History of video poker

[Don Perignom]

I think 2 pair payed 2 for 1 on the payscale.

Yes, exactly the same as the modern version but without the last line of the payscale. The revision added a 1 for 1 on the high pair, creating a payout on a net zero outcome. By my math, the hit frequency surged from 24 to 45.5%.

Players seem to have liked the higher hit frequency. They crave volatility, but still demand hit frequency. Most popular variant ever is DDB, which maintains the same 45% hit frequency by extending the 1 for 1 up the payscale.

Video slots are popular partly because of hit frequency. Players love a constant stream of payouts, even if many are net losses.

By that same logic, multi-play should be the dominant form of vp. But it isn't. Nothing makes sense, lol.

[jdog]

From that article:

-in the current environment, where operators are tightening up their offerings by removing underperforming games from the floor, offering high returns in video poker makes sense. “If you don’t have any of that product, you won’t have that customer,” he says. “A lot of people mistakenly think I’m going to get rid of my 2 percent pokers because the hold’s so low, and put in a higher-holding video slot. They’re not the same customer. You just won’t have that customer."

I've always understood this. You won't get those VP players, as well as the friends and spouses that they bring along who may play other, more profitable games. But looking at the diminishing FP paytables we are seeing, it seems most casino operators don't understand this.

[Don Perignom]

But looking at the diminishing FP paytables we are seeing, it seems most casino operators don't understand this.

They seem very dismissive of history. Sure, it's possible we're into a new era and the old methods are obsolete, but I think I agree with you that there will be consequences.

[redietz]

I think 2 pair payed 2 for 1 on the payscale.

Yes, exactly the same as the modern version but without the last line of the payscale. The revision added a 1 for 1 on the high pair, creating a payout on a net zero outcome. By my math, the hit frequency surged from 24 to 45.5%.

Players seem to have liked the higher hit frequency. They crave volatility, but still demand hit frequency. Most popular variant ever is DDB, which maintains the same 45% hit frequency by extending the 1 for 1 up the payscale.

Video slots are popular partly because of hit frequency. Players love a constant stream of payouts, even if many are net losses.

By that same logic, multi-play should be the dominant form of vp. But it isn't. Nothing makes sense, lol.

That hit frequency trend is discussed in Natasha Dow Schull's book, Addiction By Design. The constant stream of payouts, even if many are net losses, has a name and an acronym that I can't remember off the top of my head. It's Losses Disguised As Wins or something like that.