Jackpot (and other) Pictures DataBase Page:
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/VJ.htm
<a href="http://members.cox.net/vpfree/VJ.htm">
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/VJ.htm</a>
Everyone is encouraged to send pictures to me (as jpeg
attachments), and I'll put them on the Jackpot (and other)
Pictures page. Include dates and other relevant information.
vpFae
vpFREE DataBase Coordinator
vpFae@Cox.net
I wish you could prevent some of the memberships regulars from
critcizing the picture for paytable. I posted a dealt three line
royal of my wife's a few years ago. She was so happy to have had it
happen. Then the wonderful people who only think of their selfish
situations and not of others proceded to criticize the paytable.
Needless to say, the wife was devisstated. This is not the only
instance of this on this site either.
Neve again will I send in a picture.
Why cannot those who are so lucky to have 100+ % paytable sympathize
with those who must play to minimize loss, and for the enjoyment of
the game.
I will get off the soap box now.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFae" <vpFae@...> wrote:
Jackpot (and other) Pictures DataBase Page:
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/VJ.htm
<a href="http://members.cox.net/vpfree/VJ.htm">
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/VJ.htm</a>Everyone is encouraged to send pictures to me (as jpeg
attachments), and I'll put them on the Jackpot (and other)
Pictures page. Include dates and other relevant information.vpFae
vpFREE DataBase Coordinator
vpFae@...
While I don't believe in censorship, I do totally agree with your
concept, and have stated it previously on the board.
Why slam someone's choice of a machine and their resultant good
luck? If you can't say "hearty congratulations" when viewing a photo
of a nice win, why bother commenting at all?
I suspect that most list members try to find the best VP paytables
available in the casinos which they frequent. If no full pay
machines can be found, why should they be criticized for enjoying an
entertaining interlude on a less than positive bank? I presume that
they are adults, spending their own money. It's their choice as to
how to spend those funds. If that decision also works out well for
their bankroll, more power to them. The thrill of popping a RF is no
less on a -100% paytable, than on the best positive game.
~Babe~
===========================================
In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com,<deuceswild1000@...>wrote:
I wish you could prevent some of the memberships regulars from
critcizing the picture for paytable. I posted a dealt three line
royal of my wife's a few years ago. She was so happy to have had it
happen. Then the wonderful people who only think of their selfish
situations and not of others proceded to criticize the
paytable.......
Casinos make more money on short-pay machines in the long run. But on any given day, you can lose $1000s on 9/6 Jacks while your neighbor hits a royal on the 8/5 machine down the row.
It is silly to criticize anyone for being at the right place at the right time. But it is also a bit unwise for that lucky short-pay winner not to reinvest their lucky proceeds skillfully in better paying machines in the future.
Or perhaps be happy that the winner was playing on a short-pay machine. The more people that do that, the more the casino is better able to offer that rare full-pay most of us will be at way in the back.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@...> wrote:
While I don't believe in censorship, I do totally agree with your
concept, and have stated it previously on the board.Why slam someone's choice of a machine and their resultant good
luck? If you can't say "hearty congratulations" when viewing a photo
of a nice win, why bother commenting at all?I suspect that most list members try to find the best VP paytables
available in the casinos which they frequent. If no full pay
machines can be found, why should they be criticized for enjoying an
entertaining interlude on a less than positive bank? I presume that
they are adults, spending their own money. It's their choice as to
how to spend those funds. If that decision also works out well for
their bankroll, more power to them. The thrill of popping a RF is no
less on a -100% paytable, than on the best positive game.~Babe~
Casinos make more money on short-pay machines in the long run. But on any given day, you can lose $1000s on 9/6 Jacks while your neighbor hits a royal on the 8/5 machine down the row.
It is silly to criticize anyone for being at the right place at the right time. But it is also a bit unwise for that lucky short-pay winner not to reinvest their lucky proceeds skillfully in better paying machines in the future.
Or perhaps be happy that the winner was playing on a short-pay machine. The more people that do that, the more the casino is better able to offer that rare full-pay most of us will be at way in the back.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@...> wrote:
While I don't believe in censorship, I do totally agree with your
concept, and have stated it previously on the board.Why slam someone's choice of a machine and their resultant good
luck? If you can't say "hearty congratulations" when viewing a photo
of a nice win, why bother commenting at all?I suspect that most list members try to find the best VP paytables
available in the casinos which they frequent. If no full pay
machines can be found, why should they be criticized for enjoying an
entertaining interlude on a less than positive bank? I presume that
they are adults, spending their own money. It's their choice as to
how to spend those funds. If that decision also works out well for
their bankroll, more power to them. The thrill of popping a RF is no
less on a -100% paytable, than on the best positive game.~Babe~
machine. The more people that do that, the more the casino is better
able to offer that rare full-pay most of us will be at way in the back.
Or perhaps continue to offer short pay machines because they are
getting action ?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mikeymic" <mikeymic@...> wrote:
Or perhaps be happy that the winner was playing on a short-pay
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@>
wrote:
>
> While I don't believe in censorship, I do totally agree with your
> concept, and have stated it previously on the board.
>
> Why slam someone's choice of a machine and their resultant good
> luck? If you can't say "hearty congratulations" when viewing a
photo
> of a nice win, why bother commenting at all?
>
> I suspect that most list members try to find the best VP
paytables
> available in the casinos which they frequent. If no full pay
> machines can be found, why should they be criticized for enjoying
an
> entertaining interlude on a less than positive bank? I presume
that
> they are adults, spending their own money. It's their choice as
to
> how to spend those funds. If that decision also works out well
for
> their bankroll, more power to them. The thrill of popping a RF is
no
> less on a -100% paytable, than on the best positive game.
