vpFREE2 Forums

are there fewer royals than there used to be?

I've noticed this year that more people are complaining about having a bad
losing year at VP and fewer royals. I definitely noticed this myself, with
only the following royals from Jan. to present 2005.
1 $2 - on triple play machine
3 - $1 - single line (2 on a cruise ship which were 10 coin machines = $8000
royals instead of $4000)
1 - $5 single line (I hardly ever play $5 single line)
3 - $1 five play (I play this a lot)

I played way more $1 triple and five play than single line $1; Also played a
lot of quarter five play and no royals this year on those.

The reason this comes to mind is I was just in the Gold Coast yesterday and
actually hit a $1 royal on a 5 play machine (playing 9/6 DDB). The slot
attendee who came to pay me said something about "Gee - it is a rare royal,
people are getting so few of them nowadays" and when I questioned her further she
said she thought that "people get fewer royals than they used to." And she
had noticed this both as a player and a slot attendent.

Later it occurred to me that perhaps she was perceiving this because now
machines are all ticket-payers, which means that attendants only do hand pays
where W2Gs are involved, so basically would only see $1 and up royals, instead
of in "the old days" of 5 years ago when most 4000 coin payoffs, even on
nickel or quarter machines would be hand pays.

Still, she didn't mention anything about tickets, and seemed to be talking
about a decline in royals over the last few years, let's say 3, rather than
further ago, but it was hard to say.

Still all the talk on the group about "royal droughts" as well as general
comments made by other players, and my own miserable level of 8 royals, with 2
during a cruise for goshsakes, when I live in Las Vegas and play a couple of
times a week, and most of the time playing 3 or 5 play machines, rang a bell.

Could it be that my "short term" perceptions of fewer royals could be more
than just a short-term fluctuation? It would be nice for Tom to do some sort
of poll to see if others are noticing something amiss. I definitely feel
that 3 and 5 play machines definitely seem to have something wrong.

After all, of my 8 royals, 4 were on single line machines. Yet I probably
played 3 and mostly 5 play machines 2-3 times more than single line machines.
So theoretically if I were to get 4 single line royals, I might expect more
like 24 royals or even more, since I'm more likely to be on 5-play than
3-play machines by about 2 to 1 as well.

There are many among you who will say I'm just experiencing a 5-play "royal
drought" or a short-term fluctuation, and that could be the case. Or it
could be that newer machines, including multiplays, have different, and somehow
not-as-good random number generators which make royals less likely than they
used to be (or less likely than on single play machines).

Another interesting tidbit in my short-term totals. Of the 8 royals, 4 were
at the Gold Coast, 1 LV Hilton, 1 Palms, and 2 Carnival cruise. Yet I've
played way more VP at the Palms than at the GC. I've also played a lot at
Harrah's, including trips to New Orleans, Reno, and Tahoe, with no royals. I'm
quite sure in fact, that if you totalled all my total VP play, you'd find I
played more hands at Harrah's/Rio properties than GC - but no royals. Also,
I've probably played about as many hands of VP at The Orleans as at the Gold
Coast, but no royals there. And if you totalled all play at Harrah's
properties, Venetian, LV Hilton, Flamingo Hilton (not much there), Orleans,
Bally's/Paris, and Palms up against play at GC, it would probably be about 8-times more
play elsewhere than at GC. [I'm guestimating here - but it seems right. Also
figuring 5-play as worth 5 times as many hands as single deck play.]

Okay, okay, short-term fluctuations, only one person, miniscule statistics
-- but still - it does seem odd. (Note to self - play at GC more!)

And while I could have misplaced a royal somewhere, I did go back and look
at my records to try to recheck, and I think this total is correct. I don't
keep detailed records on exact number of hands played, nor did I try to add up
total hours played for a more detailed reconstruction.

Another interesting fact, while I play far less on "reel slots" than on VP,
I've hit 8 Top Machine reel jackpots - where you get the top-sort of payoffs
such as 3 Double Diamond symbols, or 1000 coin Top Dollar jackpots. Some
machines such as Top Dollar have 2 different kind of "top" payouts, one being
the 1000 coins for Maximum Win on the Top Dollar Bonus, the other being for 3
Double Diamond or 3 Triple Diamond symbols -- I'm considering these equivalent.

Although the year isn't up yet, my quick check of last year's records shows
that by Aug. 2004 I had won 22 royals. (Here I'm counting a dealt royal on a
five-play as 5 royals).

Again, I fully realize we are talking about short-term fluctuations and
miniscule statistics, and so on. Maybe I am just having a bad year (and I
definitely am, since I've lost more than ever before)....

But still I'll stick by my overall evaluation of all play on multiplay
machines since they arrived about 5 years ago -- I think you get fewer royals on
them than you "should" for equivalent play on single line machines in terms of
total number of hands.

So how about it Tom, could you run a poll to see if other people think that
there are fewer royals around for equivalent play than "there used to be."
(or same number, or more royals)?

