vpFREE2 Forums

TACHI PALACE update... JAN 2012

#1

If you click on "About Rankings" on the vpFREE2 Rankings page, you will see an
explanation of how the rankings are derived. They are not based on each casino's video poker offerings, but on the number of times that casino's pages have been viewed by users of vpFREE2.

Here's a direct link to the explanation: http://www.vpfree2.com/rankings/about

Note there's a link there to supply feedback to them about the rankings.

···

Tenore Spinto <tenore_s@yahoo.com> wrote:

In my opinion the only Indian casino in the "non-sucky"
category for VP is Barona, in Lakeside, CA (eastern San
Diego County), rated #2 in California by VPFREE2. They have
a large selection of games paying above 99.5%, including
some in 25c and 50c denominations. [For some reason I can't
understand, Harrah's Rincon is ranked #1 in California, but
it has far fewer high-paying games].

#2

Another person confused or tricked by the "rankings". Even Bob Dancer was tricked by the term rankings and could not understand how a casino with poor vp would be ranked #1. If they simply added the word popularity in front of the word rankings would really help.

···

--- In vpFREE_California@yahoogroups.com, "St. Tropez97" <st.tropez97@...> wrote:

If you click on "About Rankings" on the vpFREE2 Rankings page, you will see an
explanation of how the rankings are derived. They are not based on each casino's video poker offerings, but on the number of times that casino's pages have been viewed by users of vpFREE2.

Here's a direct link to the explanation: http://www.vpfree2.com/rankings/about

Note there's a link there to supply feedback to them about the rankings.

#3

VERY good idea. Maybe we should suggest that to them
I still have a deep apperception for vpfree web site
Sjw

···

Sent from Sandy's iPhone

On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:08 PM, "hamstockman" <ab6pq@aol.com> wrote:

Another person confused or tricked by the "rankings". Even Bob Dancer was tricked by the term rankings and could not understand how a casino with poor vp would be ranked #1. If they simply added the word popularity in front of the word rankings would really help.

--- In vpFREE_California@yahoogroups.com, "St. Tropez97" <st.tropez97@...> wrote:

> If you click on "About Rankings" on the vpFREE2 Rankings page, you will see an
> explanation of how the rankings are derived. They are not based on each casino's video poker offerings, but on the number of times that casino's pages have been viewed by users of vpFREE2.
>
> Here's a direct link to the explanation: http://www.vpfree2.com/rankings/about
>
> Note there's a link there to supply feedback to them about the rankings.
>

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

#4

How about "most hits" which it really is.

Most Popular would make me think that it is the most popular because it has the best vp.

To: vpFREE_California@yahoogroups.com
From: gswitt@att.net
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:51:30 -0800
Subject: Re: [vpFREE_California] Re: Rankings

VERY good idea. Maybe we should suggest that to them
I still have a deep apperception for vpfree web site
Sjw

Sent from Sandy's iPhone

> Another person confused or tricked by the "rankings". Even Bob Dancer was tricked by the term rankings and could not understand how a casino with poor vp would be ranked #1. If they simply added the word popularity in front of the word rankings would really help.
>
>
> > If you click on "About Rankings" on the vpFREE2 Rankings page, you will see an
> > explanation of how the rankings are derived. They are not based on each casino's video poker offerings, but on the number of times that casino's pages have been viewed by users of vpFREE2.
> >
> > Here's a direct link to the explanation: http://www.vpfree2.com/rankings/about
> >
> > Note there's a link there to supply feedback to them about the rankings.
> >
>
>

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

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

···

On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:08 PM, "hamstockman" <ab6pq@aol.com> wrote:
> --- In vpFREE_California@yahoogroups.com, "St. Tropez97" <st.tropez97@...> wrote:

#5

Than maybe we could ask vpfree to started rating casino
different or has that been done ?
sjw

···

Sent from Sandy's iPhone

On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:57 PM, kelso 1600 <kelso1600@hotmail.com> wrote:

How about "most hits" which it really is.

Most Popular would make me think that it is the most popular because it has the best vp.

> To: vpFREE_California@yahoogroups.com
> From: gswitt@att.net
> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:51:30 -0800
> Subject: Re: [vpFREE_California] Re: Rankings
>
> VERY good idea. Maybe we should suggest that to them
> I still have a deep apperception for vpfree web site
> Sjw
>
> Sent from Sandy's iPhone
>
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:08 PM, "hamstockman" <ab6pq@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Another person confused or tricked by the "rankings". Even Bob Dancer was tricked by the term rankings and could not understand how a casino with poor vp would be ranked #1. If they simply added the word popularity in front of the word rankings would really help.
> >
> > --- In vpFREE_California@yahoogroups.com, "St. Tropez97" <st.tropez97@...> wrote:
> >
> > > If you click on "About Rankings" on the vpFREE2 Rankings page, you will see an
> > > explanation of how the rankings are derived. They are not based on each casino's video poker offerings, but on the number of times that casino's pages have been viewed by users of vpFREE2.
> > >
> > > Here's a direct link to the explanation: http://www.vpfree2.com/rankings/about
> > >
> > > Note there's a link there to supply feedback to them about the rankings.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

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

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