2500 coin royal 9/6 JoB payback %

deleted

The WoO VP calculator says 98.87. I must confess I use this game to cash out free play at Binions.

Quote: RogerKint

The WoO VP calculator says 98.87. I must confess I use this game to cash out free play at Binions.

Me too, LOL. You can modify your strategy by avoiding some of the royal holds (no KTs, QTs; 4F over 3RF, etc.). Obviously it doesn't matter how many quarters you play either.

deleted

deleted

Changes in the casino are never good. I get miffed when I see 2 coin QHs with 3 on center line pay table 5,000X coins instead of 10,000X. I do doubt any odds have changed to reduce this pay and they just want to reduce to big wins. Just leave all this alone and let people play. They shouldn't be giving people so many ways to count how today's casino sucks compared to yesterday.

Quote: teddys

Me too, LOL. You can modify your strategy by avoiding some of the royal holds (no KTs, QTs; 4F over 3RF, etc.). Obviously it doesn't matter how many quarters you play either.

Yeah, this is definitely not a bad idea for freeplay if you're looking for a vast majority of your money back since variance is so low. If this machine was on the strip, I snap play it for 1 quarter/hand...lol

The newly passed Illinois "video gaming" law also has this issue because no win can be greater than $500. So with a five quarter bet the Royal only pays 400 for 1.

deleted

The newly passed Illinois "video gaming" law also has this issue because no win can be greater than $500. So with a five quarter bet the Royal only pays 400 for 1.
So what happens if you are playing on a $5 or $10 machine where a four of a kind would pay 625 or 1250?

Quote: Hunterhill

The newly passed Illinois "video gaming" law also has this issue because no win can be greater than $500. So with a five quarter bet the Royal only pays 400 for 1.
So what happens if you are playing on a $5 or $10 machine where a four of a kind would pay 625 or 1250?

Max bet is $2 (remember, these are restaurants/bars not riverboats) and when bets go over 5 quarters, they start upping things like straight flushes or quad 2s-4s to make 6, 7, and 8 quarter games pay slightly better than 5 quarters.

The best game I found for one random restaurant I visited was 7/5 Super Aces Bonus, but the paytable with a max bet looked like this:

5 Coins looked semi-normal
Royal 2000
Straight Flush 300
4 Aces 2000
4 2s-4s 400
4 5s-Ks 250
Full House 35
Flush 25
Straight 20
3 of a Kind 15
Two Pair 5
Jacks or Better 5

Return 97.92%

8 coins looked like:
Royal 2000
Straight Flush 2000
4 Aces 2000
4 2s-4s 720
4 5s-Ks 440
Full House 56
Flush 40
Straight 32
3 of a Kind 24
Two Pair 8
Jacks or Better 8

Return 97.98% (strategy is more difficult though with heavy straight flush)

Most games floated in the 95-96% range. Not surprising but still disappointing. :( Oregon does the same thing with inflating straight flushes in bar video poker because they have a $600 cap on wins and a $2 max bet.

I guess I`ve been sleeping,I wasn`t aware of the $2 max bet.Thanks

People need to look at both the return and variance -- the RF at 500 cuts the variance by a sizable amount when compared to the standard 9/6 version.

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I just walked by a lady playing max coins (5) on one of these machine hoping for that $625 royal while instead she could be 25 feet over and go for $1000 no extra cost per hand, DO'H!

Don't be so quick to put her down.

I can share my situation with you. When my local casino has Multiplier days, the Annoying Parasites manifest themselves. They make a beeline to the best VP games like 8/5 Bonus or 9/7 DB in $1, where each game has a payback over 99%. I make a beeline to the 9/6-500 game. Why, because I get almost 1% in mailers (along with the multiplier day) since I am playing a game that has a much higher theo than the full-pay games.

I believe the casino executives set the 8/5 BP and 9/7 BP games as traps to ID the AP's. Since I'm not ID'ed as one of those dregs of the casino, I get the full benefits so I ended up making more than these AP's, other things being equal.

The irony of the situation is that the casino executives thought they were safe when they downgraded the 9/6 JOB to 500 from 800. Instead, it made it the best opportunity in the house. What I lose on the game, I make up more in comps and benefits because the casino thinks the 9/6-500 game can't be beat.

The moral of the post: Casinos rewards players based on the machine played; as a result, they create a bias -- penalizing those that play FP games while generously rewarding those that play the non-full pay games.

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I just walked by a lady playing max coins (5) on one of these machine hoping for that $625 royal while instead she could be 25 feet over and go for $1000 no extra cost per hand, DO'H!

