Texas Holdem shootout

[Gaahl]

I was just wondering if this game is supposed to be random? I have played poker for about 3 years, and while playing at Virgingames casino I saw that they had this game called Texas Holdem shootout and I decided to give it a go. Now this is the question, I know nothing about this game, so, Is it supposed to be a random game? Because I have never in my entire life seen sicker things happen in that game. I have played 100s of thousands of ordinary pokerhands, but never has there happened sicker things than my 1.5 hour session on this casinogames. I would loose 4\5 hands (counted) to runner runner quads, runner runner flush, runner 2 pairs, gutshot str8 etc. It was realy a slaughterhouse, Im not complaining about loosing money, but I like to know if I play a fair game or not.

So I am asking you, is this game supposed to be a random dealt game or is it rigged to a certain payout were you can hit streaks etc?

 

[aka23]

Many players have reported that the game does not seem random. One player mentioned losing 48 hands in a row. If you search the forum, you can find a couple related threads.

 

[Gaahl]

Thanx for the headsup aka. I have now searched and read all the threads. But I still got some questions. Was there ever a answer to wether or not the flop, turn and river are randomly dealt? My experience says that it is impossible for it to be. And I must say I feel cheated. I played this game at Virgingames beliving I played a fair game (with an calculated HA, but randomly dealt cards). After loosing 4\5 hands to the sickest things you can imagine. I mean, what are the odds of loosing to runner runner quads, then a gutshot on the river, then a runner runner flush, and then a 2 outer in a row! I have played well over 200 000 "real" poker hands, and that has NEVER happened before.

It is 110 I wil never see again, I can live with that, but it is a worse when you feel cheated out of them. And I belive I was cheated.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Despite this issue being raised before, I have seen nothing from the casino side. Unless it is made ABSOLUTELY CLEAR this is a non random AWP type game, it is cheating, and will erode confidence in the fairness of casino games in general.
To have an experienced poker player cast doubt based on nearly a quarter of a million "real" poker games played means there is definitely something here that needs explaining.
A big enough sample from actual gameplay should be enough to show there is a problem with the game, or not, as the case may be.

 

[KasinoKing]

I my view this game is completely random...
in exactly the same way as a lottery scratchcard is.
You pay your money, some cards turn over, you randomly win or lose.

This game is AWP, and as such it's a pretty funny one. Those ludicrous bad-beats have me splitting my sides!

Here's some from the last few days, for people not familiar:-
(Remember these are 'all-in' before the flop hands)

Old Attachment (Invalid)

Old Attachment (Invalid)

Old Attachment (Invalid)

 

[Rusty]

Reminds me of a few sit n go prima sessions

 

[vinylweatherman]

The casinos had better come clean about this one. It is a card game, not a slot, and to have it running like one is highly misleading.
Casinos have enough trouble convincing us the other games are really random when we see too many bad beats, but if this is proven to be non-random, then there will be even less confidence in the other games.

The simplest test would be to look at the community cards, as to get this many bad beats, these have to be rigged, rigging the hole cards would not be enough.

 

[elscrabinda]

This is a poorly thought out game but i don't think its a slot or non-random. The problem is (and they do explain this in the rules) is you are playing against 2 bots who know what the final dealt cards will be. The one which will end up with the weaker hand drops out meaning that it is likely the bot that does play will have a strong hand, with the result being that the player sees an awful lot of bad beats when they think its just one-on-one.

It also means that you have to play against your instinct sometimes and it is a difficult game to master the strategy. At the very least read up here (scroll all the way down). It is published by them, but the advice is basically sound.

A far better game to play in my opinion is the Texas Holdem bonus poker as you are genuinely playing against one player and so get less angry!

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is a poorly thought out game but i don't think its a slot or non-random. The problem is (and they do explain this in the rules) is you are playing against 2 bots who know what the final dealt cards will be. The one which will end up with the weaker hand drops out meaning that it is likely the bot that does play will have a strong hand, with the result being that the player sees an awful lot of bad beats when they think its just one-on-one.

It also means that you have to play against your instinct sometimes and it is a difficult game to master the strategy. At the very least read up here (scroll all the way down). It is published by them, but the advice is basically sound.

A far better game to play in my opinion is the Texas Holdem bonus poker as you are genuinely playing against one player and so get less angry!

This 2 bot business was brought up before, but the main question was whether the 5 community cards were random. If they are, then it is just a game with an obscure strategy, but if the community cards are rigged to ensure the bots win a certain number of times then the game is unfair (as it is not marked as non-random).
Analysing the 5 community cards alone should give the answer, as it could be compared directly with the chance of a pat hand in 5 card video poker, probabilities for this are extensively calculated & posted on Wizard of odds. Perhaps he will analyse these "shoot out" variants in due course (might have happened already, not looked this month).

 

[kingkong098]

This is a poorly thought out game but i don't think its a slot or non-random. The problem is (and they do explain this in the rules) is you are playing against 2 bots who know what the final dealt cards will be. The one which will end up with the weaker hand drops out meaning that it is likely the bot that does play will have a strong hand, with the result being that the player sees an awful lot of bad beats when they think its just one-on-one.

It also means that you have to play against your instinct sometimes and it is a difficult game to master the strategy. At the very least read up here (scroll all the way down). It is published by them, but the advice is basically sound.

A far better game to play in my opinion is the Texas Holdem bonus poker as you are genuinely playing against one player and so get less angry!

This is an incorrect analysis. The rules state the stronger of the two hands preflop will continue playing. The bots supposedly have no knowledge of what the board cards will be.

Playing against the better of two bot hands means the player will win less than half the hands, but the ability to move "all in" preflop with strong hands should negate that advantage.

Wagerworks games state the expected return in the rules section and for this game it supposed to be 100% return based on strategy used. The statement is somewhat ambigous but I've always taken it to mean "Played properly the HA for this game is 0%." However from my experience and those of others I've read about this is not the case.

 

[happygobrokey]

one time someone said that the extra value to the player is in the times when both bots call the flop. post flop you can push all in and you're guaranteed one call and one fold, so the pot is simply sweetened by that weaker bot. i've never played the game, but i know dead money is always good. in this game it pumps the pot by about 10% above the maximum if only one bot calls or something, right? but of course if the deck's stacked then even this might not happen to expectation. i like the thinking that the bots know the cards before they come, because that covers the casino for dealing a proper random game with cards behaving as in real life. it was explained quite deeply in this forum about the mechanics of this game, and many bot behaviours were predictable, so knowing that could definitely call for a proper strategy, although again the rigging of cards if proven true sort of mitigates these effects.

 

[KasinoKing]

one time someone said that the extra value to the player is in the times when both bots call the flop. post flop you can push all in and you're guaranteed one call and one fold, so the pot is simply sweetened by that weaker bot. i've never played the game, but i know dead money is always good. in this game it pumps the pot by about 10% above the maximum if only one bot calls or something, right? but of course if the deck's stacked then even this might not happen to expectation. i like the thinking that the bots know the cards before they come, because that covers the casino for dealing a proper random game with cards behaving as in real life. it was explained quite deeply in this forum about the mechanics of this game, and many bot behaviours were predictable, so knowing that could definitely call for a proper strategy, although again the rigging of cards if proven true sort of mitigates these effects.

Just go to any WagerWorks site & you can play for free - no download.
Play exactly as you would if it was your own real money & I guarantee that within 10 minutes you will be shouting 'rigged' at the screen!

I'm 99.9% convinced the cards are not completely randomly drawn from a random deck.
However, knowing this I still enjoy playing the game because it's fun - the return is pretty good (no where near 100% for me) - but I don't think of it as a card game, but as AWP.

My only complaint, as with VWM, is that the rules do not make this clear & give the impression it's a genuine random card game.

KK

 

[happygobrokey]

i still want a published basic strategy before we say rigged or not. if you make just a couple wrong all-ins, think of how many units per hundred you lose playing this wrong strategy. i played for a while there and i found without going all in each time cuts down variance a lot. i went all in on any king or ace, two paints, or two suited cards if one was paint. i called every other time (and i could be losing value because it must sometimes be appropriate to raise one but not all in nor just call). after the flop if i was paired or had a draw i'd bet, if not just check. i did quite good for a long time. i didn't feel it to be any more variance than a comparable video poker. you can choose to risk more on the hands likely to win, and therein you get more variance. AQ vs 67 is only like 60-40 right? bad beats are going to happen, especially when the other guy never folds (and i never did either). and you're playing your random hand versus the better of two other random hands. imo we need more numbers and a solid play strategy before jumping the gun.

 

[MPB]

This game seems really weird. How can it possibly have any HA at all?
Aas far as I understand the rules and the behaviour of the bot that is described there, a skillful player should have a very significant edge on this game if it was really played fairly.
If the player has a strong starting hand, he is guaranteed to be called with by one bot no matter what it is holding, if he flops a big hand, the bot will pay the player off all the time etc.
On the other side, if the player has a weak hand, the bots will never bet or raise postflop no matter what they hold.

So I rdid some very simple calculations for a very simple strategy:
1. The player goes "all-in" with the best 3rd of starting hand and he is expected to win around 1.1 bet by that.
I simply calculated that by assuming that the bot that doesn't fold is holding one of the best 50% of starting hands on average, since its simply the best of two starting hands. Maybe there is some catch that this is oversimplified in some way? Im not absolutely sure about that.

2. The player just calls every other hand preflop and checks down along with the bot no matter what, he is supposed to lose 0.5 every time on average.

So even with this very simple strategy the player has an edge and I completely left out that the player still has an option to choose whtether to check or bet postflop in the sceond case depending on his hand strength, this should also be a significant advantage for the player.
So I think it's extremely unlikely that the game is really dealt and/or played the way the rules decribe it. Whether the cards are dealt non-randomly or if the bots know all cards that will come doesn't really make difference IMHO, in any case the player is cheated.

PS: In another thread someone mentioned that the rules might be understood in a way that the bots are supposed to know the outcome of a hand. After reading the rhe rules I think this might be true, even though it's quite cryptically written.

 

[brutaldeluxe]

Yeah it's very subtle but it appears if the bot starting hands fall in a certain range then "the best outcome is used".
Translation it deals the flop and picks the best of the two starting hands to use. So now all of a sudden the all-ins don't look so clever.
If you had AK and bots had J 10 and 8 9 ...........you'll be outdrawn if you were just against J 10 a fair amount of the time but you are all in against two hands effectively it seems. You're not favourite to win the pot anymore.

The other thread about this discusses alot of this. I had come to many of the same conclusions you had but the set of rules I had read for the game was not complete and someone pointed out this thing about the best outcome and that totally changes it.

Whatever the truth is for this game the fact it is so ambiguous means it should certainly be changed so people know exactly what is going on and understand how the game is being operated. The way people are playing it probably results in a massive house edge if they believe everything is random.
We should all moan to the operators and software designers about this.....of course it will no doubt take them 3 years to repsond.

 

[MPB]

Yeah it's very subtle but it appears if the bot starting hands fall in a certain range then "the best outcome is used".
Translation it deals the flop and picks the best of the two starting hands to use. So now all of a sudden the all-ins don't look so clever.
If you had AK and bots had J 10 and 8 9 ...........you'll be outdrawn if you were just against J 10 a fair amount of the time but you are all in against two hands effectively it seems. You're not favourite to win the pot anymore.

Exactly. If you're effectively playing against two hands but will be paid only from one (cause the hand that will lose will be folded) you only have an equity edge with 88+ and AKs.
Since you can win 9 bets and risk only 8 probably some more hands will be profitable as well, but of course it changes the whole game very strongly in favour of the casino.

The way people are playing it probably results in a massive house edge if they believe everything is random.
We should all moan to the operators and software designers about this.....of course it will no doubt take them 3 years to repsond.

I think the main problem is not only that the game has an "unclear" description of the rules. Its if they run somehting that looks like a card game but in reality is not, chances are good that this not the only example where "tweaking" the game to the casinos advantage is happening. At least it shows a strange attitude to what "fairness" in a online game is supposed to mean.
Maybe it's not just paranoia that other "players suite" games like BJ also have a bad rep of not being fully random.

 

[GrandMaster]

Maybe it's not just paranoia that other "players suite" games like BJ also have a bad rep of not being fully random.

Have they? This is the first time I heard this.

If you suspect a game is not random, start collecting data. That's how Casino Bar, Netgaming.com, English Harbour, etc, got busted, not by bitching on message boards. If you have suspicions about Texas Hold'em Shootout, start recording the cards, and I will run a chi-square test for you as a start.

 

[happygobrokey]

Have they? This is the first time I heard this.

i mentioned the ww players suite bj thing here within the last week, and i had read this on aka's site over a month ago, and he likely has this on good authority before making the claim. so this is not just someone crying about a bad session.

as for hold'em shootout, couldn't the reason we see all the bad beats be because neither side can let go of the hand unless the player would fold preflop? two undercards really AIN'T that BAD.

