| For anyone who needs a good basic guide to casino games, the 2003 American Casino Guide is well worth the price. To those who travel to casinos in other parts of the country, it's a must. I love video poker in many forms. I'm one of the minority who truly enjoyed gimmick games such as Pick 5 and Big E in their short stays on casino floors. So when I sat down to test Innovative Gaming's Three Hand Poker, I found myself predisposed to liking the game. After a few minutes of play, I wasn't so certain. On the surface, it's your basic five-card draw poker game. Five cards are dealt from the start, and the player may draw replacements for any or all. However, it's really three hands in one: the full five-card hand, a three-card hand consisting of the first three cards starting from the left, and a three-card hand consisting of the three consecutive cards starting from the right. That complicates draws. The best draw for the five-card hand may not be the best for either of the three-card hands, and the best draw for one three-card hand may mess up the other. A table game designer I've known for some time stopped and asked what I thought. I told him I thought the game was interesting, but the strategy would be complex and scare people away for a while. He responded, "I can't say I disagree with that." Three Hand Poker has a lot to offer, with increased frequency of winning hands. But if I were Innovative Gaming, my next move would be to commission Bob Dancer or some other video poker guru to devise a drawing strategy, and to get it out to the public. This potentially good game is going to intimidate players who don't know how to balance draw priorities. One of the basics of basic strategy in blackjack is that we stand on hard totals of 17 or higher, regardless of what the dealer has face up. And those who play basic strategy face a house edge of only about half a percent in a six-deck game, a few tenths more or less, depending on house rules. What about a player who assumes the dealer always has a 10 down, and bets accordingly? I connected to Michael Shackelford's outstanding Web site, www.thewizardofodds.com, and found that he listed a 10.03 percent house edge against a player who assumes the dealer has a 10 in the hole. Think about that. If you play basic strategy, your average loss is 50 cents for every $100 wagered. Assume a 10 down and play accordingly, and the average loss soars to $10 per $100 wagered. That's even worse than the average $5.50 in losses per $100 wagered if you follow the dealer's rules of always hitting 16 and below, and always standing on 17 or above, with no double downs or pair splits. It's more than three times as bad as playing a never-bust strategy, with average losses of about $3.90 per $100. VIDEO POKER: Here's where speed of play really makes a difference. In video poker, we're not talking about 50 hands an hour or even 150 hands an hour. FIVE HUNDRED hands an hour is an easy pace, and fast players get in 800 hands an hour or more. A select few video poker games allow a skilled player to gain a mathematical edge. More common are games with 99-percent-plus paybacks. In 9-6 Jacks or Better, where full houses pay 9-for-1 and flushes pay 6-for-1, expert strategy is no more difficult to learn than basic strategy in blackjack, and leaves a house edge of about 0.5 percent that is roughly equivalent to the house edge in six-deck blackjack. If we stay with our $10 bet pattern--meaning a maximum five-coin bet on a $2 machine--a good video poker player who lopes along at 500 hands an hour risks $5,000, with average losses of $25. That's 10 times the hourly losses on blackjack, even though the house edges are the same. |
Tiger 1 home gamble1 gamble2 gamble3 gamble4 gamble5 gamble6 gamble7 Tiger 2 Tiger 3 Casino and other Advertisers |
||