Dealt A Straight Flush
-
Tedlark
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 8007
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:29 am
Dealt A Straight Flush
I was playing 5 play 50 cent double double bonus and I was down quite a bit. I was dealt a king high straight flush and I kept it for a $625.00 payoff, this about cut my losses in half. Should I have tried for the royal or was I smart in keeping the straight flush? Thanks for all of your input.
-
knagl
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:42 pm
Rest easy. You made the right play.
The expected value of the dealt SF is 50 (you get 250 for 5). The expected value of four-to-the-Royal on DDB is 18.79. Your hold was more than twice as good as only holding four to the Royal. As you may or may not know, the number of hands you're playing at once (1, 5, 10, 100, 1000000, etc.) does not change the strategy used.
Congrats on your win.
The expected value of the dealt SF is 50 (you get 250 for 5). The expected value of four-to-the-Royal on DDB is 18.79. Your hold was more than twice as good as only holding four to the Royal. As you may or may not know, the number of hands you're playing at once (1, 5, 10, 100, 1000000, etc.) does not change the strategy used.
Congrats on your win.
-
mrstevequevillon
- Forum Rookie
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 4:47 am
i think that was a smart choice too, i , most often, take what they give me
-
MikeA
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:50 pm
Holding the straight flush was the correct play. The comparrison is 250 for the sure thing versus 98.0851 for holding for the Royal. Your pat hand was worth well over twice the return had you gone for the Royal in this case. (Figures compliments of VPW)
-
rascal
- VP Veteran
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:25 am
Playing at Treasure Bay in 2003, I was dealt precisely the same hand --- King high SF --- but I was playing single deck, $2 denom. It was a $500 pat winner, but I was already ahead for the night and decided to risk it. I pulled the ace for $8,000. I know it was a dumb play but it was hard to convince the bank teller of that when I deposited my winnings.
-
babybubba
- Senior Member
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:18 pm
Playing at Treasure Bay in 2003, I was dealt precisely the same hand --- King high SF --- but I was playing single deck, $2 denom. It was a $500 pat winner, but I was already ahead for the night and decided to risk it. I pulled the ace for $8,000. I know it was a dumb play but it was hard to convince the bank teller of that when I deposited my winnings.
Nice hit....but you didn't win my friend. The math weenies will tell you it's a losing play, and that it really cost you $126.50 for being so dumb and not following optimal-play rules. Your banker doesn't know the level of
guru-intelligence you're dealing with in the video poker community.
BTW--The correct times to hold a pat winner like that are when its payout will allow you to attain a specific pre-set win goal, or whenever you're playing one of the advanced BP games where the payout is 400 or 500 credits or maybe on some of the newer games, even more. There's a point at which the give is not worth more than the take, but 250 definitely is not worhty of a SF.
Nice hit....but you didn't win my friend. The math weenies will tell you it's a losing play, and that it really cost you $126.50 for being so dumb and not following optimal-play rules. Your banker doesn't know the level of
guru-intelligence you're dealing with in the video poker community.
BTW--The correct times to hold a pat winner like that are when its payout will allow you to attain a specific pre-set win goal, or whenever you're playing one of the advanced BP games where the payout is 400 or 500 credits or maybe on some of the newer games, even more. There's a point at which the give is not worth more than the take, but 250 definitely is not worhty of a SF.
-
Eduardo
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 2954
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:19 pm
Nice hit....but you didn't win my friend. The math weenies will tell you it's a losing play, and that it really cost you $126.50 for being so dumb and not following optimal-play rules. I thought they would tell you that you would only hit that ace a certain percentage of the time, and if 1000 people did it the average would be a loss. That obviously means some people win but on average you would lose making that play, sometimes being the lucky one. Do you really disagree?
-
babybubba
- Senior Member
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 9:18 pm
[QUOTE=babybubba]
Nice hit....but you didn't win my friend. The math weenies will tell you it's a losing play, and that it really cost you $126.50 for being so dumb and not following optimal-play rules.
I thought they would tell you that you would only hit that ace a certain percentage of the time, and if 1000 people did it the average would be a loss. That obviously means some people win but on average you would lose making that play, sometimes being the lucky one. Do you really disagree?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah they would say something stupid like that, which doesn't have anything to do with the one time rascal made the play. Do you really think he cares what would happen "on average"?
Nice hit....but you didn't win my friend. The math weenies will tell you it's a losing play, and that it really cost you $126.50 for being so dumb and not following optimal-play rules.
I thought they would tell you that you would only hit that ace a certain percentage of the time, and if 1000 people did it the average would be a loss. That obviously means some people win but on average you would lose making that play, sometimes being the lucky one. Do you really disagree?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah they would say something stupid like that, which doesn't have anything to do with the one time rascal made the play. Do you really think he cares what would happen "on average"?
-
Eduardo
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 2954
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:19 pm
Yeah they would say something stupid like that, which doesn't have anything to do with the one time rascal made the play. Do you really think he cares what would happen "on average"? "Stupid?" It makes sense to me. Rascal may not care since he won but I do think that understanding the average is helpful. Otherwise how do you know what your chances are to understand the risk? It sounds like Rascal knew it was risky play and it paid of which is wonderful. But I do not think it is stupid to understand that more people are going to lose money on that play than will win. Sorry if you disagree.
-
MikeA
- Video Poker Master
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:50 pm
Would you throw away a 250 credit sure-win in order to take a 1 in 47 chance at 4000 credits with a Royal? Granted, the 1 in 47 are just the odds on getting a Royal, but the "math guys" also figure in the potential for drawing another suited card for a lower paying flush, an open ended straight or a pair of high cards so there are other ways with this hand "not" to lose it all but anything you draw other than the ACE is going to cut into your sure-thing win of 250 credits.
Certainly, the payback possibilities in going for a Royal are worth it if you are dealt a Straight or a Flush for 20 or 35 credits, but a Straight Flush? In DDB? Personally, I'll go with the "math guys" on this one and wait for a less expensive gamble for the Royal. In fact, any 4 card hand to a Royal other than a King High Straight Flush will have me tossing the odd-card and trying for the 5th for the Royal.
Certainly, the payback possibilities in going for a Royal are worth it if you are dealt a Straight or a Flush for 20 or 35 credits, but a Straight Flush? In DDB? Personally, I'll go with the "math guys" on this one and wait for a less expensive gamble for the Royal. In fact, any 4 card hand to a Royal other than a King High Straight Flush will have me tossing the odd-card and trying for the 5th for the Royal.
Continue with Google