In a message dated 3/20/07 9:31:37 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
jwon7878@cs.com writes:
···
Slots today had an article that royals may no longer be random on some of
the
newer machines. I read the article in there distributed publication. To
access it online you need to be a member that is why I am not giving the
link to
the article. If anyone has heard of this or read the article. I would like
to
know what you think?Joe
****
So what position did this article take? Giving out less than the normal
amount of royals or giving out more than predicted royals?
Personally, if I could gaff the games legally in my gambling establishment I
would want to pad the frequency of the top line jackpots for VP. Let's triple
the amount of royal flushes to add excitement to the casino floor. Heck that
only costs me 4% or so.
But of course I would want to gaff the bottom results of the paytable too.
You wouldn't have to mess with the overall "nothing" percentage, just tweak the
two pair/three of a kind results. For a Jacks or Better type game amost 50%
of the expected return is tied up in these paying hands. I will rig the game
to give me an extra 5% down here. No one will care or notice if their two
pair doesn't turn into a full house as much as it should or a pair turns into a
set.
I think a 1% skim is good enough for me. Happy customers hitting royal flush
jackpots. Bartenders, floorpersons and cocktailers getting better tips. It
works for me. <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free email
to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.</HTML>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]