It's just like playing 8/5 Bonus at the $2 level. The RF only pays out 4000 coins if you bet 10 coins. If you play less than 10 coins then RF won't pay out at the full 4000 coin amount.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
out 4000 coins if you bet 10 coins. If you play less than 10 coins
then RF won't pay out at the full 4000 coin amount.
The T.I. has "tinkered" with those 1-100 coin machines for years,
obviously looking to maximize profit. Originally, they offerred 8/5
Jacks and 8/5 Bonus with the royal full-pay at ALL coin-ins,
including 800 for one coin. It is a mystery why any intelligent VP
player would have selected the 8/5 Jacks, but there it was.
Mext, they offerred a game with the 8/5 Bonus logo, but guess what?
There was no "bonus" for aces or 2-4's. The "bonus" was instead a
payoff of 30 (150 with 5 coins in) for any four-of-a-kind. I guess
that still makes it better than the 8/5 Jacks game. But work the
math, and you'll discover that as a playable game it's not such a
good deal.
Now, as with the Bellagio 1-100 coiners, you literally have to scroll
through every coin-in level to discover where, today at least, you
reach full-pay level for the royal. I tried to explain to a man
playing 5 coins at the T.I. why he was being shortchanged but he
didn't "get it". I would think management is very happy with that.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, shari ehara <eharas@...> wrote:
It's just like playing 8/5 Bonus at the $2 level. The RF only pays
The DB and DDB 1-100 machines (near the Players Club) are
full-pay at 5 coins, not 10. It says so right on the back glass.
On 10/21/07, npf15251 <npf15251@yahoo.com> wrote:
The T.I. has "tinkered" with those 1-100 coin machines for years,
obviously looking to maximize profit. Originally, they offerred 8/5
Jacks and 8/5 Bonus with the royal full-pay at ALL coin-ins,
including 800 for one coin. It is a mystery why any intelligent VP
player would have selected the 8/5 Jacks, but there it was.Mext, they offerred a game with the 8/5 Bonus logo, but guess what?
There was no "bonus" for aces or 2-4's. The "bonus" was instead a
payoff of 30 (150 with 5 coins in) for any four-of-a-kind. I guess
that still makes it better than the 8/5 Jacks game. But work the
math, and you'll discover that as a playable game it's not such a
good deal.Now, as with the Bellagio 1-100 coiners, you literally have to scroll
through every coin-in level to discover where, today at least, you
reach full-pay level for the royal. I tried to explain to a man
playing 5 coins at the T.I. why he was being shortchanged but he
didn't "get it". I would think management is very happy with that.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
We believe you.
But the TI changes payouts on machines. So be sure to check the
payout every time you play there. The machine may look exactly the
same. You literally have to read every payout for the amount of coin
in you play. And tomorrow it could be 10 coins in for full-pay.
Watch the database blog for updates. However, the database is only as
good as the members that diligently send reports to it. Locals can
just "pop in". But out-of-towners don't want to get a nasty surprise
flying in and seeing that what they intended to play no longer exists.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Luke Fuller" <kungalooosh@...> wrote:
The DB and DDB 1-100 machines (near the Players Club) are
full-pay at 5 coins, not 10. It says so right on the back glass.
I checked all the 100-coin machines at TI that I could, including
those by the players club counter. The best DB available is 9/7, at
any number of coins, so it's not considered "full pay" according to
the vpFREE paytables (10/7 is designated as the "full pay" version).
The best DDB available on these machines is 9/6, so it is
considered "full pay".
["Full Pay": I have a problem with the way this term is being applied
to certain versions of a paytable. I don't personally like calling a
<99% game "full pay" just because it's the more common flavor; what's
common today may not be common tomorrow, or next month, or next year.
I think "full pay" should mean the best available paytable for that
game per the manufacturer, whether casinos choose to use it or not.
That is, a more absolute definitino for "full pay" instead of a
definition that's relative in today's context. For example, 10/7 DB
used to be fairly common at many denominations, and thus was
designated the "full pay" version (as was FPDW). Today, 10/7 DB is
quite rare in denominations over $1; therefore, if the definition
of "full pay" is "best commonly used paytable", then by today's
standards we would have to transfer the designation of "full pay"
from 10/7 DB to 9/7 DB. Likewise, FPDW can rarely be found over 25c,
and we would have to assign the "full pay" designation to NSU or some
other common variant. That's my argument against using what's common
today to define what's "full pay". I expected the vpFREE glossary
definition for "FP" to briefly describe this distinction (i.e best
commonly available versus >100%), but it only says "full pay".]
JD
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Luke Fuller" <kungalooosh@...> wrote:
The DB and DDB 1-100 machines (near the Players Club) are
full-pay at 5 coins, not 10. It says so right on the back glass.
John,
I said, "The DB and DDB 1-100 machines (near the Players Club)
are full-pay at 5 coins, not 10. It says so right on the back glass."
I apologize for the incorrect use of the term "full pay" in my comment.
My comment was actually correcting an earlier post from someone
who said that royals paid 800 per coin bet only if 10 or more coins
were wagered. The truth is that these particular machines pay 800
per coin if 5 or more coins are wagered. My use of "full pay" meant
that the pay for the royal was the "full" amount (800 coins), not that the
machine's entire pay table was full pay.
FWIT, I totally empathize with your 'problem' concerning the use of
the term "full pay." I have always felt the same way you do about
some machines being called "full pay" when there are better
pay tables available to be played. "Full pay" should mean "full
pay" - not "the most commonly available pay."
Under "Full Pay," the vpFREE glossary says, "....Often it is a
judgmental decision as to which pay schedule should get the
full-pay designation." It shouldn't be "judgemental." It should be
"actual."
Again, I apologize for my miscommunication on the matter.
Luke
On 11/2/07, John Douglass <john.douglass@yahoo.com> wrote:
I checked all the 100-coin machines at TI that I could, including
those by the players club counter. The best DB available is 9/7, at
any number of coins, so it's not considered "full pay" according to
the vpFREE paytables (10/7 is designated as the "full pay" version).
The best DDB available on these machines is 9/6, so it is
considered "full pay".["Full Pay": I have a problem with the way this term is being applied
to certain versions of a paytable. I don't personally like calling a
<99% game "full pay" just because it's the more common flavor; what's
common today may not be common tomorrow, or next month, or next year.
I think "full pay" should mean the best available paytable for that
game per the manufacturer, whether casinos choose to use it or not.
That is, a more absolute definitino for "full pay" instead of a
definition that's relative in today's context. For example, 10/7 DB
used to be fairly common at many denominations, and thus was
designated the "full pay" version (as was FPDW). Today, 10/7 DB is
quite rare in denominations over $1; therefore, if the definition
of "full pay" is "best commonly used paytable", then by today's
standards we would have to transfer the designation of "full pay"
from 10/7 DB to 9/7 DB. Likewise, FPDW can rarely be found over 25c,
and we would have to assign the "full pay" designation to NSU or some
other common variant. That's my argument against using what's common
today to define what's "full pay". I expected the vpFREE glossary
definition for "FP" to briefly describe this distinction ( i.e best
commonly available versus >100%), but it only says "full pay".]JD
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Luke Fuller" <kungalooosh@...> wrote:
>
> The DB and DDB 1-100 machines (near the Players Club) are
> full-pay at 5 coins, not 10. It says so right on the back glass.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your quote is from the FAQ rather than the Glossary.
The FAQ entry reflects the historical definition of a
"full-pay" game, which is judgmental in nature.
"Full-pay" probably should be re-defined or discarded
as a term, but I'm not ready to cross that bridge yet
since a change would require a lot of remedial work
on the DataBase.
vpFae
vpFREE DataBase Coordinator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/
On 5 Nov 2007 at 15:50, Luke Fuller wrote:
Under "Full Pay," the vpFREE glossary says, "....Often it is a
judgmental decision as to which pay schedule should get the
full-pay designation." It shouldn't be "judgemental." It should be
"actual."
No problem, Luke. If you were mainly addressing the royal payout, then I took your statements somewhat out of context. Anyway, we now know that the DB was short pay and the DDB was full-pay, by current vpFREE definition, which I also argued against. I would've loved to have found full-pay DB at a strip casino though!
JD
Luke Fuller <kungalooosh@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
I apologize for the incorrect use of the term "full pay" in my comment.
Luke
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I would've loved to have found full-pay DB at a strip casino though!
Your dream has come true! Stratosphere.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, John Douglass <john.douglass@...> wrote:
