I memorized 9\/6 Jacks perfectly almost 20 years ago. (I knew the strategy very well before that, but there were some rare hands that nobody had written about and it took me a while to find them all.) It’s fairly simple, as video poker games go, and the exceptions aren’t numerous or difficult. Additionally, I’ve played 9\/6 Jacks for perhaps 2000 hours and taught the game in class close to 100 times. Given all of that, I suspect I’ll have the game memorized for as long as I’m mentally competent.<\/p>\n
8\/5 Bonus Poker is very similar to 9\/6 Jacks. While it only returns 99.17%, it often is the best game available at some casinos. Occasionally the slot club and promotions are such that the game is playable. While similar to 9\/6 Jacks, the exceptions are numerous and, for me, not so easy to learn.<\/p>\n
I’m going to write about one group of hands today that I haven’t written about for years. These hands don’t come about that frequently and the difference between the best play and the second best play isn’t all that much, but if you’re trying to learn the game perfectly, this group of hands is on that list.<\/p>\n
First, it involves the 3-card straight flush combinations with one inside and no high cards. The group I’ll call “2-low” includes 234<\/i><\/b>, 235<\/i><\/b>, and 245<\/i><\/b>. The group I’ll call “3-low” includes 346<\/i><\/b> and 356<\/i><\/b>. The value of each of these combinations is the same — usually. The most significant time that these combinations differ in value is when there is an off-suit ace in the hand.<\/p>\n
Generally speaking, these particular 3-card straight flushes are higher in value than an ace. An ace lowers the value of 235<\/i><\/b> by 7\u00bd\u00a2 for the 5-coin dollar player compared to its effect on 346<\/i><\/b>. The reason is that there is one fewer ace in the deck to draw the $20 A2345 straight.<\/p>\n
The ace itself gets reduced in value by about 0.5\u00a2facing 235<\/i><\/b> compared to 346<\/i><\/b>. The reason is it is more difficult to draw the A2345 straight when there are three missing cards (with 235<\/i><\/b>) than when there are only two missing cards (with 346<\/b>). Another way to say this is the 6 (from 346<\/i><\/b>) does not affect the value of the ace but all three cards from 235<\/i><\/b> hurt the value of an ace.<\/p>\n
Once we have these four cards determined (i.e. the 3-card straight flush and the ace), there is still a fifth card to be considered. We will not consider any fifth card that creates a pair; is a J, Q, or K suited with the ace; turns the 3-card straight flush into a 4-card flush; or creates a 4-card open-ended straight.<\/p>\n
Even ignoring those cards, there are still quite a few differences. A key one is whether or not the fifth card is suited with the ace (referred to as a flush penalty). It also matters if the fifth card is an unsuited J, Q, K, or even a T. Or if the fifth card is a straight penalty to the straight flush (i.e., a 6 for the 2-low straight flush and a 2 or 7 for the 3-low straight flush).<\/p>\n
Below we have seven comparisons of a 2-low versus a 3-low straight flush, along with an ace and another card. Sometimes the play is the same; sometimes not. Take this quiz and see how you do:<\/p>\n
a. 2\u2660 3\u2660 5\u2660 A\u2665 J\u2663 versus 3\u2660 4\u2660 6\u2660 A\u2665 J\u2663<\/p>\n
b. 2\u2660 3\u2660 5\u2660 A\u2665 T\u2665 versus 3\u2660 4\u2660 6\u2660 A\u2665 T\u2665<\/p>\n
c. 2\u2660 3\u2660 5\u2660 A\u2665 T\u2663 versus 3\u2660 4\u2660 6\u2660 A\u2665 T\u2663<\/p>\n
d. 2\u2660 3\u2660 5\u2660 A\u2665 9\u2665 versus 3\u2660 4\u2660 6\u2660 A\u2665 9\u2665<\/p>\n
e. 2\u2660 3\u2660 5\u2660 A\u2665 9\u2663 versus 3\u2660 4\u2660 6\u2660 A\u2665 9\u2663<\/p>\n
f. 2\u2660 3\u2660 5\u2660 A\u2665 6\u2665 versus 3\u2660 4\u2660 6\u2660 A\u2665 7\u2665<\/p>\n
g. 2\u2660 3\u2660 5\u2660 A\u2665 6\u2663 versus 3\u2660 4\u2660 6\u2660 A\u2665 7\u2663<\/p>\n
Here are the correct plays. My guess is that less than 1 in 20 of readers got them all correct:<\/p>\n
| <\/td>\n | 2-low<\/td>\n | 3-low<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n | <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| a. AJ unsuited<\/td>\n | AJ<\/td>\n | SF<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| b. AT suited<\/td>\n | SF<\/td>\n | SF<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| c. AT unsuited<\/td>\n | A<\/td>\n | SF<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| d. A9 suited<\/td>\n | SF<\/td>\n | SF<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| e. A9 unsuited<\/td>\n | A<\/td>\n | SF<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| f. A and a straight penalty suited<\/td>\n | A<\/td>\n | SF<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| g. A and a straight penalty unsuited<\/td>\n | A<\/td>\n | A<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n With those correct plays, how do you write it on your strategy card? On the Dancer-Daily strategy card for 8-5 Bonus we wrote:<\/p>\n SF3 -1 (<AH when 2-low) (<A when sp unsuited with A and no high card other than A) (<A when 2-low and either {no fp to A} or {6p suited-or-not with A}) AH<\/p>\n |