I only meant that the numbers wouldn't be updatable as people played
because the tech was working in EPROM settings. The ROM stands for
read-ONLY memory -- which means the machine would have no way to
update this number "on the fly". EPROM settings are
typically "program these once, and remember them forever" kind of
things.
I would have also come to the conclusion that these numbers
represented actual returns, but I ruled it out due to the reason
above.
I agree with you for the most part, but I wouldn't compare the FP PE
machines to BJ. There are a lot of BJ tables in the casino -- it is
a popular game and you get a LOT of people playing it that have no
idea what they're doing. I go to MS about once a month, and I see
the same faces playing those 9-10 FP PE machines EVERY time. I
notice some of these people making the occasional minor mistake, but
for the most part, I believe that the majority of people playing
these machines are playing them close to optimally. Once in awhile,
you'll see a non-regular sit down for 10-20 minutes and play without
a clue, but that amount of play is neglible when you consider that
the locals have the machines pretty much locked up.
--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, "steviemcc1"
<steviemcc1@...> wrote:
Great observation Bill; I wish you were sure of the last two
digits.
But if it was 98.28 and coupled with JW at 99.10 not fitting into
standard paytables, I believe those are the actual returns. Before
your post, I had estimated that the Pick Em's probably returned 98%
and at the most 99% given the number who do not know perfect
strategy, do not want to play perfect strategy (ie. go for Royals
more often), or who play somewhat casually and recklessly and do
not
pay attention. Table blackjack, whose non-counting strategy is
very
well-known, is rated at 98% in most casinos even though optimal
strategy should yield 99.7% and quite higher for those who count.
Whenever I have not played for a while, I practice on the computer
and I get amazed at how many careless errors I make, and then get
more careful. Most people play for fun, do not practice, and have
no
idea when they're blundering like crazy -- no bells and whistles
when
you err -- and mistakes at pick em' cost more EV than other VP.
I don't know what you mean by it was not updating as people played
as
the machine you were looking at was disabled. It would be doubtful
those readings would be for anything but that one individual
machine. They need to know if one machine is performing
substantially different than the others. [The progressive
(variable
jackpot) slots have extra units attached to transfer data from the
other machines.] What we do not know from your data though is how
far back it goes, whether it was from the last time they worked on
the machine, or before they re-upgraded the paytable.
--- In vpFREE_NewEngland@yahoogroups.com, "billkennedy3"
<billkennedy3@> wrote:
>
> Just wanted to post a quick message re: the $1 Pick 'ems. I was
at
> MS Friday-Saturday, and happened to be sitting next to a disabled
$1
> PE machine when a tech came by with a replacement mainboard for
it.
> I watched him go through the setup procedure, and one screen in
> particular caught my eye.
>
> This screen listed all of the games available on the machine, and
had
> a column labled "Pct", which I assumed was the longterm
percentage
> payback on the game with perfect play. The numbers in the
columns
> didn't make sense, though:
>
> Pick 'Em: 98.28 (or something close to that -- definately 98.xx)
> Triple Trouble Poker (the game with the devils): 98.48
> Joker Wild (or whatever the single Joker game is named): 99.10
> That video slot game: 90.xx
>
> The highest number was 99.10 for the Joker Wild game, and the
lowest
> was 90.xx for the Slot game. I was curious about Triple Trouble
> because it seems to be a popular game, but it is impossible to
> analyze because of the random nature of the devils -- it was
actually
> listed a bit higher than PE.
>
> I know that PE returns 99.95% with perfect play over the long-
term,
> so I'm curious as to what these numbers represented. I don't
believe
> that they represented the actual longterm return, since the tech
was
> looking at EPROM settings (electronically-programmable read-only
> memory), and there wouldn't be any technical way to have the
numbers
> update as people played. I also believe that the number would be
> much higher for PE as it is an easy game that gets a lot of use
by
> regulars that I would assume know how to play.
>
> Anyone know?
>
> Just as a sidenote, I've played well over a million hands of PE
at
> MS, and I keep very good records. I have no reason to believe
that
···
> the machines there are anything but fair (I'm VERY close to 100%
> return on the game -- actually a tiny bit over).
>