My ears have perked up; I will play this game when I'm in Vegas and see if I draw the same collusion conclusions.

Its easy to see, like BJ, why this game exists... Because of the 20% take that they make with terrible and non-optimal play... And where I'm at they use WOO Pay structure 3, for almost a 4% take on trips... 97% of the time through the past month, I am the only person that doesn't play it...

Some random notes:

These suckers are so bad at understand trips, that yesterday, a guy was playing $5=$5, but placed $20 on trips at a time and said "THIS is the way you make money!"...

Adding to the ridiculousness... One of the dealers tells me the other day as I was flipping over my cards with one other person at the table.. "You shouldn't show your cards, that's really unlucky"...

yesterday, one of the dealers tried to coerce me into playing trips because everyone else was doing it....

Most people are afraid to shove 4x on an a pre-flop, but they will blindly, gladly, throw 4x without even seeing their cards..

That's because the bulk of their tokes in this game come after a big hit on the trips bet.

I have no editorial comment and don't intend to de-rail this into a discussion of tipping. Just recognize it for what it is and proceed as you wish.

Fair comment.. Not derailing... You may or may not correct in her motives... But in general, not one dealer I've played with has any clue on how the game works... But that's definitely a fair point on the tipping...

At my casino, all the players at the table are allowed to show each other their hands.So we all do, and it seems this is a huge advantage. Its also a 4x raise PF if youd like (you can also choose 3x). I played for about an hour the other night and not once played the "trips" circle. FWIW I only made one hand that wouldve paid me on trips (a FH: 40 to 1) in the hour or so I played. What was awesome though was I made friends with an older lady and I made her a deal: I'll let you bet my trips if I get to keep half if it hits. She agreed and played my trips for me for like 20 minutes, but then I had to leave. Ended up like $75 or so.

I have a question if anyone has the odds of turning 3 of a kind or greater in this game after the river is played.

Thanks,
Belpoke

I just want to comment on 2 posts up, I can't imagine a single hand that you would 3x instead of 4x, are there any?

Just been trough the first page only ,got to go to run to the casino and prob gonna play ultimate .

Just wanna know if anybody thought azbout how much will your edge increase if you would know consistently the 2 hole cards of your direct table neighboor .I guess it s verry subjective on plenty of parameters like making good adjustements ,ur hands ,the board etc etc ...but do you think you can gain considerable increase edge if so ,how about 4 hole cards ?

Also when playing 6 handed against the dealer ,i m sure you can increase you edge a tiny bit if you make slight adjustements depending on other players action at the table ,especialy if you are used to playing along them and know their tendencies , thoughts ?

Will check out this threat when i come back and use op strategy for tonight .

As a general rule I play strictly 1/2 NLHE or Tourneys and never house games, but lately I've been 'dabbling' with Ultimate a fair bit, and using the strategy at discountgambling.net

It sounds inane perhaps, but I really did not realise just how thick skinned, cool headed and confident in yourself and the strategy that you have to be to play this game according to basic strategy. People (including the dealer) think you're nuts when you max bet with K7 or A4 etc.

Likewise, I do not play trips and also get the same "you're not playing where you make the money" crap from dealers and other players alike.

There are few games out there that have such a fundamental lack of understanding of basic strategy as UTH. As a result, you'll likely be ribbed, scoffed at and scorned by dealers and other players alike - and maybe it doesn't bother you - I didn't think it would me - but when you're actually playing you really need to be able to block it out and avoid "going on tilt"!! Chances are your play WILL be seen by most as outlandish/reckless and you will get comments. When you go through a downswing (and you will) playing 4x and the dealer hits their cr@p every time and you burn through $200 in 5 minutes... yes you might "look" foolish but you need to stay disciplined.

You also need a significantly higher bank roll than Blackjack for stakes played. For instance, if play a $5 min at Blackjack, $200-$300 is widely seen as an acceptable session bankroll.

At UTH, if you are playing $5 minimums, then 4x bet ($20) for a total of $25 for BB/Ante - then you only need four or five consecutive "misses" to be down $125 or more. So do factor in your bankroll carefully into this game if planning to play correct basic strategy. At $5 minimum stakes (and even this is hard to find in Vegas at least), I'd suggest an absolute minimum of $300 buy-in, and $400 is preferable, if you are planning to play a long strategy session (if you are just there for fun, then sure, take $100 and see if you can get lucky). As others have said, this game is all about session management. With huge swings, you need to cash out on the upswing. So set a realistic goal and get up from the table when you hit it. Take a short break, "bank" your session winnings, then start over a little while later if you wish.

Hope to see some of you at an UTH in Vegas

shouldn't you raise even more hands preflop such as, 10 9s cuz it has 54% equity against a random hand?

JTo or J8s are the lowest unpaired hands according to basic strategy.

Many hands like T9s and 78s that are juicy hands in a regular hold em game don't play like this in UTH.

Remember, the dealer will always see the river. Always. With T9s and 78s you can semibluff with a juicy draw and take down many pots without seeing a showdown.

The dealer always sees the river! If that T9s doesn't connect, his/her J2 will more than likely beat you.

Not quite. Dealer has to make a qualifying hand for you to win.

Anyone still playing this with good results? I feel like its the best game to play but havent put in enough hours to know. I went on a good run then couldnt win for a while so I am back trying to figure out if its worth playing.