And while maybe you think I'm nuts, remember that slot attendant, she thinks
there are fewer royals too.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

All right, what I'm writing here is not serious at all... Here's a
conspiracy theory: all the casinos in NV (or maybe only in LV) have
agreed to rig the VP machines. They figured that by doing that
together the gaming commission won't be able to inflict massive
widespread fines.

Or maybe it's simply the usual human behavior where people complain
when things go wrong but not when things go right.

JBQ

···

On 8/21/05, misscraps@aol.com <misscraps@aol.com> wrote:

I've noticed this year that more people are complaining about having a bad
losing year at VP and fewer royals.

"I've noticed this year that more people are complaining about having
a bad losing year at VP and fewer royals."

Without any information on actual amount of play, it's impossible to
judge whether or not you're "over royalled" or "under royalled".

However, I think that JBQ, in a subsequent post, identifies the real
problem. We tend to have selective memories, and forget all the good
(and sometimes extremely improbable) results that befall us, and focus
in on the poor streaks. A dealt royal on five line? I can only dream.

My wife and I play play multi-line machines at Casino Rama.
Admittedly, this is not Las Vegas, but we play on the same IGT machines
that predominate in Las Vegas.

From August of last year to March of this year, we endured a royal
drought (zero royals in about 160,000 total hands played).

Since then, we've played a total of about 232,000 hands, and have 9
royals between us, an average of approximately one every 25,800 hands.
If that's the result of casino tinkering with machines, or some other
nefarious activity, I'm all for it. We've done reasonably well on our
two trips to Las Vegas this year, as well.

So, are there fewer royals than there used to be? Not from our
perspective.

Neil

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, misscraps@a... wrote:

You must have got my Royals since I am 9+ cycles behind. Perhaps they tinkered with the machines so you could get them instead of me. I think it is a conspiracy.... :slight_smile:

SNIP

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "neilemb" <nembree@aol.com>

Since then, we've played a total of about 232,000 hands, and have 9
royals between us, an average of approximately one every 25,800 hands.
If that's the result of casino tinkering with machines, or some other
nefarious activity, I'm all for it. We've done reasonably well on our
two trips to Las Vegas this year, as well.

So, are there fewer royals than there used to be? Not from our
perspective.

Neil

Any meaningful discussion or poll about royal shortfalls
will be based on accurate records, and will evaluate the
number of royals per royal cycle.

I'll run a royals poll although I don't anticipate too
much participation because I suspect that very few people
keep accurate records of their royals per royal cycle.
This is especially true if they play several games at
several denominations or play single and multi-line games.

The poll will be announced shortly and will run for 1 week.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 22 Aug 2005 at 0:03, misscraps@aol.com wrote:

So how about it , could you run a poll to see if other
people think that there are fewer royals around for equivalent play
than "there used to be." (or same number, or more royals)?

"I've noticed this year that more people are complaining about having
a bad losing year at VP and fewer royals."

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, misscraps@a... wrote:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I spoke to a suit at the Gold Spike just last week about this very same thing. He gave a simple explanation for the royal drought you are experiencing.......

August is typically Vacation season for royals as well as people - most of the royals can be found sunning themselves at Lake Mead or Bullhead City. He says they usually start to return around Labor day. Hang in there!

Sigh..........

SK
"No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway."

"No one ever says "It's only a game,"
when their team is winning."

"If life deals you lemons, make lemonade;
if it deals you tomatoes, make Bloody Marys."

"You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me and not you."

"The more you run over a dead cat, the flatter it
gets."

"Love means never having to say, "Does that twenty include the spanking?"

"To truly love another, you must first love yourself. And it wouldn't kill you to wash your hands in between either."

"A little bit of love goes a long way in our lives. It can provide us with higher highs and lower lows. But, if it comes with a persistent burning sensation, see your physician."

"When it becomes a crime to love, you should probably consider dating
outside the family. "

I play multiple denominations and various N plays in different
systems throughout the country, so keeping an exact hand tally is a
pain. I also play multiple game types (FPDW, NSUD, JB, JB Prog, SAB
etc.) and the royal cycle is not static. I keep time on machine
figures which allows me to estimate total number of hands, which is
good enough for purposes of my morbid curiosity... I'm in the area
of 300,000 hands since my last royal. Blech. I'm seeing royals
every time I draw two.

Chandler

Chandler

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:

Any meaningful discussion or poll about royal shortfalls
will be based on accurate records, and will evaluate the
number of royals per royal cycle.

I'll run a royals poll although I don't anticipate too
much participation because I suspect that very few people
keep accurate records of their royals per royal cycle.
This is especially true if they play several games at
several denominations or play single and multi-line games.

The poll will be announced shortly and will run for 1 week.

vpFREE Administrator

It's actually my wife who has been getting most of the royals this year
(about 75% of our total). She tends to play a little more than I do,
but not enough to justify that disparity.

I have been particularly unsuccessful in completing a royal with a one
card draw. While I don't have a precise record of the consecutive
number of failures to do so, I'm fairly confident that it's in the 240 -
260 range.

Neil

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "ednar" <ednar@k...> wrote:

You must have got my Royals since I am 9+ cycles behind. Perhaps they
tinkered with the machines so you could get them instead of me.