to compare different play hand possiblities and solve for the cm number, divided by the number of lines.

Consider playing 9-6 DDB, and picking up something like QJTs with both a pay pair and a F pen. I am going to speculate in most cases that it is correct to draw one, and almost never correct to hold the pay pair. However, the cm number might be so high, it would be correct to go for the royal once in a while, for example, if the previous hand was a dealt flush, full house or even possibly a straight. You could use the forumla Shackleford gives, and solve for CM to find out exactly what the average multiplier per hand you'd need for the QJT hold to be correct (and then compare it to the current average multiplier you're looking at).

I've discussed this with a couple of pros who also do their own programming, they say it's too complicated, but I think there are about 20-25 key decisions you can hand calculate, and again I'm speculating, but you should be able to get most of the ER out of the program.

There are a couple of members whose math/programming skills are awesome here...feel free to chime in.

···

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

The Wizard of Odds Ultimate X strategy is shown below. My request is that I'd appreciate it if someone (preferably the Wiz himself) would post a few examples of the use of the strategy. Thanx!

>>The strategy in Ultimate X will depend not only on your cards, but the sum of the current multipliers. One could get good, but not perfect, advice by using a video poker calculator, putting into the pay field for each hand cm*w+nm-1, where cm is the average current multiplier, w is the pay table win, and nm is the pay table multiplier for the next hand. However, be warned that using a "device" to alter the odds in Nevada is a felony. If you want to memorize proper strategy, you will need a separate strategy for all possible total multipliers, and there are hundreds of possibilities between 3-play, 5-play, and 10-play. In my opinion, the number of players who will ever know strategy within 0.1% of optimal strategy, will be zero.<<

Source: http://wizardofodds.com/ultimatex

#3

Chiming in: Two years ago I had a few questions regarding OEJ's so I asked Mr. Shackleford, who was very gracious and provided more than I really expected. The speculation and advice below is interesting, however, but only if you're not going to play the game and have only a passing interest. I suggest going to the Wizard for a solid answer. Nothing is "too complicated" when you're motivated enough to actually understand something or succeed in doing it. What pros would say something like that?

···

________________________________
From: WP SF <paladingamingllc@yahoo.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, December 14, 2009 12:03:29 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Request Regarding The Wiz's Ultimate X Strategy

If I were to approach the game, I would want to compare different play hand possiblities and solve for the cm number, divided by the number of lines.

Consider playing 9-6 DDB, and picking up something like QJTs with both a pay pair and a F pen. I am going to speculate in most cases that it is correct to draw one, and almost never correct to hold the pay pair. However, the cm number might be so high, it would be correct to go for the royal once in a while, for example, if the previous hand was a dealt flush, full house or even possibly a straight. You could use the forumla Shackleford gives, and solve for CM to find out exactly what the average multiplier per hand you'd need for the QJT hold to be correct (and then compare it to the current average multiplier you're looking at).

I've discussed this with a couple of pros who also do their own programming, they say it's too complicated, but I think there are about 20-25 key decisions you can hand calculate, and again I'm speculating, but you should be able to get most of the ER out of the program.

There are a couple of members whose math/programming skills are awesome here...feel free to chime in.

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

#4

Something can be too complicated to be feasible. I've also put a lot
of work into understanding that 2 pair or better Joker's Wild game,
but I had no idea a lone queen could ever be the best play, especially
when there's at least one middle card in the hand. Theoretically, I
could study all such situations and know every possible lone card that
is best to keep, but since the cost in time and energy obviously
outweighs the benefits, I'd say it's too complicated and not bother.
I've never studied the Ultimate X strategy, but it sounds many times
more complicated than that. Opportunity cost can make some things too
complicated for even the most devoted pro. At some point, perfect
play and optimal play diverge. Your word "motivated" is key.

···

Chiming in: Two years ago I had a few questions regarding OEJ's so I asked Mr. Shackleford, who was very gracious and provided more than I really expected. The speculation and advice below is interesting, however, but only if you're not going to play the game and have only a passing interest. I suggest going to the Wizard for a solid answer. Nothing is "too complicated" when you're motivated enough to actually understand something or succeed in doing it. What pros would say something like that?

