Just played 60,000 VP hands JoB

[Digger11]

100 games atime machine at Tahoe, decided to play until i got a Royal Flush.
Was playing a hand every 6 seconds for an hour, so 600 draws and 60,000 full hands.
Whilst the 600 drawcards is probably not enough to give a proper average, the 60,000 results is.
My findings were as follows (note the machine had very poor payouts, 1 for JoB , 1 for 2 pair, 7 for a full house, 25 for quads.
Overall cost me $60 to play so that equates to 0.1c per hand, as each 100 hands cost a dollar, i thnk that makes it 90% chance of winning (bad),
Each bet was 100 (or a dollar) and 100 hands at a time, results and findings below.
Holding no cards or holding a single jack or better gave similar result of a 35 return (is a 65 loss after stake),
A low pair returned 85 (all on average), so a 15 loss.
JoB pair, 145 return on average.
Two pairs, 240
Trips, 430
Holding suited 10 with a higher card never returned anything larger.
Holding 3 cards to make a str8 flush or royal never returned anything either.
Only time i ever made a str8 flush was when i was dealt 4,
Got a Royal at the 58 min mark, drew 4 of the cards required. Only got 1 royal after being dealt 4 of the cards which was against the odds as needed one card only from 100 draws - if machine was playing 2 decks then should have drawn 2 royals.
Overall, had a good time, but learnt that machine payouts are the key.

[chattycattty]

Machine playing two decks?

[Digger11]

Dont think so, as i would have drawn 2 royals after being dealt 4 of them.
Also, when you throw all 5 cards back, the machine needs to find 500 new cards, so i am thinking it just uses randow cards and not decks.

[Tedlark]

Thought provoking post Digger11, keep up the good work.

[Vman96]

Dont think so, as i would have drawn 2 royals after being dealt 4 of them.
Also, when you throw all 5 cards back, the machine needs to find 500 new cards, so i am thinking it just uses randow cards and not decks.

each hand behaves like the game was being played with a single deck.

So when you get dealt 5 cards...there are 47 cards available to draw.

Hand one gets their card...then the 47 cards get reset...
Hand two gets their card...then the 47 cards get reset...

and so on until Hand 100.

As for the amount of Royals you hit, yeah, you were more likely to get two of them, but there was also a (46/47)^100 = 11.64% chance you wouldn't have drawn any royals.

Also sounds like you ran a little below average on the draw (except trips). Did you track flush or straight draws too? And also note, playing for just 1 coin, the Royal only gave you $2.50. :( Less hands at max credits is usually better, imo. But it sounds like you had a study in mind, and $5/hand can be expensive on a machine that only pays 96.15% max.

[olds442jetaway]

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY DIGGER 11,
My findings were as follows (note the machine had very poor payouts, 1 for JoB , 1 for 2 pair, 7 for a full house, [/QUOTE]

..........................................................
I'm guessing you meant the machine you played paid 2 for 2 pair. The lowest I have ever seen on a job machine is 25 for quads, 6 for a full house, and 2 for 2 pair.

[Vman96]

Considering his average return on two pair, two pair definitely paid 2 for 1.

[Digger11]

Yes, 2 pair was 2, i got this wrong..
Cant remember the return on straights and flushes, but definitely needed 4 to a , for them to work, and only outside str8 draws ( inside str8 draws were a flop ).

[Vman96]

Yes, 2 pair was 2, i got this wrong..
Cant remember the return on straights and flushes, but definitely needed 4 to a , for them to work, and only outside str8 draws ( inside str8 draws were a flop ).

Inside straight draws are incorrect to play anyway unless you have 3 high cards to hold.

But yeah, I was primarily interested in how you did with 4 to a flush (pays 5 for 1) or 4 to an outside straight (pays 4 for 1).

[TIMSPEED]

Harrahs/Harveys is my home CET casino...definitely a lot better choices than those 100-plays...