gilbert_616 wrote:
If you can afford to play these machines, which one is better between the
THREE-PLAY and the FIVE-PLAY (assuming that the Pay Schedules are the
same)? Any advantage or disadvantage of playing one and not the other?
If I can afford it, I always play the game with the
highest positive EV per hour. If the choice is between
three and five play, I'd choose five play whch has
more coin-in per hour.
Roland Langley wrote:
> If you can afford to play these machines, which one is better
> between the THREE-PLAY and the FIVE-PLAY (assuming that the Pay
> Schedules are the same)? Any advantage or disadvantage of playing
> one and not the other?
gilbert_616 wrote:
If I can afford it, I always play the game with the
highest positive EV per hour. If the choice is between
three and five play, I'd choose five play whch has
more coin-in per hour.
Well, I guess I'd have to say I'm with gilbert. I'd 5-play $1 10/7 DB
over 3-play $1 10/7 any day ... if I had the bankroll. (Since I don't
have the bankroll for either, it's a moot decision 
The point here is that bankroll is a more critical issue than hourly
EV in most cases. And, to be honest, when it comes to multiplay it's
generally infrequent that we're talking about a positive EV situation.
So let's take the negative EV situation (say 9/6 Jacks or NSUD with
modest cashback). It's a money losing prospect so we're not playing
for the sake of the EV per se. But let's assume that we're talking a
"recreational" situation where it's desirable to put in $xx of play
(in whatever manner that's palatable).
The 5-play means more coin in per hour so we can put the $xx through
in less time, leaving more time at the pool. That's desirable.
The offset is that the more lines you play at a given denomination the
greater your risk to a significant loss over the course of the
identical $xx play. How much more.
Jazbo Burns article on n-play provides the math (if you can wade
through it):
http://jazbo.com/videopoker/nplay.html,
My infrequent readings of this article always leave me pushing my
brain a little. But it'll lead you down the path in the variance
calculation for the two plays -- a reasonably direct indication in the
case of a positive game of the relatively bankrolls required. But he
goes on to note that in the short term, the riskier play can yield
even greater loss risk than the long term math suggests.
My advice here: Log reasonable time on both and let your gut be the
judge. Just be prepared that the 5-play may induce considerable
discomfort relative to 3-play.
- Harry
There's another consideration here. Because $1 five-play requires
the same initial bet (and generates the same payoffs for dealt hands)
as a $5 single-line game, any dealt 250-coin winners, such as 5-K
quads or straight flushes in DB, will create a taxable event due to
the $1,250 payoff. Here in Michigan, that's an especially onerous
problem because the State takes 4% of your W2G winnings with
absolutely no allowance to fade it off with documented losses. So,
I'd be much more likely to choose the $1 three-play machines.
- Brian in Michigan
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
Roland Langley wrote:
> > If you can afford to play these machines, which one is better
> > between the THREE-PLAY and the FIVE-PLAY (assuming that the Pay
> > Schedules are the same)? Any advantage or disadvantage of
playing
> > one and not the other?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "marksalot300" <Marksalot300@a...>
wrote:
the $1,250 payoff. Here in Michigan, that's an especially onerous
problem because the State takes 4% of your W2G winnings with
absolutely no allowance to fade it off with documented losses.
So,
I'd be much more likely to choose the $1 three-play machines.
Good God! What is their justification for this? Surely they realize
that having hit a taxable jackpot doesn't mean you are AHEAD, for
any time frame you care to name, including that day! So this isn't
an income tax withholding sort of ripoff; it's more like some kind
of "fine".
Knowing that $50 of my $1250 payoff was going to disappear down the
governmental toilet would certainly stop me from playing 5-play
dollars. It would also stop me from playing, period. It would also
stop me from setting foot inside a casino in Michigan; in fact, it
would stop me from setting foot inside Michigan! Who knows what
other kind of "surprise" taxes they have? Maybe next year, I'll be
flying cross-country and have a layover in Detroit, and I'll get off
the plane to walk around the airport and have a snack, and then I'll
be prevented from reboarding unless I pay the $18 "Visitor's Air
Tax" based on three hours of breathing at $6/hr.
rockofjello333 wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "marksalot300" <Marksalot300@a...>
wrote:> the $1,250 payoff. Here in Michigan, that's an especially onerous
> problem because the State takes 4% of your W2G winnings with
> absolutely no allowance to fade it off with documented losses. So,
> I'd be much more likely to choose the $1 three-play machines.
>
Good God! What is their justification for this? Surely they realize
that having hit a taxable jackpot doesn't mean you are AHEAD, for
any time frame you care to name, including that day! So this isn't
an income tax withholding sort of ripoff; it's more like some kind
of "fine".
snip I don't know whether the tax rate is the same or not, but Mississippi does the same sort of thing -- take a percentage, regardless of any losses you can prove.
Bill Velek