>
> ~Babe~Casinos make more money on short-pay machines in the long run. But
on any given day, you can lose $1000s on 9/6 Jacks while your
neighbor hits a royal on the 8/5 machine down the row.
It is silly to criticize anyone for being at the right place at the
right time. But it is also a bit unwise for that lucky short-pay
winner not to reinvest their lucky proceeds skillfully in better
paying machines in the future.
Or perhaps be happy that the winner was playing on a short-pay
machine. The more people that do that, the more the casino is better
able to offer that rare full-pay most of us will be at way in the
back.
And if that is the only paytable available for 500 miles?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mikeymic" <mikeymic@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@...>
wrote:
And if that is the only paytable available for 500 miles?
It depends on why you are playing.
The "hardcore" vpFREE members would say you shouldn't even be playing
less than full-pay. Giving up even a few percent over time adds up.
But long-term expectation is based on lots of hands. And, even then,
you might play 100,000 hands perfectly on a full-pay game and hit no
royals. Then, you might hit two in less than the next 1,000.
With soaring fuel prices players do the best the can with what is
available. Heck, if you go to the expense of coming to the Strip
there's no guarantee you'll get a full-pay machine anyway at lower
denoms.
We all have specific and indivdual goals based on our cicumstances. I
say you should enjoy your good fortune and not be defensive. But also
recognize those being critical are doing so based on their unique
perspective, not yours. The long-term math supports them, but in the
short-term anything can happen. So, live and let live.
And go out and hit another one, whenever and wherever.
mikeymic wrote:
The "hardcore" vpFREE members would say you shouldn't even be playing
less than full-pay. Giving up even a few percent over time adds up.But long-term expectation is based on lots of hands. And, even then,
you might play 100,000 hands perfectly on a full-pay game and hit no
royals. Then, you might hit two in less than the next 1,000.
I'm reasonably "hardcore", but I'm very comfortable with someone
playing anything they want so long as they're fully aware of the
economics involved.
However, I cringe when the "long term" argument is raised as even a
modest rationalization as to why the cost of playing short-pay is an
iffy-prospect in the shorter term.
You hit the nail on the head in identifying the royal as the culprit
why a million+ hands is necessary in most vp games to have a strong
expectation that your actual results will adhere closely to expected
return.
However, when we talk "short-pay" we're typically talking about hands
that occur with a very reliable frequency -- hands like FH, F, and S.
When you're talking about a couple of thousand hands, it's quite
uncertain as to whether a full-pay player playing opposite a short-pay
one will come out ahead on these hands given comparable sessions.
But once you move the horizon out to a still moderate 20,000+ hands,
the situation starts turning to a near certainty that the full-pay
player is on top.
When it comes to a full-pay vs short-pay discussion, the "long-term"
player uncertainty concept is bunk.
- Harry
I totally agree, especially since the definition of a positive play is different for everyone. The VP at the Sycuan Casino near San Diego is poor but there is a room that is totally smoke free . That is worth a lot of EV to many. For others, the player may get better rooms and comps, that has value as well. Regardless of the system you use if someone gets a royal while knock it?
jackessiebabe <jackessiebabe@yahoo.com> wrote: While I don't believe in censorship, I do totally agree with your
concept, and have stated it previously on the board.
Why slam someone's choice of a machine and their resultant good
luck? If you can't say "hearty congratulations" when viewing a photo
of a nice win, why bother commenting at all?
I suspect that most list members try to find the best VP paytables
available in the casinos which they frequent. If no full pay
machines can be found, why should they be criticized for enjoying an
entertaining interlude on a less than positive bank? I presume that
they are adults, spending their own money. It's their choice as to
how to spend those funds. If that decision also works out well for
their bankroll, more power to them. The thrill of popping a RF is no
less on a -100% paytable, than on the best positive game.
~Babe~
===========================================
In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com,<deuceswild1000@...>wrote:
I wish you could prevent some of the memberships regulars from
critcizing the picture for paytable. I posted a dealt three line
royal of my wife's a few years ago. She was so happy to have had it
happen. Then the wonderful people who only think of their selfish
situations and not of others proceded to criticize the
paytable.......
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I wish you could prevent some of the memberships regulars from
critcizing the picture for paytable.
Sorry, but that is the first thing I look for.
Of course while playing 100.7% AA, I have been known to switch to Let
It Ride(97 something %) for a few hands. I would post my 15,000
quarter royal, and be willing to accept all criticism of the royal.
It's not their royal, why do you care what they think.
Also when explaining advantage play, one friend asked what I would do
if the AA in Topeka were removed since I can't play in Missouri. I
told them that I would continue to go out and get my $250 month, but
stop playing when I received all of the free play for the day. I get
$150/month because of my Elite status and $50 month gas. I will not
play 99% and below machines as my main play. Save my money up and go
to Vegas or Reno, or Wyoming.
The Great Unwashed in Kansas City,
dipy911
Dipy,
Why can't you play in Missouri?
Chris
Also when explaining advantage play, one friend asked what I would
do
if the AA in Topeka were removed since I can't play in Missouri. I
told them that I would continue to go out and get my $250 month, but
stop playing when I received all of the free play for the day. I
get
$150/month because of my Elite status and $50 month gas. I will not
play 99% and below machines as my main play. Save my money up and
go
to Vegas or Reno, or Wyoming.
The Great Unwashed in Kansas City,
dipy911
Why, what does that do?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "dipy911" <dwoods49090@...> wrote:
> I wish you could prevent some of the memberships regulars from
> critcizing the picture for paytable.Sorry, but that is the first thing I look for.