vpFREE2 Forums

"Wild Widow" game

#1

In a message dated 4/18/2006 10:32:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
RKOCH7@aol.com writes:

the twist is that the wild card ("deuce equivalent") changes with each hand.

Soooo.. would queens wild mean that a Royal would only be a Dirty Royal for
instance? That would definitely reduce the EV of this game. I'm no expert
on the matter but that's the first impression I got of your game. That a
T,J,Q,K or A wild would definitely be a bad thing.

Karen

"She was not quite what you would call refined. She was not quite what you
would call unrefined. She was the kind of person that keeps a parrot."
- Mark Twain

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

#2

Karen's right. Ten thru Ace as wildcards means you can't hit a natural royal! That's a huge drop in EV, around 2% normally.
   
  Deuces are the "best" wildcard to have, from a max-EV player's perspective. That's because deuces are involved in the fewest straights (and straight flushes) of non-royal-flush cards... only two: (Ace-low and deuce-low). Thus, making deuces "wild" affects the least amount of straights (and straight flushes). As you go up from deuce wild thru five wild, the effect on possible straights (and straight flushes) increases, then remains the same from five wild thru nine wild. That's because five thru nine can be involved in the same number of straights (and straight flushes): 5 straights each, ignoring suits of the invdividual cards (and 5 straight flushes each).

krallison416@aol.com wrote:
  In a message dated 4/18/2006 10:32:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, RKOCH7@aol.com writes:

the twist is that the wild card ("deuce equivalent") changes with each hand.

Soooo.. would queens wild mean that a Royal would only be a Dirty Royal for instance? That would definitely reduce the EV of this game. I'm no expert on the matter but that's the first impression I got of your game. That a T,J,Q,K or A wild would definitely be a bad thing.

Karen

···

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

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

#3

I would imagine if the queens were wild and you drew a natural Royal flush in spades with a spade queen, it would count as a regular natural Royal. This is how it
works on one eyed jacks machines "A one eyed jack used as itself is not considered a wild card" .

Regards
A.P.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: vpfree2006
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] "Wild Widow" game

  Karen's right. Ten thru Ace as wildcards means you can't hit a natural royal! That's a huge drop in EV, around 2% normally.
     
    Deuces are the "best" wildcard to have, from a max-EV player's perspective. That's because deuces are involved in the fewest straights (and straight flushes) of non-royal-flush cards... only two: (Ace-low and deuce-low). Thus, making deuces "wild" affects the least amount of straights (and straight flushes). As you go up from deuce wild thru five wild, the effect on possible straights (and straight flushes) increases, then remains the same from five wild thru nine wild. That's because five thru nine can be involved in the same number of straights (and straight flushes): 5 straights each, ignoring suits of the invdividual cards (and 5 straight flushes each).

  krallison416@aol.com wrote:
    In a message dated 4/18/2006 10:32:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, RKOCH7@aol.com writes:

  the twist is that the wild card ("deuce equivalent") changes with each hand.

  Soooo.. would queens wild mean that a Royal would only be a Dirty Royal for instance? That would definitely reduce the EV of this game. I'm no expert on the matter but that's the first impression I got of your game. That a T,J,Q,K or A wild would definitely be a bad thing.

  Karen

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

#4

Even if wild royals count as naturals when the wild card is Ten thru Ace, what I was attempting to point out in my previous post is that changing the wild card from deuce to any other card has a negative effect on the EV, often rather significant. For example, per WinPoker, Sevens Wild using the NSU paytable returns only 97.5%. I believe that Fives Wild thru Nines Wild would have the same EV, due to the aforementioned fact that the number of straights/SFs they are involved in is the same. So only Deuces Wild would return 99.73%; Threes Wild would be less, Fours Wild even less again, and Five thru Nine 97.5%. The strategies for each would likely be different, too. Bottom line: avoid this game, or play at your own risk! :slight_smile:

Albert Pearson <a-p@sympatico.ca> wrote: I would imagine if the queens were wild and you drew a natural Royal flush in spades with a spade queen, it would count as a regular natural Royal. This is how it
works on one eyed jacks machines "A one eyed jack used as itself is not considered a wild card" .

Regards
A.P.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: vpfree2006
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:29 AM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] "Wild Widow" game

  Karen's right. Ten thru Ace as wildcards means you can't hit a natural royal! That's a huge drop in EV, around 2% normally.
     
    Deuces are the "best" wildcard to have, from a max-EV player's perspective. That's because deuces are involved in the fewest straights (and straight flushes) of non-royal-flush cards... only two: (Ace-low and deuce-low). Thus, making deuces "wild" affects the least amount of straights (and straight flushes). As you go up from deuce wild thru five wild, the effect on possible straights (and straight flushes) increases, then remains the same from five wild thru nine wild. That's because five thru nine can be involved in the same number of straights (and straight flushes): 5 straights each, ignoring suits of the invdividual cards (and 5 straight flushes each).

  krallison416@aol.com wrote:
    In a message dated 4/18/2006 10:32:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, RKOCH7@aol.com writes:

  the twist is that the wild card ("deuce equivalent") changes with each hand.

