Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Say goodbye to 99.54% JoB 1-play at Harrah's New Orleans

  1. #1
    They have done something weird. They made the Royal 500 times the number of credits played, no matter how many you do. So you get 2500 credits if you play max credits instead of 4000, which kills your EV overall. That will cost you $7500 per royal on a $5 machine! Ouch!



    They still have the 99.74% "Not So Ugly Ducks" game, which pays 16 for 5 of a Kind and 10 for Quads and Full House. However, that's on a 3-5-10 play $1 machine.

    They also have true 99.54% JoB on those same 3-5-10 play $1 machines.

    But if you want a single play 9-6 JoB, you won't find it at Harrah's New Orleans anymore.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  2. #2
    You will still find "full pay" $5 9/6 Jacks at Caesars Palace but you are shorted on the tier points with $25 coin in per point.

    Now I guess we have to add "full pay" to our discussions since they are playing with the royal.

  3. #3
    Sigh, that's too bad - i hope they don't end up futzing with the ten play. $5 vp, even at JoB, is too swingy for me, but this does not bode well for their other machines =/

  4. #4
    HorseShoe Cincinnati same thing sometime last year.

  5. #5
    That's as bad as the VP in restaurants and bars here in Illinois where the royal pays the same whether you play 5 coins or the max coin which I believe is 7 or 8.

    $500 is max payoff also.

    Yet they are flocking to play these games because there's one on every corner and the real casinos in Illinois are in god forsaken places.

  6. #6
    They also have true 99.54% JoB on those same 3-5-10 play $1 machines.

    If I had to choose between $5 one-line JoB and $1 5-play JoB, I would chose the 5-play. It has a lot less volatility and you get as much coin through.

    FAB

  7. #7
    Actually it could have been worse. They could have kept the royal at 4,000 coins but made it 8/6 or 9/5.

    When you think about it, you still have a good shot at making money and getting tier points with only the royal payoff downgraded. After all, how often do you hit a royal?

  8. #8
    It could have been worse, yes. 9-5 reduces the payout to 98.44%, and this change made it 98.80%.

    But it's still crappy, and not a machine where I would want to run 6000 hands.

    I agree that it's fine to run a few hands, such as burning off freeplay, but you wouldn't want to run thousands and risk getting shorted $7500 on a royal.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  9. #9
    Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    It could have been worse, yes. 9-5 reduces the payout to 98.44%, and this change made it 98.80%.

    But it's still crappy, and not a machine where I would want to run 6000 hands.

    I agree that it's fine to run a few hands, such as burning off freeplay, but you wouldn't want to run thousands and risk getting shorted $7500 on a royal.
    This is an interesting problem: what's worse, losing on the smaller pays which come more frequently such as the full house or flush, or getting the "full pays" on the full house and flush and getting short change on the royal which comes about perhaps once in 40,000 hands?

    Running 6,000 hands doesn't even put you in the neighborhood for hitting a royal, but imagine the losses you would suffer with lower pays on the full house and flush?

    And to be honest, if I were getting the full pays on the full houses and flushes, it wouldn't bother me to take a short pay on the royal since the royal would be nice gravy at that point.

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    This is an interesting problem: what's worse, losing on the smaller pays which come more frequently such as the full house or flush, or getting the "full pays" on the full house and flush and getting short change on the royal which comes about perhaps once in 40,000 hands?

    Running 6,000 hands doesn't even put you in the neighborhood for hitting a royal, but imagine the losses you would suffer with lower pays on the full house and flush?

    And to be honest, if I were getting the full pays on the full houses and flushes, it wouldn't bother me to take a short pay on the royal since the royal would be nice gravy at that point.
    For short term play (such as running a few hands on freeplay, or just casually playing for 15 minutes), the lower pays are generally better. This is because the player is unlikely to hit a royal when playing a low number of hands.

    For medium term play (the 6,000 hands type thing I ran there), the edge still goes to lower pays being better, though not as pronounced.

    For long term play (where you play enough hands to where hitting a royal is either expected or at least approaching a chance of like 20%), it's wisest to play the machine with the best overall return. This is because you will approach the expected return the more you play. In an extreme example, someone who plays 10 million VP hands (perfectly) will come very close to the expected return.

    Alan, unfortunately your line of thinking of, "I'm fine with a reduced royal payout because I've already made so much money by hitting one" is exactly what might have made Harrah's NO do something like this. I'm obviously not blaming you personally, but your line of thinking is fallacious, because the high royal payout exists to negate the significant edge the casino has in ALL other hands where you don't hit a royal. Or, simply put, without hitting royals, you would get absolutely clobbered in VP within not that long of a time, as you would be losing an extra $2 per $100 wagered.

    There is some question whether this particular reduced royal was intentional, though. I talked to some slot attendants, and they aren't sure, either. They reported it as a "programming error", and they keep getting no response from their higher-ups. That is, nobody is telling them, "This was intentional, stop reporting it", but at the same time, nobody is coming to fix it. They are suspicious that this was a mistake because it completely violates the generally utilized procedure of higher return for max play. This machine doesn't have an increased max play return, which does make it seem more like an error than intentional.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  11. #11
    Alan, I will say that you were on the right track playing Aces and Faces (99.26%) instead of ACE$ (99.40%) at Rincon.

    I was playing ACE$, but I decided it was a mistake. This is because hitting ACE$ is so unlikely that the 0.23% bump I'm getting from it (over regular bonus poker) is basically useless. I won't be playing enough hands to where hitting ACE$ is realistic to expect. Therefore, I think it's smarter to be playing 99.26% Aces and Faces, as my "99.40%" game was pretty much the 99.17% bonus poker, with a tiny chance I would get an extra $18k if the aces lined up perfectly. Not worth it.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  12. #12
    All play is in the short term. With each play you have a 1/40000 chance of hitting a royal. Your chances do not improve with subsequent hands.

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    All play is in the short term. With each play you have a 1/40000 chance of hitting a royal. Your chances do not improve with subsequent hands.
    True, but that's the wrong way to look at it here.

    When you play multiple hands, your chance of hitting a royal over that succession of hands goes WAY up.

    In 20,000 hands, your chance of hitting at least one royal is 39%, and your chance of hitting 2 or more is near 11%.

    In 1 hand, as you said, the chance of hitting a royal is about 0.0025%.

    So when playing just 1 hand, you can pretty much dismiss the royal payout, as the chance of it affecting you is tiny.

    When playing thousands of hands, the chance of hitting a royal becomes realistic, at which point it's no longer trivial when the royal payout is too small.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  14. #14
    Dan how many hands of VP have you played? How many royals have you hit?

  15. #15
    Probably played about 30,000 lifetime with zero royals.

    But as I said, there's a 61% chance you won't get one in 40,000 hands.

    But why does that matter for this discussion? Are you saying I should be totally fine with being underpaid when I do hit one?
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  16. #16
    Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Probably played about 30,000 lifetime with zero royals.
    Dan, you're going to have to explain this to me... slowly. How do you make 7 Stars playing only 30,000 hands of video poker over a lifetime? You're not a slots player, are you?

    And if you are really serious that you've only played 30,000 hands of video poker, you're wasting your time "worried" about hitting royals. Your only concern would be finding 9/6 Jacks or 8/5 Bonus (Aces) games to keep you in the game. You don't have the bankroll to even think about hitting a royal.

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    Dan, you're going to have to explain this to me... slowly. How do you make 7 Stars playing only 30,000 hands of video poker over a lifetime? You're not a slots player, are you?

    And if you are really serious that you've only played 30,000 hands of video poker, you're wasting your time "worried" about hitting royals. Your only concern would be finding 9/6 Jacks or 8/5 Bonus (Aces) games to keep you in the game. You don't have the bankroll to even think about hitting a royal.
    Not a slots player.

    There was another non-VP, non-slot game I used to play, which was removed from CET in early 2013.

    This year I will be earning Seven Stars entirely through VP.

    I do have the bankroll to play these games, and yes, with 20,000 hands played to earn Seven Stars in 2015, the royal payout is (and should be) important to me.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  18. #18
    Dan, I don't understand. The way I look at it if you divided your 20,000 video poker hands into four sessions of 5,000 hands each at a $5 game, this is expected:

    5,000 hands at $25/hand = $125,000 coin in and with $10 coin in = to one tier point you'd have 12,500 tier points. You would also earn 10,000 bonus tier points per session for a total of 22,500 per session.

    4 sessions at 22,500 total points = 90,000 tier points earned.

    7 Stars requires 150,000 tier points earned, bonus tier points included.

    How do you do it?

  19. #19
    Every session of 5000 base tier points requires 2000 hands. Then I get 10,000 bonus tiers, equaling 15,000 tiers for that session.

    Do it 10 times, and that's 150,000 tiers in 20,000 hands.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  20. #20
    Got it. thanks.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •