vpFREE2 Forums

multi hand games and volitility

#1

Help Help... Please

A friend and I are discussing the merits of multi hand VP and we cant
decide if it increases volitility or decreases it.

so is a game more or less volitile on 3play 10play or 50play?

thanks in advance for your input

Jim & Jerry

#2

jimnkelli wrote:

A friend and I are discussing the merits of multi hand VP and we
cant decide if it increases volitility or decreases it.

so is a game more or less volitile on 3play 10play or 50play?

There's an element that increases volatility (magnitude of win/loss
swings relative to total coin-in) and one that decreases it.

If you compare playing a given amount of coin through at a given
denomination for single line vs. multi line (say, single line $.25 and
3-play $.25), the multiline will be more volatile. This is because
for any given amount of coin-in, your results depend on fewer base
deals in multiplay - a concentration of your wager over fewer deals
that provides lesser opportunity for play to average out over time
(vs. single line play).

However, if your comparison is made at a constant wager per play,
rather than constant denomination (again, by example, single line $1
and 4-play $.25)), the multiline is less volatile. Now you're looking
at the same number of deals for any given amount of coin-in but the
result of a given deal in multiplay is dispersed over several draws -
providing a great opportunity for play to average out (vs. single line
play).

So, a single line player is defintely stepping up to the volatility
plate when they approach multiplay without an adjustment in
denomination. However, in many cases multiplay presents an
opportunity to a single line player to put more coin through in a
session by reducing denomination but jumping up the number of lines
played.

- Harry

#3

per bet variance (the number calculated by winpoker and fvp) is less
for multiplays

job variance = 2 + 18/N
deuces variance = 3 + 23/N
double bonus variance = 3 + 25/N
super aces variance = 6 + 57/N

(N=number of multihands, i.e. 1, 3, 5, 10, 50 ...)
(N=1 is single line play)
(bet is the total bet per play, for example, for a quarter 3play with
max bet 20 coins, max bet per play is $.25 x 20 x 3 = $15)

Help Help... Please

A friend and I are discussing the merits of multi hand VP and we

cant

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jimnkelli" <jbecker11@c...> wrote:

decide if it increases volitility or decreases it.

so is a game more or less volitile on 3play 10play or 50play?

thanks in advance for your input

Jim & Jerry

#4

Harry's answer is "spot on" and should be placed in the FAQ section,
I am amazed at how many times people get confused on this subject,
even people who write professionally on the subject, e.g. John
Growoski just made this error in his recent article and Jean Scott
had the same problem when 5-play multi-strike came out.

Note the answer is clearly explained with no formulas, someone who
has a firm grasp of the subject can often give simple straight
forward answer without promiscuous computer dumps. The explanations
with computer dump data and questionable mastery of the subject do
more to mystify the subject than to clarify.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:

jimnkelli wrote:
> A friend and I are discussing the merits of multi hand VP and we
> cant decide if it increases volitility or decreases it.
>
> so is a game more or less volitile on 3play 10play or 50play?

There's an element that increases volatility (magnitude of win/loss
swings relative to total coin-in) and one that decreases it.

If you compare playing a given amount of coin through at a given
denomination for single line vs. multi line (say, single line $.25

and

3-play $.25), the multiline will be more volatile. This is because
for any given amount of coin-in, your results depend on fewer base
deals in multiplay - a concentration of your wager over fewer deals
that provides lesser opportunity for play to average out over time
(vs. single line play).

However, if your comparison is made at a constant wager per play,
rather than constant denomination (again, by example, single line $1
and 4-play $.25)), the multiline is less volatile. Now you're

looking

at the same number of deals for any given amount of coin-in but the
result of a given deal in multiplay is dispersed over several

draws -

providing a great opportunity for play to average out (vs. single

line

···

play).

So, a single line player is defintely stepping up to the volatility
plate when they approach multiplay without an adjustment in
denomination. However, in many cases multiplay presents an
opportunity to a single line player to put more coin through in a
session by reducing denomination but jumping up the number of lines
played.

- Harry

#5

Harry's answer is excellent and should be in the FAQ section, since
many people seem to be confused about this matter, even those who
write professionally on the matter. Recently John Growoski made this
mistake on Trump's addition of 5-play multi-strike, Jean Scott also
made the error when 5-play multistrike first came out.

I particularly like harry's answer since it relys on simple prose
rather than promiscuous computer data dumps and math formulas that
serve more to obscure than to clarify, particularly when the formulas
are wrongly applied.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:

jimnkelli wrote:
> A friend and I are discussing the merits of multi hand VP and we
> cant decide if it increases volitility or decreases it.
>
> so is a game more or less volitile on 3play 10play or 50play?

There's an element that increases volatility (magnitude of win/loss
swings relative to total coin-in) and one that decreases it.

If you compare playing a given amount of coin through at a given
denomination for single line vs. multi line (say, single line $.25

and

3-play $.25), the multiline will be more volatile. This is because
for any given amount of coin-in, your results depend on fewer base
deals in multiplay - a concentration of your wager over fewer deals
that provides lesser opportunity for play to average out over time
(vs. single line play).

However, if your comparison is made at a constant wager per play,
rather than constant denomination (again, by example, single line $1
and 4-play $.25)), the multiline is less volatile. Now you're

looking

at the same number of deals for any given amount of coin-in but the
result of a given deal in multiplay is dispersed over several

draws -

providing a great opportunity for play to average out (vs. single

line

···

play).

So, a single line player is defintely stepping up to the volatility
plate when they approach multiplay without an adjustment in
denomination. However, in many cases multiplay presents an
opportunity to a single line player to put more coin through in a
session by reducing denomination but jumping up the number of lines
played.

- Harry

#6

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

per bet variance (the number calculated by winpoker and fvp) is less
for multiplays

job variance = 2 + 18/N
deuces variance = 3 + 23/N
double bonus variance = 3 + 25/N
super aces variance = 6 + 57/N

(N=number of multihands, i.e. 1, 3, 5, 10, 50 ...)
(N=1 is single line play)
(bet is the total bet per play, for example, for a quarter 3play with
max bet 20 coins, max bet per play is $.25 x 20 x 3 = $15)

Did I miss something in the formula ?
I would think that the total wager would come into play somehow ?

Single line 0.25 JOB has a variance of 20 from the formula and costs a
$1.25 per play

50 line 0.05 JOB has a variance of 0.4 but costs $12.50 per play

Just my personal observation from playing 50 line .05 JOB is that you
cant really win unless you are dealt 4oak or higher, or a good string
of really great starting hands.

Another observation is that there seems to be some decent 50 play
games offered (although few and far between) but I have never seen a
decent 100 play, thier paytables seem to run in the 95 to 97 % range.
It seems the higher the multi line number the more likely the casino
is going to get thier expected return and could offer a better
payscale. Am I on the right track?

Jim

#7

Help Help... Please

A friend and I are discussing the merits of multi hand VP and we

cant

decide if it increases volitility or decreases it.

so is a game more or less volitile on 3play 10play or 50play?

You should treat a "Triple Play" video poker game just like a multi-
spot Blackjack game.
If you regularily wager $5/hand of VP, and switch to "Triple Play",
your volatility will actually INCREASE unless you triple your
bankroll to compensate. A similar increase will be necessary when
playing multiple hands of blackjack.
However, if you DO increase your bankroll, your volatility will
actually DECREASE! The chances of having a "completely losing" hand
where you win zero credits are less. A dealt push (such as JOB) will
more likely become a net win. On the other hand, a 4000 coin Royal
will be 1/3 as valuable unless it is a dealt Royal (or you happen to
draw RF on all 3 hands). Similarily, in blackjack you are more likely
to avoid a total loss with multiple hands. On the other hand,
receiving one 3:2 BJ may result in a net loss if you lose the other
two hands.

I hope this helps. Replies appreicated.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jimnkelli" <jbecker11@c...> wrote:

#8

Another observation is that there seems to be some decent 50 play
games offered (although few and far between) but I have never seen a
decent 100 play, thier paytables seem to run in the 95 to 97 %

range.

Jim

In the greater Chicago area we have 100 play .01, .05, and .25 9-6
bonus dlx and 100 play .05 & .25 NSUD, 9-6 JOB 9-7 triple bonus with
bonus point weeks that push daily cash back to 0.5%...we're so proud
we even have our own team of adv. players that pound on the 100
play .25 machines during bonus point weeks. Plus they have mysterious
monthly mailings with weekly coupons that range up to $600...

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jimnkelli" <jbecker11@c...> wrote:

#9

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jaydavidson118" <jaydavidson118@y...>
wrote:

>
>
> Another observation is that there seems to be some decent 50 play
> games offered (although few and far between) but I have never seen a
> decent 100 play, thier paytables seem to run in the 95 to 97 %
range.
>
> Jim

In the greater Chicago area we have 100 play .01, .05, and .25 9-6
bonus dlx and 100 play .05 & .25 NSUD, 9-6 JOB 9-7 triple bonus with
bonus point weeks that push daily cash back to 0.5%...we're so proud
we even have our own team of adv. players that pound on the 100
play .25 machines during bonus point weeks. Plus they have mysterious
monthly mailings with weekly coupons that range up to $600...

That is good to know, that thier is a possibility of a good paytable
on the 100 play machines, although I wonder what a adequate bankroll
would be for a 100 play 0.25 game like NSUD, it shure would be nice to
be dealt dueces. I am less than 5 hours away from S. Chicago and I
believe you are referring to the Majestic Star, how hard is it to get
on the multi games if I made the trip (my sister lives in the north
suburbs.

thanks
Jim

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jimnkelli" <jbecker11@c...> wrote:

#10

jaydavidson118 wrote:

Harry's answer is excellent and should be in the FAQ section, since many people seem to be confused about this matter, even those who write professionally on the matter. Recently John Growoski made this mistake on Trump's addition of 5-play multi-strike, Jean Scott also made the error when 5-play multistrike first came out.

I particularly like harry's answer since it relys on simple prose rather than promiscuous computer data dumps and math formulas that serve more to obscure than to clarify, particularly when the formulas are wrongly applied.

While I agree that Harry's illustration is excellent, I disagree with the statement about Jean Scott and this is the second time I have seen it here.

As I recall, Jean was not making a mathematical statement about the actual Variance of the game (Jean would be the first to admit she is not a mathematician), but simply relating the volatility she was experiencing during play at Caesars Palace.

Secondly, she was comparing the volatility she was experiencing on quarter 5-play MS, to what she experienced playing regular dollar five-play (also a $25 bet). And she also compared it to dollar single play Multi Strike ($20 bet), since that was a primary game for her at CP. In fact, I believe the math would solidly support her observations relative to dollar Multi Strike. Normal quarter five-play has much less variance than dollar single play, even though the bet is larger. I suspect the same is true of M. S.

  I am less sure about the comparison to the dollar five-play. I am not a mathemetician either. I think Harry (and Bill Velek?) had previously stated their studies of the game indicated that the basic Variance of MS is the same as standard single play in the same amount. In other words, quarter MS Variance is about the same as dollar standard single play Variance. I am not sure that's what they said, nor can I offer any informed opinion about it (is Jazbo here?)

If it is true, does it follow that the covariance of Multi Strike is calculated the same was as the covariance of a standard vp game? If so, one would expect about the same variance from quarter MS five-play and dollar standard five-play. But again, this is a long term calculation and a math excercise, as compared to the short-term observations Jean presented.

···

--
Thanks!
Skip
http://www.vpinsider.com

#11

You should treat a "Triple Play" video poker game just like a multi-
spot Blackjack game.

These two situations are not mathematically equivalent. In a multi-play
VP game, each the outcomes are statistically independent. When
playing multiple spots at a blackjack table, the outcomes are partially
correlated.

If you regularily wager $5/hand of VP, and switch to "Triple Play",
your volatility will actually INCREASE unless you triple your
bankroll to compensate. A similar increase will be necessary when
playing multiple hands of blackjack.

The increase is greater at the blackjack table because of the
correlation between the wagers.

However, if you DO increase your bankroll, your volatility will
actually DECREASE! The chances of having a "completely losing" hand
where you win zero credits are less. A dealt push (such as JOB) will
more likely become a net win. On the other hand, a 4000 coin Royal
will be 1/3 as valuable unless it is a dealt Royal (or you happen to
draw RF on all 3 hands). Similarily, in blackjack you are more likely
to avoid a total loss with multiple hands. On the other hand,
receiving one 3:2 BJ may result in a net loss if you lose the other
two hands.

Because of the correlation, the result at the blackjack table (when
a fixed total wager is distributed to multiple spots) is less of a
reduction in volatility than you would get if the outcomes were
truly independent, as they are in the VP game.

···

On Tuesday 08 March 2005 04:03 pm, djmcosmo wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jimnkelli" <jbecker11@c...> wrote:

#12

Skip Hughes wrote:

As I recall, Jean was not making a mathematical statement about the
actual Variance of the game (Jean would be the first to admit she is
not a mathematician), but simply relating the volatility she was
experiencing during play at Caesars Palace.

Secondly, she was comparing the volatility she was experiencing on
quarter 5-play MS, to what she experienced playing regular dollar
five-play (also a $25 bet). And she also compared it to dollar
single play Multi Strike ($20 bet), since that was a primary game
for her at CP. In fact, I believe the math would solidly support her
observations relative to dollar Multi Strike. Normal quarter
five-play has much less variance than dollar single play, even
though the bet is larger. I suspect the same is true of M. S.

  I am less sure about the comparison to the dollar five-play. I am
not a mathemetician either. I think Harry (and Bill Velek?) had
previously stated their studies of the game indicated that the basic
Variance of MS is the same as standard single play in the same
amount. In other words, quarter MS Variance is about the same as
dollar standard single play Variance. I am not sure that's what they
said, nor can I offer any informed opinion about it (is Jazbo here?)

If it is true, does it follow that the covariance of Multi Strike
is calculated the same was as the covariance of a standard vp game?
If so, one would expect about the same variance from quarter MS
five-play and dollar standard five-play. But again, this is a long
term calculation and a math excercise, as compared to the short-term
observations Jean presented.

You're correct, Skip. Jean's observations were based upon anecdotal
evidence from her play. It's my recollection that her comparison was
only with $1 5-play.

Based upon my single-play variance calculation, and the likely
extension of that math to multiplay in each case, I disagreed that the
math would support her observations with respect to the $1 5-play
comparison. My $.25 single-play MS variance calculation resulted in a
value that, when all 4-lines are played, is about 20% higher than
single line $1. This calculsion was subsequently confirmed by LED.

However, not having performed the calculation for 5-play MS (which
would be a far more extensive calculation), I was curious about her
continued experience.

In the case of a comparison with single line $1 MS, I have every
reason to expect that your statement of smaller 5-play $.25 MS
variance is correct for the reason you cite.

FWIW, Bill's calculations did not extend to variance but instead
confirmed the MS returns published in the Dancer article on the game.

- Harry

#13

>
>

As I recall, Jean was not making a mathematical statement about

the

actual Variance of the game (Jean would be the first to admit she

is not

a mathematician), but simply relating the volatility she was
experiencing during play at Caesars Palace.

She was inferring from her experience that the new game lowered
volatility, when clearly it does not. It is true that Jean writes
more about the externalities of vp than the game itself, still,
separateing anecdotal experience from rational analysis is important.

I am not
a mathemetician either. I think Harry (and Bill Velek?) had

previously

stated their studies...

.....
would you like to poll the audience... use the telephone support line

Are there any John Growoski apologists out there? Harry?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Skip Hughes <skiphughes@e...> wrote:

#14

jaydavidson118 wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Skip Hughes <skiphughes@e...> wrote: As I recall, Jean was not making a mathematical statement about the actual Variance of the game (Jean would be the first to admit she is not a mathematician), but simply relating the volatility she was experiencing during play at Caesars Palace.
Are there any John Growoski apologists out there? Harry?

She was inferring from her experience that the new game lowered volatility, when clearly it does not.

Clearly, it does lower volatility compared to a single play game of a higher denomination, which is at least one of the comparisons she was making*.

It is true that Jean writes more about the externalities of vp than the game itself, still, separateing anecdotal experience from rational analysis is important.

Agreed, and again, I think it was clear.=, at least to me, that (1) she was simply relating her experience and (2) she was at least half right*, even though generalizing from a short amount of play is obviously not evidence. She says at least once or twice that her impressions were based on a very limited amount of play and very well could be abnormal. If one cannot separate this obvious anecdotal experience from mathematical analysis, I believe the problem is as much, if not more, with the reader, than the writer.

*5-play quarter MS does have lower variance than single-play dollar MS, so there is no mathematical contradiction with even her short term experience there. On the other hand, 5-play quarter MS should apparently have an overall variance about the same as standard 5-play dollars, not less. But does that mean the short-term volitility is the same? I don't believe it necessarily does. One of the peculiarities of multiplay is that while the overall variance is (much) lower than a higher denom single play game of the same bet amount, the short term volitility swings for multiplay can be very drastic, due to the increased dependence on the deal (as the number of plays increases so do the number of overall hands, but the number of deals decrease).
  So experience has shown us that a session stake for quarter ten-play JB is quite a lot higher than for fifty-cent single play JB, even though the overall variance is about the same. I believe Jean was suggesting that the nuances of JB MS strategy, where you play "lower volitility strategy" (E.G. high cards over pairs, flushes and straight draws) on the bottom levels, may have the effect of ameliorating somewhat this efffect of short term increased volitility. I also think that she may be right. She may also be worng, but I have not seen nobody prove otherwise.

However, nowhere, at any time, in any way, did she suggest (as you implied then, and seem to be implying again) that multiplay has lower volitility than single play of the same denomination - either in MS or standard games.

Finally, if setting the record straight about what Jean actually said makes me a "Jean Scott apologist", I'll gladly accept the label. But could it also be possible that the fact that you once wrote several extremely condescending notes (something like your "would you like to poll the audience... use the telephone support line " remarks, only much more insulting) on this forum about how Jean didn't understand how match play works (and apparently neither did anyone else on the forum) and should defer to your superior math knowledge, creds supplied - only to be shown that you were flat out wrong, might have left you with a teeny weeny little axe that need grinding? Probably not. Probably you just misread or misinterpreted what she wrote.

For those who give a flying fig about any of this (and I doubt many do), the 5-play MS thread was on 10/10/04 - 10/11/04 (links below).
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/34951
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/34958
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/34964
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/34969

···

--
Thanks!
Skip
http://www.vpinsider.com

#15

As you all have pointed out, I am not a math head. And when I first talked about 5-play MS, I had just finished our first session of playing it and we had won big. I should have known better than to be so "glowing" in my report. After 15 years of playing VP, I know SO well that one session or one long streak is NOT a good judge of the future.

I forget whether I have reported on subsequent sessions - but let me tell you most of them have been......how can I say this - financial disasters. They have always been fun - and we have never lost more than we could "afford" - but they are often VERY frustrating at the same time as being fun. The main problem for us is that we don't have the time or the opportunity to play this game often enough to get any real feel for the "average" volatility. I can't decide whether the volatility is worse than $1 Five Play, which has the same coin-in per hand - $25. $1 Five Play can be a roller coaster from hell. I think the main problem is that most players who go up from single line to multi-line are overplaying their bankroll.

On the other hand, we have played at higher denominations for 5 or 6 years now - and I can tell you that, even though we have a very adequate bankroll and have the experience of losing huge amounts in one session ($10,000+) and even bigger amounts in a long losing streak - AND even though we have always ended up at the end of the year as a net winner - we never "get used to losing." We don't go slash our wrists - but we bitch and complain a lot!!!!

In my opinion, an inadequate bankroll is the main problem for most advantage VP players - but volatility is the biggest problem for ALL advantage VP players.

···

________________________________________
Jean $¢ott - Go to http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
  for VP software and strategy cards and for the
  Frugal series of books. Now is the time you might
   need "Tax Help for the Frugal Gambler."

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#16

kelly bankroll (~11%ror) is variance/(er-1+comp) bets
if you know variance, er and comp, you can calculate the kelly
bankroll
also, while you are at it, you can calculate N0:
N0=variance/(er-1+comp)^2 hands
N0 is the number of base hands that must be played to get at least an
84% chance of winning on a positive expectation game

example:
full pay deuces wild and 0.25% cashback:
kelly bankroll = 26/(1.0076-1+.0025) = 2574 bets ($3218 at quarters)
N0 = 26/(1.0076-1+.0025)^2 = 255,000 hands
so, play 255,000 hands with near perfect strategy and your chances are
89% of surviving short term bankroll risk of ruin and 84% of being a
net winner

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jaydavidson118"

<jaydavidson118@y...>

wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Another observation is that there seems to be some decent 50

play

> > games offered (although few and far between) but I have never

seen a

> > decent 100 play, thier paytables seem to run in the 95 to 97 %
> range.
> >
> > Jim
>
>
> In the greater Chicago area we have 100 play .01, .05, and .25

9-6

> bonus dlx and 100 play .05 & .25 NSUD, 9-6 JOB 9-7 triple bonus

with

> bonus point weeks that push daily cash back to 0.5%...we're so

proud

> we even have our own team of adv. players that pound on the 100
> play .25 machines during bonus point weeks. Plus they have

mysterious

> monthly mailings with weekly coupons that range up to $600...

That is good to know, that thier is a possibility of a good paytable
on the 100 play machines, although I wonder what a adequate bankroll
would be for a 100 play 0.25 game like NSUD, it shure would be nice

to

be dealt dueces. I am less than 5 hours away from S. Chicago and I
believe you are referring to the Majestic Star, how hard is it to

get

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jimnkelli" <jbecker11@c...> wrote:

> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jimnkelli" <jbecker11@c...> wrote:
on the multi games if I made the trip (my sister lives in the north
suburbs.

thanks
Jim

#17

jaydavidson118 wrote:

The point is not to "pick on" Jean, but, to suggest that people who
write professionally on vp, and therefore have a readership and a
mantle of some authority should be a little more careful in their
posts here, since I could easily see people reading her post about a
fun new game with low volatility, and then getting decimated.

  So experience has shown us that a session stake for quarter ten-

play

JB is quite a lot higher than for fifty-cent single play JB, even

though

the overall variance is about the same.

10-play .25 = $12.50 single play .50 = $2.50

I believe Jean was suggesting
that the nuances of JB MS strategy, where you play "lower

volitility

strategy" (E.G. high cards over pairs, flushes and straight draws)

on

the bottom levels, may have the effect of ameliorating somewhat

this

efffect of short term increased volitility.

I don't think there was any of that nuance in the original message,
it was more like: I found this fun nnew version of multi-strice and
boy does it have LOW VOLATILITY

I also think that she may be
right. She may also be worng, but I have not seen nobody prove

otherwise.

and nobody doesn't like Sara Lee

But
could it also be possible that the fact that you once wrote several
extremely condescending notes

(something like your "would you like to

poll the audience... use the telephone support line " remarks, only

much

more insulting)

This is in response to you soliciting several people to back you up,
if you need other people to back up what you say perhaps you
shouldn't be writing them to begin with.

play works (and apparently neither did anyone else on the forum-

only to

be shown that you were flat out wrong,

What I was wrong about was the mechanics of the match-play coupons,
my analysis was correct based on my mis-definition of match
play...but, evidently that subtlety was lost on you, but, not on the
person who made the correction, of which I was most appreciative.

might have left you with a teeny

weeny little axe that need grinding?

Sorry, I'm not small souled.

If you wish to reply to any of this, I will gladly read your
response, but I consider this my final response on this tag line.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Skip Hughes <skiphughes@e...> wrote:

#18

Not too difficult to get on the 100 play .25, as long as the "team"
isn't there. There are also 8 100 play .05 NSUD, which are also
readily available. Also one 9-6 JOB super times pay, and 2 .25 NSUD
spin poker, these are much more difficult to get on, as is the 100
play .01 9-6 bonus dlx

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jaydavidson118"

<jaydavidson118@y...>

wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Another observation is that there seems to be some decent 50

play

> > games offered (although few and far between) but I have never

seen a

> > decent 100 play, thier paytables seem to run in the 95 to 97 %
> range.
> >
> > Jim
>
>
> In the greater Chicago area we have 100 play .01, .05, and .25 9-

6

> bonus dlx and 100 play .05 & .25 NSUD, 9-6 JOB 9-7 triple bonus

with

> bonus point weeks that push daily cash back to 0.5%...we're so

proud

> we even have our own team of adv. players that pound on the 100
> play .25 machines during bonus point weeks. Plus they have

mysterious

> monthly mailings with weekly coupons that range up to $600...

That is good to know, that thier is a possibility of a good paytable
on the 100 play machines, although I wonder what a adequate bankroll
would be for a 100 play 0.25 game like NSUD, it shure would be nice

to

be dealt dueces. I am less than 5 hours away from S. Chicago and I
believe you are referring to the Majestic Star, how hard is it to

get

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jimnkelli" <jbecker11@c...> wrote:

> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jimnkelli" <jbecker11@c...> wrote:
on the multi games if I made the trip (my sister lives in the north
suburbs.

thanks
Jim

#19

jaydavidson118 wrote:

This is in response to you soliciting several people to back you up, if you need other people to back up what you say perhaps you shouldn't be writing them to begin with.

Perhaps, but I muddle through. It is in my nature to solicit opinions from knowledgeable people. It's worked for me and I wish I had done more of it when I was young.
  I don't know it all by a long shot, and a lot of what I do know, I have learned from people on forums just like this one. If that exposes my insuffiencies, I can live with that. <g>

If you wish to reply to any of this, I will gladly read your response, but I consider this my final response on this tag line.

Sounds good to me. I'm out.

···

--

Thanks!
Skip
http://www.vpinsider.com

#20

Is this play at the Majestic Star? The database does not show a 100-
play quarter machine (unless I am overlooking it).

Gary

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jaydavidson118"
<jaydavidson118@y...> wrote:

Not too difficult to get on the 100 play .25, as long as

the "team"

isn't there. There are also 8 100 play .05 NSUD, which are also
readily available. Also one 9-6 JOB super times pay, and 2 .25

NSUD

spin poker, these are much more difficult to get on, as is the 100
play .01 9-6 bonus dlx

>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jaydavidson118"
<jaydavidson118@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jimnkelli" <jbecker11@c...>

wrote:

> > >
> > >
> > > Another observation is that there seems to be some decent 50
play
> > > games offered (although few and far between) but I have

never

seen a
> > > decent 100 play, thier paytables seem to run in the 95 to 97

%

> > range.
> > >
> > > Jim
> >
> >
> > In the greater Chicago area we have 100 play .01, .05, and .25

9-

6
> > bonus dlx and 100 play .05 & .25 NSUD, 9-6 JOB 9-7 triple

bonus

with
> > bonus point weeks that push daily cash back to 0.5%...we're so
proud
> > we even have our own team of adv. players that pound on the

100

> > play .25 machines during bonus point weeks. Plus they have
mysterious
> > monthly mailings with weekly coupons that range up to $600...
>
> That is good to know, that thier is a possibility of a good

paytable

> on the 100 play machines, although I wonder what a adequate

bankroll

> would be for a 100 play 0.25 game like NSUD, it shure would be

nice

to
> be dealt dueces. I am less than 5 hours away from S. Chicago

and I

> believe you are referring to the Majestic Star, how hard is it

to

get
> on the multi games if I made the trip (my sister lives in the

north

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jimnkelli" <jbecker11@c...> wrote:
> suburbs.
>
> thanks
> Jim