Ibeatyouraces,

One more thing, and this one is a biggie. In the 9/6-500 JOB (in my neck of the woods), the game doesn't penalize the player for short-coin play. That is to say, the payback for the game is the same for a 1-coin or 5-coin wager. That also means the strategy is identical for 1-coin or 5-coin, i.e. only one strategy to learn as opposed to learning two separate and distinct strategies in the typical short-coin video poker game, respectively.

So why is the 1-coin play so special? Let's say you get a small amount in free play like $50 (for some people, a small amount might be $500). You have a choice of playing $0.25 9/6-800 JOB at max coins or $0.25 9/6-500 JOB at 1 coin. Since the denomination is the same, most AP would choose the 9/6-800 JOB over the 9/6-500 JOB because the former has a higher payback, other things being equal. Unfortunately, this is the important point lost to people like Ibeatyouraces.

While the 9/6-800 JOB has a 99.54% payback with a variance of 19.51, the 9/6-500 JOB has a lower payback of 98.88% (rounded) along with a much reduced variance of 8.90 (numbers are from WinPoker). On that $50 in free play, a 5-coin wager results in 40 games. However, on the same $50 in free play, a 1-coin wager results in 200 games. Unless the individual who bets 5-coins hits a full house or better (or wins a disproportionate amount of games), that player will not realize a return close to the 99.54% theoretical return. On the other hand, the 1-coin will most likely be much closer to his theoretical return MAINLY due to the Law of Large Numbers AND the fact the game has a low variance. For the 9/6-800 JOB player, about 18.8% of the return in based on hitting those rare hands of Full House or better, which is hard to do in 40 spins. In contrast, at 200 spins, the player is more likely to hit his fair share of Full Houses meaning he faces missing 7.48% of the return in rare hands like quads or better (please note since RF is 500, the RF contributes only 1.04% -- as opposed to 1.98% per RF at 800 -- to the total return).

If the player's objective is to maximize his conversion rate from free play to cold hard cash in one sitting, 1-coin 9/6-500 JOB might be the better choice. For those that are (extremely) risk adverse or those that are building a bankroll from free play, this 1-coin approach is many times the superior choice on risk-adjusted wealth maximization approach, respectively.

So why can't the player use the 1-coin approach on 9/6-250 JOB vs 1-coin on 9/6-500? (A) the player needs to learn two separate strategies and (B) the return is lower at 98.37% (vs. 98.88%). However, the offset is that the variance for 9/6-250 is even lower at 4.93. For some people, when the 9/6-500 JOB is not available, they might use the 1-coin approach on a 9/6-250 JOB game. Again, the Law of Large Numbers (due to 200 games as opposed to 40 games) along with a really, really low variance of 4.93 means one is much closer to reach his theoretical return than either 9/6-800 JOB (or 9/6-500 JOB), respectively.

Moral of the post, people like Ibeatyouraces should refrain from being smug. In Video Poker, you need to look at both the return and variance -- the lady playing 9/6-500 JOB may be giving up $375 in the RF, but she gains lower variance and more staying power, especially since the RF only accounts for about half the return. On a triple-net basis: (A) 1.98% less 1.04% is 0.94% pick-up on reduced RF effect, (B) 99.54% less 98.88% (rounded) is 0.66% loss from lower overall payback resulting in (C) 0.28% or 28 basis point extra staying power on a low variance game. For every $100 in coin, the lady is picking up about 28 cents in triple-net extra returns on non-RF hands for giving up that $375 per royal cycle. In plain English, lady is trading off payback for more playing timing, other things being equal.

The only DO'H that I now see is Ibeatyouraces smug post.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Then I suppose we ALL should play 6:5 bj for better comps and offers later. Bull!

Ibeatyouraces, that was a DUMB post.

There is a very small difference between 99.17% return on B/P and 98.88% (rounded) return on 9/6-500 JOB. We are talking 29 basis points difference on MUCH LOWER variance.

In contrast, there is a very large difference between 3:2 BJ and 6:5 BJ in that 6:5 BJ results in 139 basis points! (source: https://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/ ) with a very small reduction in variance.

(139 / 29) is a 4.79X difference.

Ibeatyouraces, using 5X argument is definitely BULL. I ain't buying it.

[redacted]

Quote: teddys

You gotta stop making these kind of statements on the board if you want to stick around. You obviously have great video poker knowledge. But this isn't 2+2; there is some measure of civility here.

Telling people they make dumb (or smug) post is a form of civility. Attacking a post or their arguments is NOT a personal attack. Neither is pointing out factual, but unplesant history, of people who makes dumb posts.

teddys, you are either forgetful or a hypocrite. Learn to extend civility before you demand from others.

Quote: Ardent1

teddys, you are either forgetful or a hypocrite. Learn to extend civility before you demand from others.

I gave you a soft warning in another thread, so this will ensure you see it. This sort of disrespect is unwarranted and uncalled for and will not stand on a repeated basis.