John Grochowski on "full pay" video poker

I sent a note to video poker author John Grochowski asking him for the definition of "full pay" video poker and he was kind enough to respond. His email to me follows. Please note his use of the term "super full pay" which I have never seen or heard before:

Hi Alan,

"Full-pay" is designation given by players, so there's nothing official about it. But what is meant by the term is the highest-paying, commonly available --- or once commonly available --- version of a video poker game. Usually, it's the original pay table on a game. Players refer to 9-6 Double Double Bonus Poker as full pay because it was the first version of the game marketed by IGT, and it's a high-payer at 98.98 percent return with expert play. There's a higher-paying version, 10-6 Double Double Bonus where full houses pay 10-for-1 instead of 9-for-1, but it's fairly rare, used only in casinos that want to appeal to serious video poker fans. Players refer to such games as "super full-pay" games.

Some full-pay games are no longer commonly available. The original pay table on Deuces Wild yielded 100.8 percent with expert play. There used to be hundreds of such machines in Las Vegas. Now there are only a few dozen, if that, and the game is not available in most of the country. Still, that game holds its "full-pay" nickname among players. and Deuces games with alternate pay tables have other nicknames, such as the Not So Ugly Deuces game that is the most commonly available high-payer in today's casinos.

Good luck,

John

I agree that "super full pay" is a perfect designation for over 100% games with "full pay" reserved for the 99%'ers. Makes sense in this day and age of lowered paytables.

I agree. I'm going to pay the IRS "in full" and see if they understand it's the most commonly paid amount, not the entire amount. I'm sure they'll see the light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I agree. I'm going to pay the IRS "in full" and see if they understand it's the most commonly paid amount, not the entire amount. I'm sure they'll see the light.

---

It seems that Red has a little difficulty with admitting he was wrong about the current meaning of "full-pay". Sour grapes......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I agree. I'm going to pay the IRS "in full" and see if they understand it's the most commonly paid amount, not the entire amount. I'm sure they'll see the light.

---

So what term would you use for 99%+ VP machines versus the much-more-common lesser-paying machines these days?

John's definition and explanation is worthy of an F+. He should know better, but like with that phoney Elliott Frome, what else would anyone expect from someone who mostly writes about video poker and hardly plays it.

First of all, 10/6 DDBP is the ONLY full pay version of the game, and even the ap's agree 9/6 is short pay for that game. Next, the term "full pay" is not some designation the players came up with. It has always been what the manufacturers have called the highest paying version created for each game on their machines' menus. And just because a version isn't "commonly available" whatever that's suppose to mean, that has nothing to do with what a game's full pay version actually is.

Alan, you should have asked me instead of that guy. You need to have been around the block a fee hundred times instead of theorizing about the subject from home in order to define something like this. Hell, even VL could have delivered something in the D- range.

Does it really matter? Full pay is pretty much meaningless. The return of the game is everything. In general, the higher the return, the better it is for the player. Why would anyone care about descriptive terms that have no useful meaning?

Arc has a valid point but I think everyone should agree on terms that are widely used. There is also disagreement about what "dice influence" means.

Arci took the Hillary Clinton approach on this, and he's right. Definitions mean nothing and better pay tables are simply better to play. Just to keep it simple Alan, think of it in this way and you won't need goofy explanations from people who hardly ever play vp: Walk into IGT, ask them to show you a Game King menu of vp games on one of their machines. Look at the best pay table available for each game. THAT is what they call--and what is--the "full pay" version. End of story.

Rob why don't you write about it in your next article in Gaming Today? By the way, when are those two articles coming out in Gaming Today?

Definitions are important, even if you don't grasp the concept. People discuss "full pay" games all the time. But it seems there is no clear definition of what "full pay" means. It's like living in an RV Rob... are you living in a trailer or an RV or are your homeless without a permanent address?

The only reason that a "definition" is important to you is because this whole video poker thing is one huge challenge for you, and you're trying too hard. Just keep it simple and see where that takes you. The last para. doesn't seem to mesh. We've stayed in 31 RV parks over the past 12 months. If you prefer to call that homeless or these places trailer parks, I have no problem with that. It just shows you know as much about what we enjoy doing as you do about how to live life that's not controlled by casino visits.

I am in the information business Rob. I ask lots of questions.

This isn't a great msytery. First of all to set the record straight, John Grochowski does play video poker --- it could be his preferred game. He is also a quite knowledgeable expert. I don't think full pay has any definition but an absolute one --- it gives 100 percent back to the players. More than full pay would be 100.01 back (or more). Less than full pay would be 99.999 or less. I don't count comps in this or anything else; just you versus the machine.

Frank Scoblete author of Confessions of a Wayward Catholic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankScoblete

I don't think full pay has any definition but an absolute one --- it gives 100 percent back to the players.

---

That would conflict with what both Grochowski and Michael Shackleford said, and also differs with the definition on vpfree and videopoker.com according to what was written over on some other forums including the Wizard's forum.

I suppose my "having trouble with the current meaning of full pay" might be because I read 1984 and have some sense of when vested organizations push definitions in one direction or another. I don't really care what the current definition of "profitable" is -- but if it refers to something that loses money, then I point that out. Whatever the "current" definition is of "full-pay" doesn't extract applying "full-pay" to a machine that doesn't pay in full from the category of oxymoron.

Now oxymorons are part of life. Since it's Super Bowl week, we have the "controls their own destiny" phrase as a classic oxymoronic cliche. By definition, one does not control one's own destiny. Destiny is beyond a mortal's control. "Full pay" may -- for most -- refer to games that don't pay in full. People may say it all the time, like "controls their own destiny" gets said all the time. There's a certain savoir faire to using subcultural jingo like this. But that doesn't rescue "full pay" when referring to negative games from the internal inconsistency of being an oxymoron.

And Alan, I understand Shackleford and Grachowski seem to be your current expert sources. Understand that there are people who write about gambling and there are people who make their living gambling. And rarely, as the cliche goes, do the twain meet. You decide which subset you think say what for what reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Whatever the "current" definition is of "full-pay" doesn't extract applying "full-pay" to a machine that doesn't pay in full from the category of oxymoron.

---

I can't argue with this: "full pay" is an oxymoron to describe a game that pays 99.17%. So, redietz, how do you buy those "jumbo shrimp" at the supermarket?

There's nothing mysterious about it. If something is "full" pay, then there is no paying more than that. IE, the best paying game on a vp machine manufacturer's menu.

I twice saw Elliott Frome playing vp in LV, once at the Gold Coast and once at the Rio after a GT get together. Both times he was playing nickels. Yes Grochowski calls himself one of the "experts" but all he's ever done is quote what Lenny Frome, Dan Paymar, and other similar types have been saying for years....except the one important fact that Lenny told my book publisher that he gave up playing advantage vp because he could not win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

There's nothing mysterious about it. If something is "full" pay, then there is no paying more than that. IE, the best paying game on a vp machine manufacturer's menu.

---

Specific question for you Rob: Is 8/5 Bonus Poker a "full pay" game? I don't know of any Bonus Poker game with a better paytable yet 8/5 Bonus pays just under 99.2%. So, is it -- or is it not -- full pay?

Regarding "jumbo shrimp," another supermarket reference might help highlight the oxymoronic aspects of the phrase "full pay" when applied to video poker paying less than 100%. The problem with applying "full pay" to less-than-100% machines is that the original use of the term had a precise, as Scoblete said, mathematical definition. Now if and when we have a "half dozen" eggs referring to five, then we'll have the perfect analogy to what has happened to the phrase "full pay."

Rob will have a field day with this, so let me provide a couple of reasons why "full pay" has evolved into a common meaning of less than 100%. First, it's obviously in the casinos' best interests to be able to advertise "full pay" as something defined non-mathematically. But, more creepily, people who have become --choose one, Rob -- enamored, addicted, committed to video poker, will embrace any rationale that excuses changes in their behavior to gamble in a less-optimal fashion. A generation of people have now played video poker. They need/want to continue playing even as the pay tables are slashed. These folks will psychologically embrace a redefined "full pay" because it helps them keep playing while feeling good about the value they are getting.

The fact is, the value they are getting, whether called "full pay" or not -- sucks big time compared to 20 years ago. Let me repeat that -- in terms of pay scales and especially comps -- it sucks big time. It is simply awful.

The casinos don't advertise "full pay", from what I've seen. That seems to be an internal term within the VP community.

In fact, most casinos have their machines set to terrible pay levels (5-7 JoB or lousy DDB paytables), so the last thing they want to do is call attention to the fact that only a few of their machines are "full pay" by today's standards.

I actually completely agree with what Dan said above. That suggests two things: (1) "full pay" may be sufficiently a mathematical term that applying it to less than 100% machines may be not completely legal from the casinos' points of view and (2) the creepy reason I stated above may be the primary driving force for the spread of "full pay" as a non-mathematical term.

I await Rob's comments.

The Wizard has also commented on "full pay" and its definition:

http://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/285/