  Soooo.. would queens wild mean that a Royal would only be a Dirty Royal for instance? That would definitely reduce the EV of this game. I'm no expert on the matter but that's the first impression I got of your game. That a T,J,Q,K or A wild would definitely be a bad thing.

  Karen

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

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

---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    Visit your group "vpFREE" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------
  
---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

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

#5

I agree completely, the game sucks. I was just trying to point out what looked like an error in the description. I wasn't trying to support playing this horror.

Regards
A.P.

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: vpfree2006
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 3:39 AM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] "Wild Widow" game

  Even if wild royals count as naturals when the wild card is Ten thru Ace, what I was attempting to point out in my previous post is that changing the wild card from deuce to any other card has a negative effect on the EV, often rather significant. For example, per WinPoker, Sevens Wild using the NSU paytable returns only 97.5%. I believe that Fives Wild thru Nines Wild would have the same EV, due to the aforementioned fact that the number of straights/SFs they are involved in is the same. So only Deuces Wild would return 99.73%; Threes Wild would be less, Fours Wild even less again, and Five thru Nine 97.5%. The strategies for each would likely be different, too. Bottom line: avoid this game, or play at your own risk! :slight_smile:

  Albert Pearson <a-p@sympatico.ca> wrote: I would imagine if the queens were wild and you drew a natural Royal flush in spades with a spade queen, it would count as a regular natural Royal. This is how it
  works on one eyed jacks machines "A one eyed jack used as itself is not considered a wild card" .

  Regards
  A.P.

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

#6

Thank you for the info about OEJ, I was not aware of that, having never played that game. And I didn't mean it to sound like I thought that you were a proponent of Wild Widow. I was only trying to clarify my *own* previous post, not attack yours. In other words, I'm too busy covering my own a** to worry about trying to kick yours! :slight_smile: Thanks again, Albert.
   
  This is the problem with textual communications.....it's often hard to get a sense of where a person is coming from, since you can't hear the tone of their voice or see their body language - you only have text to go by, and it often can be read in more than one way. Therefore, I humbly submit that we should all try to keep these inherent textual limitations in mind here on vpFree and remain as civil and understanding as possible to each other. This forum can be *such* a useful and wonderful thing, and most of the time it is, but also it can deteriorate into meaningless drivel and ugliness. Thanks to all vpFree members for your continued contributions, and good luck!

···

Albert Pearson <a-p@sympatico.ca> wrote:
  I agree completely, the game sucks. I was just trying to point out what looked like an error in the description. I wasn't trying to support playing this horror.

Regards
A.P.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: vpfree2006
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 3:39 AM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] "Wild Widow" game

  Even if wild royals count as naturals when the wild card is Ten thru Ace, what I was attempting to point out in my previous post is that changing the wild card from deuce to any other card has a negative effect on the EV, often rather significant. For example, per WinPoker, Sevens Wild using the NSU paytable returns only 97.5%. I believe that Fives Wild thru Nines Wild would have the same EV, due to the aforementioned fact that the number of straights/SFs they are involved in is the same. So only Deuces Wild would return 99.73%; Threes Wild would be less, Fours Wild even less again, and Five thru Nine 97.5%. The strategies for each would likely be different, too. Bottom line: avoid this game, or play at your own risk! :slight_smile:

  Albert Pearson <a-p@sympatico.ca> wrote: I would imagine if the queens were wild and you drew a natural Royal flush in spades with a spade queen, it would count as a regular natural Royal. This is how it
  works on one eyed jacks machines "A one eyed jack used as itself is not considered a wild card" .

  Regards
  A.P.

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

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

---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    Visit your group "vpFREE" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------
  
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

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

#7

vpfree2006 wrote:

Even if wild royals count as naturals when the wild card is Ten thru
Ace, what I was attempting to point out in my previous post is that
changing the wild card from deuce to any other card has a negative
effect on the EV, often rather significant. For example, per
WinPoker, Sevens Wild using the NSU paytable returns only 97.5%. I
believe that Fives Wild thru Nines Wild would have the same EV, due
to the aforementioned fact that the number of straights/SFs they are
involved in is the same. So only Deuces Wild would return 99.73%;
Threes Wild would be less, Fours Wild even less again, and Five thru
Nine 97.5%. The strategies for each would likely be different, too.
Bottom line: avoid this game, or play at your own risk! :slight_smile:

This game is essentially a subset of "Anything's Wild", in which the
player can select their wild card. As you surmise, a deuce is optimal.

vpFREE FAQ links to a Dancer article that discusses that game, among
others:
http://www.strictlyslots.com/archive/0501ss/SS0105_NewVP_feature.pdf

My initial gut feeling about the ER of that game would have been
similar to yours - that wild 5-9 would have identical ER's given the
same number of possible straights formed in each case.

