Royal Draw 8/5 question

[njmike37]

I was at Caesar's in AC this evening to play some poker and on the way out, I stumbled upon a new machine I have yet to see in AC.  It's called Royal Draw.  If you get a quad, any quad, you go to a bonus screen in which you get to pick a suit.  Once you pick a suit, you get dealt 5 cards at random out of the 13 in the suit.  After you're dealt the original 5 in the suit of your choice, you get to draw from the 8 remaining cards in the suit.. so a pretty decent shot at a royal or a str8 flush (compared to a 52-card deck, anyway..)  After the draw, you get paid for your quad PLUS the bonus hand.  You're guaranteed at least a flush (duh.. LOL) 
 
Anyone have a clue as to the payback % on this machine?? 
 
By the way, the payouts for the bonus hands are the same as the original paytable..  Royal: 4000, SF: 250, Flush: 25  and you do not have to bet any additional credits on this game.. still a 5-credit max.
 
Royal: 4000
SF: 250
Quad: 250
FH: 40
Flush: 25
Str8: 20
3oak: 15
2P: 10
JOB: 5 
 
Mike

[bigboy]

I stumbled upon a new machine  called Royal Draw. 
 
Anyone have a clue as to the payback % on this machine?? 
 
 
The Wizard of Odds has some info on the %'s for this game.
 
 

[babybubba]

[QUOTE=njmike37] I stumbled upon a new machine  called Royal Draw. 
 
Anyone have a clue as to the payback % on this machine?? 
 
 
The Wizard of Odds has some info on the %'s for this game.
 
 
 
Royal Draw is just another one of those sucker games that the manufacturers are coming out with in order to keep players diving downward and deeper in search of a new thrill and consistently winning new game. You'll never find it at 100% (10/6 + creative comps), it's a game you eventually have to play for the Royal to win anything, and to do that players will be tempted to go for quads every hand. We all know what that means.
 
Wizard of Odds is a good site if he were to remove the illegal ads for Bodog, and instead put his intellect into beating gambling for income.

[shadowman]

 Anyone have a clue as to the payback % on this machine?? 
 
By the way, the payouts for the bonus hands are the same as the original paytable..  Royal: 4000, SF: 250, Flush: 25  and you do not have to bet any additional credits on this game.. still a 5-credit max.
 
Royal: 4000
SF: 250
Quad: 250
FH: 40
Flush: 25
Str8: 20
3oak: 15
2P: 10
JOB: 5 
 
Are you sure you got the paytable right? I would have thought the quad would be more like JOB (125). The payback for this paytable BEFORE even considering the bonus is over 103%.

[bigboy]

Are you sure you got the paytable right? I would have thought the quad would be more like JOB (125). The payback for this paytable BEFORE even considering the bonus is over 103%.
 
 
I think 2 Pairs is 5 coins instead of 10.

[babybubba]

[QUOTE=shadowman
 
Are you sure you got the paytable right? I would have thought the quad would be more like JOB (125). The payback for this paytable BEFORE even considering the bonus is over 103%.
 
 
I think 2 Pairs is 5 coins instead of 10.


I've seen this game and it pays 1:1 for two pairs as stated above. Quads are all 50:1. The version I ran across was 9/6.

[njmike37]

Shadowman,
Yes, you're right.  That should have read 2-pair as being 5 credits.
 
Mike

[babybubba]

Shadowman,
Yes, you're right.  That should have read 2-pair as being 5 credits.
 
Mike
 
That's pretty interesting. bigboy tells you he thinks 2 pr. pays only 5, I tell you I've seen it and it pays 5, yet shadow mentions nothing about two pair while saying he thinks the quads are 125 and you tell him he's "right". Is it any wonder why most video poker players come to me when they're looking for a better way.....

[knagl]

[quote=babybubba]shadow mentions nothing about two pair while saying he thinks the quads are 125 and you tell him he's "right". Is it any wonder why most video poker players come to me when they're looking for a better way.....[/quote]
 
Must you turn everything into a personal slam against him?
 
njmike37 was stating that Shadowman was "right" in that njmike37 did not post the paytable correctly, as Shadowman suggested.
 
Shadowman did NOT say that he thought the quad was 125 as you stated -- he said that he "would have thought" implying clearly that he hasn't seen the game and was taking a stab at what might have been the error in mjmike37's posted paytable.

[njmike37]

Thank you knagl, that's exactly what I was stating.  No matter what I say, it turns into something negative with him. 
And just so I can correct the misundertanding to babybubba,
 
Thank you Shadowman for pointing out that the paytable was incorrect.
 
Thank you bigboy for pointing out what item in my paytable was incorrect.
 
Thank you Rob for confirming bigboy's claim and of course making a huge deal out of nothing.
 
There, all better?  LOL 
 
Mike