________________________________
From: WP SF <paladingamingllc@yahoo.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, December 14, 2009 12:03:29 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Request Regarding The Wiz's Ultimate X Strategy

If I were to approach the game, I would want to compare different play hand possiblities and solve for the cm number, divided by the number of lines.

Consider playing 9-6 DDB, and picking up something like QJTs with both a pay pair and a F pen. I am going to speculate in most cases that it is correct to draw one, and almost never correct to hold the pay pair. However, the cm number might be so high, it would be correct to go for the royal once in a while, for example, if the previous hand was a dealt flush, full house or even possibly a straight. You could use the forumla Shackleford gives, and solve for CM to find out exactly what the average multiplier per hand you'd need for the QJT hold to be correct (and then compare it to the current average multiplier you're looking at).

I've discussed this with a couple of pros who also do their own programming, they say it's too complicated, but I think there are about 20-25 key decisions you can hand calculate, and again I'm speculating, but you should be able to get most of the ER out of the program.

There are a couple of members whose math/programming skills are awesome here...feel free to chime in.

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

#5

Well, I by no means play perfectly even though I strive to. Who does? But in my mind if someone's going to play that game for a profit then I subscribe to the Bob Dancer school of learning the game to perfection including all penalty card situations. I know some don't, and your point about feasibility is important. WPSF seemed to be winging it while tooting unknown horns for being too complicated at the same time. By the way, Ultimate X is not a game I would play right now even if it were easier to master. It's tough enough having 3 games down pat when I only play once a month.

···

________________________________
From: Tom Robertson <madameguyon@embarqmail.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, December 15, 2009 4:06:18 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Request Regarding The Wiz's Ultimate X Strategy

Something can be too complicated to be feasible. I've also put a lot
of work into understanding that 2 pair or better Joker's Wild game,
but I had no idea a lone queen could ever be the best play, especially
when there's at least one middle card in the hand. Theoretically, I
could study all such situations and know every possible lone card that
is best to keep, but since the cost in time and energy obviously
outweighs the benefits, I'd say it's too complicated and not bother.
I've never studied the Ultimate X strategy, but it sounds many times
more complicated than that. Opportunity cost can make some things too
complicated for even the most devoted pro. At some point, perfect
play and optimal play diverge. Your word "motivated" is key.

Chiming in: Two years ago I had a few questions regarding OEJ's so I asked Mr. Shackleford, who was very gracious and provided more than I really expected. The speculation and advice below is interesting, however, but only if you're not going to play the game and have only a passing interest. I suggest going to the Wizard for a solid answer. Nothing is "too complicated" when you're motivated enough to actually understand something or succeed in doing it. What pros would say something like that?

___________ _________ _________ ___
From: WP SF <paladingamingllc@ yahoo.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Mon, December 14, 2009 12:03:29 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Request Regarding The Wiz's Ultimate X Strategy

If I were to approach the game, I would want to compare different play hand possiblities and solve for the cm number, divided by the number of lines.

Consider playing 9-6 DDB, and picking up something like QJTs with both a pay pair and a F pen. I am going to speculate in most cases that it is correct to draw one, and almost never correct to hold the pay pair. However, the cm number might be so high, it would be correct to go for the royal once in a while, for example, if the previous hand was a dealt flush, full house or even possibly a straight. You could use the forumla Shackleford gives, and solve for CM to find out exactly what the average multiplier per hand you'd need for the QJT hold to be correct (and then compare it to the current average multiplier you're looking at).

I've discussed this with a couple of pros who also do their own programming, they say it's too complicated, but I think there are about 20-25 key decisions you can hand calculate, and again I'm speculating, but you should be able to get most of the ER out of the program.

There are a couple of members whose math/programming skills are awesome here...feel free to chime in.

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

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

#6

Don't know about ultmate x; I and 3 of my 4 kids play DBP. I have
always told them, "It' better to lose properly than to win
improperly." Was I wrong?

From iPhone

···

On Dec 15, 2009, at 4:01 PM, Jerry Logan <jerrylogan93@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well, I by no means play perfectly even though I strive to. Who
does? But in my mind if someone's going to play that game for a
profit then I subscribe to the Bob Dancer school of learning the
game to perfection including all penalty card situations. I know
some don't, and your point about feasibility is important. WPSF
seemed to be winging it while tooting unknown horns for being too
complicated at the same time. By the way, Ultimate X is not a game I
would play right now even if it were easier to master. It's tough
enough having 3 games down pat when I only play once a month.

________________________________
From: Tom Robertson <madameguyon@embarqmail.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, December 15, 2009 4:06:18 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Request Regarding The Wiz's Ultimate X
Strategy

Something can be too complicated to be feasible. I've also put a lot
of work into understanding that 2 pair or better Joker's Wild game,
but I had no idea a lone queen could ever be the best play, especially
when there's at least one middle card in the hand. Theoretically, I
could study all such situations and know every possible lone card that
is best to keep, but since the cost in time and energy obviously
outweighs the benefits, I'd say it's too complicated and not bother.
I've never studied the Ultimate X strategy, but it sounds many times
more complicated than that. Opportunity cost can make some things too
complicated for even the most devoted pro. At some point, perfect
play and optimal play diverge. Your word "motivated" is key.

>Chiming in: Two years ago I had a few questions regarding OEJ's so
I asked Mr. Shackleford, who was very gracious and provided more
than I really expected. The speculation and advice below is
interesting, however, but only if you're not going to play the game
and have only a passing interest. I suggest going to the Wizard for
a solid answer. Nothing is "too complicated" when you're motivated
enough to actually understand something or succeed in doing it. What
pros would say something like that?
>
>
>
>
>___________ _________ _________ ___
>From: WP SF <paladingamingllc@ yahoo.com>
>To: vpFREE@yahoogroups. com
>Sent: Mon, December 14, 2009 12:03:29 AM
>Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Request Regarding The Wiz's Ultimate X Strategy
>
>
>If I were to approach the game, I would want to compare different
play hand possiblities and solve for the cm number, divided by the
number of lines.
>
>Consider playing 9-6 DDB, and picking up something like QJTs with
both a pay pair and a F pen. I am going to speculate in most cases
that it is correct to draw one, and almost never correct to hold the
pay pair. However, the cm number might be so high, it would be
correct to go for the royal once in a while, for example, if the
previous hand was a dealt flush, full house or even possibly a
straight. You could use the forumla Shackleford gives, and solve for
CM to find out exactly what the average multiplier per hand you'd
need for the QJT hold to be correct (and then compare it to the
current average multiplier you're looking at).
>
>I've discussed this with a couple of pros who also do their own
programming, they say it's too complicated, but I think there are
about 20-25 key decisions you can hand calculate, and again I'm
speculating, but you should be able to get most of the ER out of the
program.
>
>There are a couple of members whose math/programming skills are
awesome here...feel free to chime in.
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

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

#7

That's like the age old question: Would you rather be lucky and win or skilled and lose?
I'd rather be the winner. You was wrong!

···

________________________________
From: Lee <leesail@aol.com>
To: "vpFREE@yahoogroups.com" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, December 15, 2009 7:03:33 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Request Regarding The Wiz's Ultimate X Strategy

Don't know about ultmate x; I and 3 of my 4 kids play DBP. I have
always told them, "It' better to lose properly than to win
improperly." Was I wrong?

From iPhone

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

#8

Is the problem in understanding the formula?

It's pretty straightforward, but I'll go through an example.

Let's say we're talking 9/6 Jacks, 10 play, and no current multipliers.

In that case we just add the potential future multipliers (minus 1) to the standard paytable:

800+6= 806
50+6= 56
25+2= 31
9+11= 20
6+10= 16
4+6= 10
3+3= 6
2+2= 4
1+1= 2

Then stick those numbers into Video Poker Strategy Master and out pops the max ev strategy for the case of no current multipliers:

5SF>4RF>PAT>4SF>4FL>HP>3RF>4STo>LP>3SFo>AKQJ>3FL2H>4STi3H>3SFi>2RF2H>4STi2H>KQJ>3FL1H>QJT>QJ>3SFdi>KQ>KJ>JTs>4STi1H>2HC>QTs>HC>3FL>4STi

#9

Another example:

Since the average multiplier is obviously about 2, solve for that as the average case:

9/6 DDB 10 play:
cm*w+nm-1:

RF 2*800 +4 -1 = 1603
SF 2*50 +4 -1 = 103
QA+k 2*400 +4 -1 = 803
Q2-4+k 2*160 +4 -1 = 323
QA 2*160 +4 -1 = 323
Q2-4 2*80 +4 -1 = 163
QK-5 2*50 +3 -1 = 102
FH 2*9 +12 -1 = 29
FL 2*6 +10 -1 = 21
ST 2*4 +8 -1 = 15
3K 2*3 +4 -1 = 9
2P 2*1 +3 -1 = 4
HP 2*1 +2 -1 = 3

And the average strategy is:

5SF>4RF>PAT>4SF>2P>HP>4FL>3RF>4STo>LP>AKQJ>3SFo>4STi3H>3FL2H>4STi2H>3SFi>2RF2H>KQJ>QJT>4STi1H>QJ>JTs>KQ>KJ>3FL1H>A>3SFdi>QTs>HC>4STi>3FL

#10

Another example:

Since the average multiplier is obviously about 2, solve for that as the average case:

9/6 DDB 10 play:
cm*w+nm-1:

RF 2*800 +4 -1 = 1603
SF 2*50 +4 -1 = 103
QA+k 2*400 +4 -1 = 803
Q2-4+k 2*160 +4 -1 = 323
QA 2*160 +4 -1 = 323
Q2-4 2*80 +4 -1 = 163
QK-5 2*50 +3 -1 = 102
FH 2*9 +12 -1 = 29
FL 2*6 +10 -1 = 21
ST 2*4 +8 -1 = 15
3K 2*3 +4 -1 = 9
2P 2*1 +3 -1 = 4
HP 2*1 +2 -1 = 3

And the average strategy is:

5SF>4RF>PAT>4SF>2P>HP>4FL>3RF>4STo>LP>AKQJ>3SFo>4STi3H>3FL2H>4STi2H>3SFi>2RF2H>KQJ>QJT>4STi1H>QJ>JTs>KQ>KJ>3FL1H>A>3SFdi>QTs>HC>4STi>3FL

#11

Night, your below ddb and previous job ultimate x strategy formulas are exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for the help. I'm thinking of using them to come up with just a handful of strategies for the game/paytable I'll be playing.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

Another example:

Since the average multiplier is obviously about 2, solve for that as the average case:

9/6 DDB 10 play:
cm*w+nm-1:

RF 2*800 +4 -1 = 1603
SF 2*50 +4 -1 = 103
QA+k 2*400 +4 -1 = 803
Q2-4+k 2*160 +4 -1 = 323
QA 2*160 +4 -1 = 323
Q2-4 2*80 +4 -1 = 163
QK-5 2*50 +3 -1 = 102
FH 2*9 +12 -1 = 29
FL 2*6 +10 -1 = 21
ST 2*4 +8 -1 = 15
3K 2*3 +4 -1 = 9
2P 2*1 +3 -1 = 4
HP 2*1 +2 -1 = 3

And the average strategy is:

5SF>4RF>PAT>4SF>2P>HP>4FL>3RF>4STo>LP>AKQJ>3SFo>4STi3H>3FL2H>4STi2H>3SFi>2RF2H>KQJ>QJT>4STi1H>QJ>JTs>KQ>KJ>3FL1H>A>3SFdi>QTs>HC>4STi>3FL

#12

When I was playing regularly in AC, it was commonly heard from DJW players, "you're wasting time (read: money) thinking about it"

I know I can play JW2 at Suncoast for $, but I enjoyed the Rampart experience much more. They'd get an hour or two of play a month for me, because I enjoyed playing the game, and it wasn't necessarily on a promo day either. While when in AC, speed trumped precision of play, JW2 was purely about making the correct play 100% of the time.

