I have some questions regarding this casino Texas Poker game. You can wikipedia the rules but basically the game goes as following:
- You make a blind bet first .
- The dealer deals three cards, and deals two cards to you and the dealer himself. Dealer does not look at his hand, but you can look at your hand.
- If you decide to play, the you must make another bet worth twice your blind bet, oterwise you lose your blind bet and game ends.
- If you decide to play, then the dealer deals anoter two cards before opening your hand.
- If dealer beats you then you lose all your bet, if you beat dealer then you get paid the sum of your blind and subsequent bet.
However, there are two exceptions regarding the payout for (5):
- If dealer has a weaker hand than a pair of 4, then this is a "no gae" and he pays you only the blind bet regardless of if you win or not.
- If you have straight, full house or better then you are usually paid more than 1:1 of your bets.
My question is, call me naive, but I feel this game seriously favours the player? Thinking in a simple way -- lets say the blind bet is 5 usd. As if the player plays every hand, then he and dealer has equal chance of winning 15 usd. Now the player even has an option to pay only a third of the total bet(i.e. pass at (3)) to stop the game -- and I think it is reasonable to assume the player makes correct decision 50% of the time at least. (i.e. namely that if the player decides to pass 10 games then he would lose more than 5 if he did not stop) it just makes me think I would much rather be the player than the dealer. The only thing I am not sure about this analysis is the how the 'no game" rule affects the probability.Would be grateful if someone could point out