>
> > "bluestreak5016" <bluestreak5016@> wrote:
>
> > In this column BD examines a new four to a royal scare
> > type game where you change strategy resulting in royal
> > scares occurring every 350 hands.
> >
> > I just want to confirm that in a standard issue Jacks
> > or Better strategy you end up with a royal scare every 460
> > hands or so. This is the number I have used over the
> > years to evaluate a royal scare type promotion.
>
> The Wizard of Odds agree with your four-to-the-royal number for 9/6 JoB---every 460 hands on average.
>So now the game manufacturers have us exactly where they want us: playing for entertainment rather than profit.
Am I missing something here? I'm trying to understand the appeal of a game that Mr. Dancer freely admits has "the lack of a good strategy". So do any of you really want to suffer through a poor paytable for a half hour or so to get a 2nd chance which usually doesn't pay off? And then, when it finally does, you lose 75% of the royal's value?
That kind of "thrill" I definitely do not need.
ยทยทยท
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mikeymic" <mikeymic@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "ms. vpFREE3" <ms_vpfree_3@> wrote:
***************
Mickeymic,
Why did you jump on my and MS vpFREE3's "call and response"? If you wanted to comment about the BD Casinogaming column please start your own thread from the Administrator's weekly BD hot link to BD's weekly column. It was a couple days after the fact that I got my first response, from the most courteous and reliable MS vpFREE3.
The actual BD article perked my knowledge about a particular fact about "Scares". not that particular VP game review of that new and unique version of a four to a scare royal game.
BS