 

[aka23]

i mentioned the ww players suite bj thing here within the last week, and i had read this on aka's site over a month ago, and he likely has this on good authority before making the claim. so this is not just someone crying about a bad session.

The referred issue relates to the thread at https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/wagerworks-bust-stats.14518/ in which a player writes:

"I have logged 500 (for each senario) hands of BJ for dealer upcard of 3, 4, 5 , and 6 bust % on wagerworks "players suite blackjack"

dealer upcard 3- bust 12%
dealer upcard 4- bust 18%
dealer upcard 5- bust 31%
dealer upcard 6- bust 22%"

 

[GrandMaster]

Nafanny29 simply disappeared after making his allegations without ever providing any evidence for his claims. It looks like he decided to quit and to play a practical joke.

 

[aka23]

Nafanny29 simply disappeared after making his allegations without ever providing any evidence for his claims. It looks like he decided to quit and to play a practical joke.

I do not think we can assume the post is a joke, as Nafanny did not just make the claim out of the blue. He made a few earlier posts about bad BJ results with WW. For example -- https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/skybet-grrrrr.13767/ . He also did not leave immediately after making that post. He made a later post mentioning suspicious results in Texas Hold'em, similar to the comments others in this thread have made. His analysis of the BJ game and loss of nearly 1000GBP in the process may have simply led to him quitting online gambling and quitting the forum. In addition, several other players have claimed similar unusual results on some of the BJ games (but not all). However, none have provided an analysis like the one in Nafanny's post. It would be good for someone to try to repeat the data. I'd do it myself, if I could play there.

 

[MPB]

If you have suspicions about Texas Hold'em Shootout, start recording the cards, and I will run a chi-square test for you as a start.

I think you have completely missed my point. All I said was that the game pretends to be a card game, but isn't a card game.
If it was one, which would imply that all cards are dealt completely random and are unknown to either side (player AND bots) before they are actually dealt, the game would have a massive player advantage.
I think even my very simple calculations are good enough to prove that.

 

[KasinoKing]

My first real laugh this evening!
Gotta love it!

My first (& possibly my last) all-in of the night:-

.

 

[GrandMaster]

I think you have completely missed my point. All I said was that the game pretends to be a card game, but isn't a card game.
If it was one, which would imply that all cards are dealt completely random and are unknown to either side (player AND bots) before they are actually dealt, the game would have a massive player advantage.
I think even my very simple calculations are good enough to prove that.

It involves cards so it is a card game. The cards may or may not be dealt fairly. Could you show me your calculations?

 

[KasinoKing]

Couldn't resist going for an even bigger laugh - and it hit!
.

 

[KasinoKing]

Somebody stop me - my sides are really staring to ache now!
.

 

[MPB]

It involves cards so it is a card game. The cards may or may not be dealt fairly. Could you show me your calculations?

They are right in the my first response here in this thread.
Anyway, a card game not only involves that are card-like looking pixels on the screen, but also that it behaves like you would expect from a real, live dealt card game.
And as discussed before and in other threads also and it even seems that the rules might be understood in a way so that it's in complete compliance with the game rules if the bots know the outcome of every hand before the cards are even dealt. And this has nothing to do with cards being dealt random or not.
Anyway I strongly dislike it. A game like this is trying to fool the player into believing he is playing a simple card game, but the outcome is very different from what you would expect from a card game. This kind of "tweaking" is very easy in an OC and impossible in a B&M.
If an OC abuses this "advantage" to fool the player I find this a very shady business.

 

[steadman]

I didn't pick up on the "best outcome" line in the instructions. Taking into account that it seems that the bots know the community cards in advance now makes more sense to me and explains the incredible outdraws I repeatedly got when I played also. I stopped playing at one of the casinos that deal this game because of my last experience playing this game.

However, how incredibly unethical. Sure it's there in the instructions but how on earth can you call a game "Texas Holdem" when it is violating such a basic rule. At the very least be more honest in the instructions if this is the case. SAY UP FRONT that the bots know the community cards in advance, or even better, retitle the game - "Texas Holdem Cheating" or "Dishonest Texas Holdem" or something - isn't that what is basically going on when a player knows the community cards up front? If this game were played in a real world casino there is no way people would play it as soon as the dealer started peeking at the cards.

