2500 Payout on Full Coin JorB Royal

[Jstark]

[QUOTE=WVRadar]
I thought the difference would me much more than this.
It is, nevertheless, in my opinion, quite significant. The casino edge on the game has increased from 0.46% to 1.13%. So, the casino has increased its take on the game by a factor of just under 2.5.[/QUOTE]
As been posted by others, they'll play much worse games without care.

[Tedlark]

Bars/Restaurants/Truck Stops/VFW Halls/Whatever in Illinois that have casino gaming machines in them are not allowed to have a single win payout of greater than $500.00. These machines are regularly busy and bring in lots of money for the state, local municipalities, the location that has the machines and the company that owns and rents the machines out.

I have only played them once, about a year ago while waiting for a carry out order at a restaurant. I put in $60.00 and began to play Joker Poker. I was down about $10.00 when I got 5 of a kind for $500.00. I almost immediately cashed out and walked away and haven't played them since.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=tech58]The machines my wife plays at turtle creek are 250/500/750/1000/2500 not 500/1000/1500/2000/2500.[/quote]The pay schedule on the machine that I hit the royal on in Wendover NV paid like any other 9/6 Jacks or Better game except the royal payout was reduced to 2,500 coins.  When I hit the royal and found out the royal was shorted, I flew into a tantrum.  A lady next to me told me this, "You had a choice of playing 9/6 Jacks with a 2500 coin royal or you could have chosen 8/5 Jacks with a full royal and you made your decision."  I told her she was right and she was.  It didn't make me feel any better, but from then on I have always made sure of the royal pay back before I play.   Think about this.  Would playing the 8/5 game have made a royal any less likely?  Of course not.  How about 7/5 Jacks or Better?   The royal is the only big jackpot in Jacks or Better.   As long as all the royals pay the same, the money spends the same.   In any case, Ted's advice is the best.  Cashing out and leaving a winner is the best option for a Recreational player.

[Waiting4RF]

Look at wizardofodds.com and you will see the Royal hit frequency has increased to 46,968. This means to get the 98.87% return requires a strategy change. So using the correct strategy does make the Royal less likely.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=waiting4RF]Look at wizardofodds.com and you will see the Royal hit frequency has
increased to 46,968. This means to get the 98.87% return requires a
strategy change. So using the correct strategy does make the Royal less
likely.
[/quote]Are you saying if I play a 9/6, 8/5 or 7/5 Jacks or Better game exactly the same, the royal frequency will change?  I don't let math keep me from winning.   When I play Jacks or Better, I am playing for a royal flush and that's what I want to see.  All the other hands do nothing for me except tread water.  

[WVRadar]

This truly is the first time I have ever heard of a Max bet VP royal only paying 2500 coins. Unreal, that the casinos are now headed in this latest cynical direction regarding the game this forum, and these players are devoted to mastering. I'm truly just about done with all aspects of all casinos, there is only so much hypocrisy and blatant greed I can take.


Actually, these machines are the oldest VP machines in the casino. The payout is 500/1000/1500/2000/2500. I play them because I like the slant top games instead of the uprights. Also, other machines are either 8/5, 7/5 or even worse 6/5.

One more note: other games on the same machine pay 4000 for a Royal. I hit my first full coin Royal while playing Deuces Wild.

[onemoretry]

Are you saying if I play a 9/6, 8/5 or 7/5 Jacks or Better game exactly the same, the royal frequency will change? 
That's not what he said at all. He was referring to the fact that the playing strategy for a game with a shorted royal payout will result in going for the royal less often, and therefore hitting less of them.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=onemoretry]That's not what he said at all. He was referring to the fact that the
playing strategy for a game with a shorted royal payout will result in
going for the royal less often, and therefore hitting less of them.
[/quote]I got that.   I played the 2,500 coin royal game in Wendover because I wasn't paying attention.  The whole reason for playing Jacks or Better is the low variance allows you to play more hands so you have more chances of hitting a royal.  I would choose to play 8/5 or 7/5 Jacks or Better and get the full 4,000 coins.  Here is a royal I hit a few months ago playing 6/5 Bonus Poker, a 96.869% game.  I guess the machine didn't know it was suppose to do that?    I could have stayed around and let the 6/5 Bonus poker game take back my winnings.  I didn't.  I got the heck out of there and left a winner.  There is nothing wrong with playing so called "bad" VP games as long as you know when to stop.

[onemoretry]

[quote=onemoretry]That's not what he said at all. He was referring to the fact that the
playing strategy for a game with a shorted royal payout will result in
going for the royal less often, and therefore hitting less of them.
   I got that.  
[/QUOTE] That's nice. But then you proceeded with yet another irrelevant " I don't give a c*** about math" ramble.

[Tedlark]

Phil are you saying that a person will NEVER hit a royal on a 96.869% game?