However, Dancer's ER table for this game indicates that ER grows
weaker as you progress up in rank from 5. A minute of thought reveals
that this is due to interferences with RF holds. E.g., for suited TJ,
a wild 7-9 reduces the number of staights that might be formed vs. the 6.

My few seconds of thought on this leaves the reduced ER for a 6 wild
vs. 5 a mystery. But, without dwelling on the question, I have to
suspect that this is related to the dual straight role of an Ace. (If
I had access to the game in AC I imagine I might be sufficiently
curious to noodle that one out :wink:

- Harry

#8

Ahh, thanks Harry. Of course! Straights beginning with cards 6 thru 9 interfere with possible royal draws. So your answer for 7-9 also applies to 6 (who's straights include 10). I should've suspected Bob had an article on it. I'll have to check it out later.

Even if wild royals count as naturals when the wild card is Ten thru
Ace, what I was attempting to point out in my previous post is that
changing the wild card from deuce to any other card has a negative
effect on the EV, often rather significant. For example, per
WinPoker, Sevens Wild using the NSU paytable returns only 97.5%. I
believe that Fives Wild thru Nines Wild would have the same EV, due
to the aforementioned fact that the number of straights/SFs they are
involved in is the same. So only Deuces Wild would return 99.73%;
Threes Wild would be less, Fours Wild even less again, and Five thru
Nine 97.5%. The strategies for each would likely be different, too.
Bottom line: avoid this game, or play at your own risk! :slight_smile:

This game is essentially a subset of "Anything's Wild", in which the
player can select their wild card. As you surmise, a deuce is optimal.

vpFREE FAQ links to a Dancer article that discusses that game, among
others:
http://www.strictlyslots.com/archive/0501ss/SS0105_NewVP_feature.pdf

My initial gut feeling about the ER of that game would have been
similar to yours - that wild 5-9 would have identical ER's given the
same number of possible straights formed in each case.

However, Dancer's ER table for this game indicates that ER grows
weaker as you progress up in rank from 5. A minute of thought reveals
that this is due to interferences with RF holds. E.g., for suited TJ,
a wild 7-9 reduces the number of staights that might be formed vs. the 6.

My few seconds of thought on this leaves the reduced ER for a 6 wild
vs. 5 a mystery. But, without dwelling on the question, I have to
suspect that this is related to the dual straight role of an Ace. (If
I had access to the game in AC I imagine I might be sufficiently
curious to noodle that one out :wink:

- Harry

···

Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote: vpfree2006 wrote:

---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1&cent;/min.

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

#9

vpfree2006 wrote:

Ahh, thanks Harry. Of course! Straights beginning with cards 6 thru
9 interfere with possible royal draws. So your answer for 7-9 also
applies to 6 (who's straights include 10).

I think the 6 is another case altogether. The only RF hold EV reduced
by a wild card 6 would be a lone T -- not a typical strategy hold.

So, again working off the top of my head, I'm hard pressed to identify
why a wild card 5 results in a higher ER than 6. I'm left surmising
that because of the dual role of an A, you find yourself holding for a
A-5 straight less often than 2-6, and therefore the 5 acts as a
smaller "interference" (not really the appropriate term in this
situation, but it'll do).

I'm still not motivated work make a push to puzzle this one out though :wink:

- H.

#10

Harry, I think it's not just RF holds, but possible RF draws, right? (Note: Bob's article & table was for an NSUD-type paytable; I'm not sure what the returns are for a FPDW-type paytable and if the returns also differ for 5-9 wild).
   
  I'm thinking of a hand like: 6c 7d 8h Ts Ks. In NSUD (and probably also in 3's-5's wild), you would hold the Ts-Ks 2c royal, but in 6's wild you hold the 3c wild royal. Holding such a 3c wild royal would decrease the overall chances of hitting a natural royal when 6's are wild. Perhaps there are other cases as well, but that's the only one I've thought of so far.

  vpfree2006 wrote:

Ahh, thanks Harry. Of course! Straights beginning with cards 6 thru
9 interfere with possible royal draws. So your answer for 7-9 also
applies to 6 (who's straights include 10).

I think the 6 is another case altogether. The only RF hold EV reduced
by a wild card 6 would be a lone T -- not a typical strategy hold.

So, again working off the top of my head, I'm hard pressed to identify
why a wild card 5 results in a higher ER than 6. I'm left surmising
that because of the dual role of an A, you find yourself holding for a
A-5 straight less often than 2-6, and therefore the 5 acts as a
smaller "interference" (not really the appropriate term in this
situation, but it'll do).

I'm still not motivated work make a push to puzzle this one out though :wink:

- H.

···

Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

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