Do the management honestly think this is an appropriate game ? Isn't it just a lowest-common denominator attempt cash in on the current poker boom?

 

[happygobrokey]

the folding bot's cards should be revealed after the hand so we can see just how much the game lets the bots know. if AK folded and J3 stayed and some hooks caught the flop, then it's obvious.

but being forced to call you, the game gives you half a chance. if the playing bot has AQ, you can still win with AK most times.

i didn't notice the game revealing CRAP cards like 36 that made a straight or two pair. if this were the case i would be inclined to believe the bots and dealer collaborate. but if the playing bot holds T3, it's still possible the other bot had 82. so let's attempt to corroborate this with screens of "any two" or "gus hands" that you would assume the folded bot would actually have had a better starting hand if the cards to come were not known and therefore were played with the end result already figured into the choice.

some of these hypotheses could be tested live. deal hole cards to the player and two bot friends. let the player act and then let the bots view each other's hand and the community cards in advance. the better hand then must call the player down throughout the rest of the hand. log these results, and also try it without showing the board to the bots in advance. if bot behaviours are any more complicated (ie bot one plays with any pockets or AK/AQ/suited paints regardless, and bot two plays only when bot one does not play), then it's tougher to replicate, but if we believe they know it all ahead of time and the better final hand always plays, then you could easily mimic this in real life trials and perhaps through a computer sim if you were really good at that sort of thing. and if we managed to make a sim for the game we could devise a basic strategy and find the house edge.

i agree it seems the bots are playing with special knowledge, but i do not believe the game is unbeatable. it's a hindrance to face "advantage players" who are colluding/peeking, but if you make the nuts as the player, you will win. unless the dealer has rigged all the cards so the bots usually win, but i don't believe this to be so. i've outkickered the bot hand, or hit my second pair on the river to win. so imo the deck is not stacked, just that both bots are teaming up on you and the house turns a blind eye while its bot shills peek at the cards to come. quite the handicap, but perhaps a concrete play strategy can minimize the marginal and tilty all-ins and optimize the return given how we know the game plays. can it really play much worse than any other high-edge game like C.stud or 00 roulette?

 

[MPB]

The testing you describe can be done within 30 seconds using pokerstove. If the bots know the board in advance and fold the losing hand, the outcome is exactly the same as if both called. Except of course that you can win only money from one bot even though you are playing against two, giving the palyer a really massive disadvantage.
Developing an optimal strategy for this case isn't trivial, since the rules seem to imply that the bots only know the board in advance under certain conditions.
As far as I understand it, you cannot really know if these condtions apply, since they might depend on the bots hole cards, which are unknown to the player. To derive a strategy from this, you would have to do some calculations what the players EV would be in both cases and how often either case will come up.

 

[Zoozie]

I played Texas Holdem shootout for about 1 hour and managed to play even.

From a logic perspective you should have no double the bots are colluding. Since the bots can not bet/raise, there is no position disadvantage for the player. And during the turn (no bets at river) the player can still bet, which would give him an advantage since the bot does not have this options. The player also have more betting options preflop. On top of this half the times there is additional ante! (and no rake...). And the all in move(8BB) is powerfull since you know one of the bots has to call.

But it is obvious the bots knows the flop+river+turn and if one of the bots can win over the player it will be that bot playing. Or it is not even that random.

I came to this conclusion by noting how often the playing bot made 1+ pair, which was higher than what you would expect.

However the player has the betting advantage as I described, so the payout
could still be the 100% claimed. Also it strikes me that these simple rules
rules exactly should give 100% payout. This could be a clue to figuring out what algorithms are used for the bots.

Zoozie

 

[happygobrokey]

thanks for taking it seriously zooz, because

ZOMG this game is rigged it isn't even cards, every casino using the game is a cheating thief! they might as well be running "guess how many fingers?" like in that movie MAFIA!

 

[Zoozie]

thanks for taking it seriously zooz

1 hour and not using serious statistics is not a definitive proof of anything. But I have played online poker for 4 years and it did not
feel right. I did 40+ all ins and in almost all of them the bot was the underdog. A typical situation was mine Ax vs. two middle cards. Here I should
win about 60%. I won less than half the times. (If I won half the time, I would still be an overall winner due to the additional ante from the other bot)

During online poker I have also experienced some really freaky sessions, but I only did one session on "Texas Holdem Shootout" and it was a little odd.
I did manage to play even though. If anyone has the time a simple way to test it would be:

After each games. Use www.twodimes.net and type in the start hands. Write down who won and the percentages on each player.

Then publish the list here (which should contain at least 50 games).

Zoozie

 

[happygobrokey]

...it did not
feel right. I did 40+ all ins and in almost all of them the bot was the underdog. A typical situation was mine Ax vs. two middle cards. Here I should
win about 60%. I won less than half the times. (If I won half the time, I would still be an overall winner due to the additional ante from the other bot)...

so this indicates that the bots are colluding and have advance knowledge. because your ace high needs to hold up against two hands (even though only one plays, the better hand stays in) which is why it does not win to expectation. my crudest calculation is that you will win .6 vs any hand so to have a hand that beats both bots would be .6(.6)=.36 of the time. is that right?

i hope this is merely that bots know all the cards, because if the deck is rigged then that's just beyond reproach.

 

[Rusty]

I made a holdem type game that I would have enjoyed playing in Casinos so reading this thread gave me the idea to chuck it into the meisters slot ideas thread.
It could play randomly without any sneaky rules and still take you to the cleaners but in a much more enjoyable way

 

[dealer wins]

I made a holdem type game that I would have enjoyed playing in Casinos so reading this thread gave me the idea to chuck it into the meisters slot ideas thread.
It could play randomly without any sneaky rules and still take you to the cleaners but in a much more enjoyable way

I was thinking that the casinos must be able to come up with a profitable texas holdem game without resorting to the house players having prior knowledge of the community cards.

Introducing any game where cards not dealt yet are already known by the house player(s), is a blindly stupid move by an online casino given its already hard to actually believe the games are random in the first place.

This game just adds fuel to the "its all rigged anyway" arguement.

And apart from that, I reckon not many players will find it enjoyable to be outdrawn time and time again by 2 outers, and will be put off playing ANY game in that casino costing them business.

Rusty maybe you should patient your game and licence it to the casinos?

 

[Rusty]

I have a full suite of original Casino games and slots but but there must be a reason that the main software suppliers use so little imagination and effort when introducing new games.
I agree with you completely that the player finding themselves outdrawn most of the time is a dumb idea of how to gain a house edge.
It can be done in a much more subtle manner while maintaining the games integrity.
Very amateurish IMO

 

[vinylweatherman]

I have a full suite of original Casino games and slots but but there must be a reason that the main software suppliers use so little imagination and effort when introducing new games.
I agree with you completely that the player finding themselves outdrawn most of the time is a dumb idea of how to gain a house edge.
It can be done in a much more subtle manner while maintaining the games integrity.
Very amateurish IMO

Unfortunately, the big providers have their own teams, and taking outside ideas would mean paying royalties.
So long as none of the competition out innovate them, they have no reason to change.
Other than writing your own casino software to accommodate your games, you will need a lucky break with one or more of the movers in the industry, who can see potential in breaking the mould.
As well as seeing the game, they would need exhaustive testing to show that they are not going to be hammered by skilled players, those exploiting the originality of the game rules.

the controvertial Texas Hold 'em shootout may be one such high risk game, they claim a 100% payout with "perfect strategy", but if someone actually achieved this, the casino are guaranteed losers.
Cryptologic casinos have in the past launched a few 100%+ video poker games, and used the 100%+ as a draw, however, they were not simple, and it took time for a perfect strategy to become widespread, and at this point the paytable was reduced to make it less than 100%.

Anyone who can work out this shootout game could make a mint (provided it is not actually rigged as some believe).

 

[Rusty]

Winbig told me about a game they have at bet 365 which is very interesting and plays like the game I mention only with 4 hands and more complex choices and betting.
Well worth a look in fun mode but beware of real play this is one game that could have you staking more than you really wanted to.
Play it and you will see what I mean

 

[dealer wins]

this is one game that could have you staking more than you really wanted to.

This is the problem with trying to implement a casino version of Holdem.

The betting rounds on Texas holdem could theoretically be a total bet of 24 X your original stake so for a 1 stake you could end up losing 24 (In a real holdem limit game)

This is why they have implemented the current version where (apart from the player betting more) you can only lose a max of 2 X your initial stake.

It would take some creativity to come up with a holdem game suitable for casino play where the stake doesnt risk getting out of hand for the player. (and using non-rigged cards with non-clairvoyant bots)

Must be a way though.