brumar_lv wrote:
There is another possible angle to this, although I don't know
whether its true or not. Are there more 5 card redeals, and more
discards, playing deuces wild than regular VP? This seems plausible
because in regular VP we tend to hold face cards (and there are 16 of
them) as compared to deuces (only 4). So isn't it possible the
player will see more cards playing deuces than is true of standard
VP? If so, might that make it more likely to catch a deuce than in
standard VP, simply because you see more cards?
Don't be quite so tentative here ... it's a good question to raise and
an intriguing possible explanation as to why one might perceive that
deuces appear more frequently in DW.
In taking a peak at this I chose to take advantage of the hold
statistics that can be found in any of the currently marketed vp
programs (e.g. Frugal, VP Winners, Wolf). This information can be
used to find an accurate expected number of cards from the deck that
are displayed each play, and thus how much more likely a deuce would
appear in one game vs. another.
The results suggest this is an unlikely explanation though. In FPDW,
you expect to turn 8.08 cards per play; in 9/6 JB you turn 7.91. That
translates to seeing an extra deuce about once every 76 plays in DW.
I'd question whether a player who plays 600 hph would really discern
the difference in seeing 373 deuces an hour (on average) playing DW vs
365 in JB. (nonetheless, the greater frequency is consistent with an
assertion earlier in this thread.)
I suspect that what's involved in the OP's perception that you see
deuces turn up more frequently in DW is two things: you're just much
more preoccupied with deuces and, because you hold dealt deuces more
frequently, you see more deuces in the final hands - reinforcing the
perception if it should form.
···
------
I'm digressing now and getting something off my chest: At least two
posts have alluded to trollish behavior by the OP. I find that
unattractive and offensive. This isn't an effort on my part to act as
self-imposed moderator ... I simply abhor any behavior that serves to
dissuade the earnest participation of others.
Now, I'll grant that I have a certain blindness when it comes to
trolls (and in one instance didn't give due credit until one had sunk
it's teeth into my nose and tried to pry part of my face ... ok, so I
exaggerate a bit 
But I prefer to reserve adverse judgment where
there's no real harm to be found and there's reason to allow that
someone may be earnest in their questions.
I draw on my own early experience with these groups. When I had a
question about the underlying probabilities for spinpoker the first
response I received was that this had been all been hashed out before
and shown that they were no different from any other vp play and this
was all generally accepted by all now. <Slam Dunk> Translate:
"Well, you're kind of an idiot for asking that."
That experience left me eternally patient for questions that might
show a gap in grasping certain vp fundamentals -- even in those cases
where there might be some (not incessant) resistance to the facts.
I look for one of two behavior traits that characterize a "troll":
-- They raise a question that is known to create modest controversial
reply, and then sit back to enjoy the show (egging things on if they
start to lag).
-- They engage in a dialogue that proceeds something like this:
Troll: "I had x experience that leads me to suspect that the earth
may not be entirely round."
Responded to with cogent explanation why the experience isn't a good
indicator of anything contrary to "earth is round".
Troll then heatedly comes back with 5 obvious justification why the
earth is indeed flat. (And rubs hands in anticipation that someone
will be fool enough to engage in the argument.)
With respect to the OP's history on this group (referred to by someone
who alleged the troll-like behavior), neither of these represent his
posts. I find his questions to be earnestly put forth and the
responses accepted and not challenged (beyond a reasonable attempt to
better understand and test them against existing comprehension).
------
There's a sizable body of members here that are novice players who
seek to better understand the game (and who are somewhat intimidated
from actively contribution). Questions similar to that raised by OP
(original poster), if not that exact question, rest in the minds of
more than one or two. At the very least, OP gives voice to those
questions and a simple cogent explanation (without judgment) serves
many. It does a disservice to the group to discourage such questions.
Save the "troll" lobs for when someone's behavior actually becomes
disruptive.