That being said, Tom is 100% correct. You need to figure out the costs of utility and incorporate them in your play strategy. I share his concerns about Ultimate X as well, and I have to disagreee with NOTI, because some errors using that strategy will be whoppers. It's a great line of thought otherwise, I see what he's saying, but if you get any kind of royal draw after flopping a F or FH playing DDB, you better go for it. I feel pretty safe in saying when you're looking at 12x across, if you get dealt, say, KQJsKQ, you better be drawing two. (Maybe I should check the math just in case lol...)

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <madameguyon@...> wrote:

Something can be too complicated to be feasible. I've also put a lot
of work into understanding that 2 pair or better Joker's Wild game,
but I had no idea a lone queen could ever be the best play, especially
when there's at least one middle card in the hand. Theoretically, I
could study all such situations and know every possible lone card that
is best to keep, but since the cost in time and energy obviously
outweighs the benefits, I'd say it's too complicated and not bother.
I've never studied the Ultimate X strategy, but it sounds many times
more complicated than that. Opportunity cost can make some things too
complicated for even the most devoted pro. At some point, perfect
play and optimal play diverge. Your word "motivated" is key.

>Chiming in: Two years ago I had a few questions regarding OEJ's so I asked Mr. Shackleford, who was very gracious and provided more than I really expected. The speculation and advice below is interesting, however, but only if you're not going to play the game and have only a passing interest. I suggest going to the Wizard for a solid answer. Nothing is "too complicated" when you're motivated enough to actually understand something or succeed in doing it. What pros would say something like that?
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: WP SF <paladingamingllc@...>
>To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Mon, December 14, 2009 12:03:29 AM
>Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Request Regarding The Wiz's Ultimate X Strategy
>
>
>If I were to approach the game, I would want to compare different play hand possiblities and solve for the cm number, divided by the number of lines.
>
>Consider playing 9-6 DDB, and picking up something like QJTs with both a pay pair and a F pen. I am going to speculate in most cases that it is correct to draw one, and almost never correct to hold the pay pair. However, the cm number might be so high, it would be correct to go for the royal once in a while, for example, if the previous hand was a dealt flush, full house or even possibly a straight. You could use the forumla Shackleford gives, and solve for CM to find out exactly what the average multiplier per hand you'd need for the QJT hold to be correct (and then compare it to the current average multiplier you're looking at).
>
>I've discussed this with a couple of pros who also do their own programming, they say it's too complicated, but I think there are about 20-25 key decisions you can hand calculate, and again I'm speculating, but you should be able to get most of the ER out of the program.
>
>There are a couple of members whose math/programming skills are awesome here...feel free to chime in.
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#13

yeah, you should check the math.

as cm increases, cm*w + nm - 1 asymptotically approaches cm*w. thus,
the higher your current multiplier, the closer your optimal UX
strategy becomes to the optimal base game strategy. with 12x across in
UX, you're pretty much playing your base game strategy.

KQJs doesn't beat two pair in 9/6 DDB, and it doesn't in UX 9/6 DDB
with a 12x current multiplier either. unless, of course, *i* need to
check *my* math. :slight_smile:

cheers,

five

···

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 4:52 PM, WP SF <paladingamingllc@yahoo.com> wrote:

I see what he's saying, but if you get any kind of royal draw after flopping a F or FH playing DDB, you better go for it. I feel pretty safe in saying when you're looking at 12x across, if you get dealt, say, KQJsKQ, you better be drawing two. (Maybe I should check the math just in case lol...)