Optimal strategy still favors the house, so if you're looking to "beat the game", it's not worth playing.

http://wizardofodds.com/games/ultimate-texas-hold-em/

http://discountgambling.net/ultimate-texas-holdem/

Are we sure that knowing others cards does not push the edge in our favor? I know in MIssissippi Stud, knowing the tables cards gives the player a 1.5% EV bump. That takes a game of -1.37 to + .13% EV.

No, in UTH other players' hands affect your hand strength much less than Mississippi Stud since most of your winnings come from a battle of high card strength vs. the dealer.

Stephen How has estimated that knowing all fellow players' cards at a full table would lower the house edge from 2.2% to 1.6% of an ante.

http://discountgambling.net/category...-texas-holdem/

He says house advantage is 2.2 and WOO says 2.18 but element of risk is .526%.

Is element of risk the true house advantage since we control our bets? Is the 2.2 on antes only?

Yes, 2.2% is based on the ante only. So is the 1.6% edge that is utilizing everyone else's hole cards.

Well, the house edge is often calculated based on a base level bet, ante in this case, mainly on tradition. The Wizard of Odds likes to calculate "Element of Risk" to give a fairer comparison between games with raising vs. no raising.

Since we are talking about the same game, "Element of Risk" is largely irrelevant in terms of your bottom line EV, because optimal strategy fixes the amount of units you will bet. Changing the amount bet will just make you lose EV since your strategy will then become non-optimal.

This is your EV in the UTH game for a $5 ante if you follow optimal strategy.

(-0.02185 ante/hand)*$5/ante = -$0.10925/hand

(-0.0052622 total hand wager/hand)*(4.152252 antes/total hand wager)*($5/ante) = -$0.10925/hand

Either way you calculate it, you'll lose about 11 cents a hand at a $5 table. Element of Risk just helps you realize that you losing those 11 cents per hand comes from an average table wager of (4.152252 antes/hand)*$5/hand = $20.76/hand. UTH is definitely not a game for low rollers.

Not true - the dealer must qualify to win another ante - but you win in your "4x" bet regardless - also, the dealer qualifies when they have a pair OR there is a pair on the board.

THEORIZING:

If you win with a high card a and dealer didn't qualify, you still get paid on the PLAY bet, but the ante is a push (as is the blind).

THIS MEANS:

4X bet all of the following preflop:

ALL Aces
ALL Kings
ALL Suited Queens
--other suited:
J5s +
T7s +
98s this is the LOWEST suited connector you should 4X with.

ALL PAIRS, even 22

Offsuits:
As noted all aces and kings

Q5o +
J8o +
T9 this is the lowest offsuit hand to 4x


All of the above hands listed are +EV against a single RANDOM hand with a 5 card board. This means all of these hands should be 4X on the play bet preflop, as the Play bet will win regardless of if the dealer qualifies.

The total CUMULATIVE advantage against the dealer with the hands listed above is 58% to 42% or 1.38 to 1.

MARTINGAILING/d'Alembert:

As we all know, martingailing/d'Alembert is a failed strategy in any -EV game.

HOWEVER, d'Alembert for money management in + Ev situations might conceivably have certain advantages.

If one were to apply a d'Alembert strategy based entirely on PLAY action, it might accentuate the advantage - whether or not enough to overcome the house vig on the ante etc. is the question.

I would see a 4X d'Alembert strategy like this:

Always play the 4X strategy as listed above.

Place $5 on the ante and blind and play until you have a 4X wager loss. When the 4X wager loses, then place $10 on the ante and blind. When the 4X wager wins, drop back down to a $5 ante and blind. But If the $10 4X wager loses, then bump the ante and blinds to $15 (or $20 to be more aggressive). If the next 4X bet wins, drop down to $10 ante and blinds. If it loses bump up to $20 ante and blinds.

And so forth. Play post flop per optimal strategy such as that on Discount Gaming. Post flop wins/losses do not affect the ante size - only the 4X play results affect the ante size.


Underlying theory on why I believe this might work advantageously as a money management system:

The player's advantage is entirely wrapped up in the skill in using the PLAY bet to best advantage. When you take the 4X as listed above, you have a BETTER than 50% chance of winning - in fact you are 58% for that entire hand range.

Thus, you are maximizing your 58% advantage bet by increasing it those times it loses, which coincidentally also covers some of the loss in ante/blinds etc.

Now of course we understand that every trial is independent, but in relation to wagers where we have a substantial advantage, a long series of independent trials should still present the advantage to us favorably.

Of course, you will not know when you are going to be dealt hands that should be 4Xed - you could have a long series of trials where you are placing a $15 blind and ante and no 4X hands. And we assume that the overall house advantage of 0.5% does not change as a result - but it appears to me that the 4X bet LOSSES when compensated for by an incremental system of increases could result in a sustainable cash flow since it is based on the one bet where we have a significant advantage.

Why not follow the Discount Gambling preflop strategy as well?

The discount gaming preflop strat, and overal strat, does not give you an edge over the house. You are still a 0.5% dog.

What I am theorizing is that leveraging the PLAY bet with some form of d'Alembert money management could conceivably lead to a small advantage.

I do not have proof of this, but I am thinking about it. I posted here to open the discussion.

A self weighted betting pattern can't turn a loss into an advantage.

If you knew you would have an advantage, you should bet according to Kelly

Full creativity marks for using D'Alembert instead of Martingale though.