When the 10-7 DB game first appeared at the Empress (no progressives
originally) in June of 94, I used Stanford Wong VP and VPEXACT (The latter
is the equivalent of "analyze game" on Winpoker and the former did almost
everything else that Winpoker does.) Both programs came out in 1991. It
used to take two hours and ten minutes to run VPEXACT on my 486/66 Compaq
(Versus under 5 seconds on my current machine with Winpoker.). John
Grochowski then published most of the strategy I game him for the game but
since his Chicago Sun Times column was to a less knowledgeable group, he
cut out all the "interference card" discussion (Penalty cards to me back
then was a bridge term.). When the progressives became available, I used
the same software to generate break even points for all 2, 3 and 4 card
royals. The IL Gaming Commission was and still is ran by political hacks. I
would be shocked if the IL casinos did not own the above software.
Especially since Stanford Wong Video Poker was published by Villa Crespo
software which was a Highland Park IL company and was available at that
time locally at Best Buy, Babbages and Electronics Boutique. I know Richard
Pederson who did the graphics for that software.
···
[Original Message]
From: tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar <tooncessnl@hotmail.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Date: 11/19/2003 5:56:43 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Laws against 100% + machines>
>
The clause is not a myth, at least not in some juristictions, like
Illinois. The (somewhat silly) reason the rules are in there is that
most states tax the "gross win" of the casino. If a single machine
in the casino (for example, a slot machine) was secretly set to 105%,
the casino owners could pay a shill to play that machine off the
books, whose purpose would be to "drain down" the house win so that
they could skim some of the profits and not pay tax on them. Given
the history of casino skimming in mobster-owned Vegas, new casino
juristictions play it safe by putting this rule in.On the other hand, just because the rule is there, there has been
lots of times that 100% games have seeped through in the past. It is
only within the last 8 years or so that the optimal return
percentages were available to casino slot management (after programs
like BDPW became mainstream). Most of the time, management was only
aware of the effective return. Occasionally other machines slipped
through accidentally. Other games were pretty well known to pay over
100% optimally, like the Empress 10/7 progressives. For years the
ownership argued that the machines did not return over 100%. In
reality, they kept the machines in place because they were extremely
popular. When they finally had a good excuse to remove the machines
(when they became a barge), they used the law as their scapegoat.vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/Links.htm
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/