#14

Hey, isn't that the secret formula for vagina repellant?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, fivespot <fivespot55@...> wrote:

as cm increases, cm*w + nm - 1 asymptotically
approaches cm*w.

#15

The average strategy I presented (without making any claims, but you drew a good inference) may actually be the optimal (maxEV) strategy. There are other games where the average strategy is better than a perfect strategy for each case, flush attack is an example, another example is 2nd royal pays double, whether or not Ultimate X also fits that situation I don't know, but I propose that it does, without any attempt to offer a proof. I just throw that out there, enjoy.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "WP SF" <paladingamingllc@...> wrote:

...I have to disagreee with NOTI, because some errors using that strategy will be whoppers.

#16

What the heck, I'll even go out on a limb and propose a simple generic ultimate x strategy for non-wild games:

Play the way you play the base game, except:

Never break a dealt full house or 2 pair.

Always hold flush kickers, so 4 flush cards beats 3 royal cards, and hold QJx suited or Axx suited, even holding just three suited cards is better than drawing 5. (It doesn't matter if your "flushes are running" or not, lol)

4 straight cards with an outside draw beats a low pair and always hold straight kickers, so hold inside draws (gut shots) instead of just the lone high cards or drawing 5. Also hold QJT unsuited instead of just QJ unsuited.

(Basically, full houses, flushes and straights are more valuable than in the base game, if you know 10/7/5 DB strategy, that's pretty close)

My contention is that this captures most of the wizard's published returns (possibly even slightly more).

If you draw casino heat, I would also recommend you memorize and recite this monologue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Rh414jxCk

And go ahead and squeal like a girl on her first pony ride when you get that 12x dealt royal, just move quickly afterward with your loot in the parking lot and avoid dark and confined spaces. Oh yeah, and make sure to bring your lawyer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OLLb_oD26Q

"I want to be a famous rider, I should like to hunt, ride to hounds ..."

#17

Just to make things interesting, I think I found a slight bug in the wizard's ultimate x strategy.

The strategy for a particular current multiplier should be cm*w/2 + nm-1

The average multipler is about 2, so the average strategy is found with w + nm-1

To get the return, you divide that by 2

Of course, I could just be blowing smoke.

#18

On second thought, ok, I think I'll get it right this time:

The return is (cm*w/2 + nm*ER/2)/2

Pure scalers can be ignored for strategy generation purposes, so the formula for strategy generation is:

cm*w + nm*ER

The average current multiplier is about 2 (for a given strategy you can find it exactly), so the average strategy is found with:

2*w + nm*ER

To make things simpler for the first go round, assume ER is 1, hence:

2*w + nm

Still pretty close to 10/7/5 DB strategy.

#19

Yeah, I should have quit while I was ahead there...I had the math backwards.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, fivespot <fivespot55@...> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 4:52 PM, WP SF <paladingamingllc@...> wrote:
> I see what he's saying, but if you get any kind of royal draw after flopping a F or FH playing DDB, you better go for it. I feel pretty safe in saying when you're looking at 12x across, if you get dealt, say, KQJsKQ, you better be drawing two. (Maybe I should check the math just in case lol...)

yeah, you should check the math.

as cm increases, cm*w + nm - 1 asymptotically approaches cm*w. thus,
the higher your current multiplier, the closer your optimal UX
strategy becomes to the optimal base game strategy. with 12x across in
UX, you're pretty much playing your base game strategy.

KQJs doesn't beat two pair in 9/6 DDB, and it doesn't in UX 9/6 DDB
with a 12x current multiplier either. unless, of course, *i* need to
check *my* math. :slight_smile:

cheers,

five

#20

Just to set the record straight, if my formula for the return (cm*win + nm*ER) is correct, then the average strategy is *NOT* 10/7/5. I don't know whose formula is correct, mine or the wizard's, someone else will have to take a look at that. I note that in the wizard's article on ultimate x he notes that he himself has not yet simulated the game, instead his tables are from published IGT results.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=474dhfuFNog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gmTRvGW8PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFX6M-t1NTI