I titled this thread "why reduced pay tables don't matter in video poker" because I don't think they do matter to many players. I'm not saying the players who ignore the lower pay tables are doing the right thing -- I'm just saying that many players do ignore the lower pay tables.
It is why they also play "negative games" because the negative pay tables don't mean much when they are trying for the big win such as a royal or a progressive.
So what is the difference between a positive game and a negative game? Well, on many games it comes down to the difference on certain quads, and the difference usually on the payout of a full house and a flush.
9/6 Jacks or Better returns 99.54% while 8/5 Bonus pays 99.2%. But to most players the differences in the middle paying hands such as full house or flush don't really matter because most players (pros and "experts" excluded) are always playing for a Royal Flush or a run of big quads to "make their day."
I see players all the time at casinos like Caesars and Rincon near San Diego gladly playing 8/5 Jacks or 8/5 Double Double Bonus and ignoring the poor paytable that the pros wouldn't touch because these are the games with the progressive jackpots and the lure of the big royal is what the players are playing for. Often, these games with the lower paytables also have the progressive royals-- another big lure.
I would suggest that many players wouldn't care if they had a run of full houses paying 9 coins or 8 coins or 7 coins or even 6 coins because they aren't playing for full houses.
Again, I'm not saying this is the "right thing to do" but I think it's what people do.
Expert or better informed players would say "but if you play the better pay tables your money will last longer and you will have a better shot of hitting the royal." And I think that's true, too.
But I would like to ask this question: has anyone busted out of a video poker session because they hit too many full houses that paid a lower amount? Has anyone busted out of a video poker session because their big run of flushes paid a lower amount?
I don't think so. I've busted because I didn't hit enough of any full houses or any flushes -- not that the payoffs on the flushes and full houses were lower.
I've never kept track of how much more money I would have won, or how much money I would have, if my full houses and flushes on Bonus Poker or Double Double Bonus paid one extra coin. Would I have won 10 extra coins in a session, or five extra coins? Would I have been able to play one extra hand or two extra hands?
If the chance of a royal is one in 40-thousand hands, would playing the better paytable for full houses and flushes have helped me?
Full houses and flushes will never give me the "win" to call it quits, and in the overall scheme of things I don't think the difference among full houses and flushes on various paytables makes that big a difference. And I don't think a higher pay on a full house or a flush is what's going to make me a winner -- those payoffs might keep me playing longer -- but they won't make me a winner.
So what's my point? My point is sure, we'd all like to play 10/6 Jacks or Better, or 9/6 Bonus Poker... but the reality is those games just ain't around. And kicking and screaming over half a percentage point just doesn't make much sense.
I think it's why Rob feels that he can win just as well on a negative expectation game: