This has been bugging us: We find very little information written on this issue, if it is an issue.
We know that choosing the best VP paytables at any given casino that has the best paytables is the best way to obtain the highest percentage of return on your bankroll.
Here is the issue. Do casinos have the ability/technology to change chips in the machines that produce different percentage of hit rates even though the paytable remains the same?
Example: A VP machine has chip XX inserted. A player plays 5000 hands of JoB 9/6 and has the following results with correct play: RF- 0 or 0.00%; SF- 1 or 0.00%; Quads- 10 or 0.20%; FH- 58 or 1.20%; Flush- 53 or 1.10%; Str8- 56 or 1.10%; Trips- 387 or 7.70%; 2 pair- 633 or 12.70%; JoB- 1053 or 21.10%; No Win- 2,749 or 55%. Note: these results were taken from a 9/6 JoB game played on-line with perfect play using auto play. The play was compared with VPW and it matched exactly for correct play of basic, intermediate and advanced hands.
The casino decides after calculating win/loss percentages that the machine(s) with chip XX inserted has too high of a hit rate percentage and thus their loss rate is too high. They replace chip XX with chip YY which has a lower hit rate percentage based on a random number generator programmed in the chip just for this purpose. The paytable remains the same, but the non-win rate increases for the same number of hands played correctly.
So, if in fact there is such a as a chip that is programmed with a lower hit rate percentage, how do we know the casinos are not using them to make the up the difference of revenue loss during the economic crunch Vegas is now going thru?
We are curious to know how many serious VP players would answer one of the following choices:
1. Yes, definitely agree with your theory and here is why…
2. Agree somewhat, but need more information.
3. Maybe, but not sure.
4. Definitely not, but can not prove it.
5. Definitely not and here is the reason why…
6. Have no idea and I wish you would not have even mentioned it….now I have something else to worry about!
Thanks to all who take the time to read and respond, Kathy and Chuck
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]