I've posted on this subject before, so let me give you some
background. Several years ago a complaint was filed with the Nevada
Gaming Control Commission about a certain manufacturer's line of
mechanical reel slots. The gist of it was that losing combinations
(such as blank-7-7) would be rearranged by the machine computer so
that they were presented as near-winners (in the example above, 7-7-
blank). Now, since the symbols to be displayed on the reels were
determined a tiny fraction of a second after the player pushed the
button or pulled the handle, the manufacturer's argument was that
the losing play was already determined, and rearranging this result
did not affect the monetary outcome.
Obviously, this argument was hogwash. Getting 7-7-blank is more
exciting, quickens the blood, is more frustrating, than blank-7-7
(where you know you've lost as soon as the first reel comes to a
stop). The idea was to rearrange losing spins so they tempted the
player to continue playing, because of the frustration factor of
a "near-miss" (which actually didn't exist).
Well, followers of decisions by Nevada regulatory agencies will not
be surprised to learn that the NGCC essentially agreed with the slot
manufacturer (which was a major one but I don't recall which) and
allowed these machines to remain.
So what does this have to do with video poker, you ask? Well, think
back to your last session of VP (we'll use Double Bonus for our
examples). How often have the following things happened to you?
1. When drawing to a 3RF, you get the fourth royal card FIRST, THEN
the spade 3 or whatever?
2. Draw to a pair, and get AKQ suited?
3. Break a pair to draw to a straight or a flush, and get the same
rank card right back? (Bob Dancer noted this several years ago, that
on JOB machines this was happening about five times as often as it
should.)
4. Keep a lone Ace, rather than, say A-J offsuit (the correct play
in DB if no flush penalty exists) and the first card out is a Jack
(with no Ace)?
I could name other examples, but the idea is that the machine takes
a losing result and either presents it in such a way as to make the
player feel he "just missed the big one", or alters the result so
that, while still a loser, the result may encourage a harmful
alteration in strategy. For example:
Once again playing DB, our hero is dealt 44567. Consulting his
strategy chart, he duly pitches one of the 4's to draw for the
straight. The machine initially draws a Queen, but then changes the
card so that it's one of the remaining 4's. Our player grunts in
disgust, and soldiers on. Five minutes later, he's dealt 23345.
Remembering the previous hand, but nonetheless faithful to good ol'
basic VP strategy, he draws....and gets another 3. Now, you can say
that wouldn't affect YOU, but I can guarantee there are players out
there who would be seething at this point. And who knows? Maybe
they'll change their strategy to holding pairs instead of drawing to
a straight.....
Now of course, the machine manufacturer would argue that when
someone draws to 4567, changing the drawn card from a Q to a 4 does
not essentially alter the outcome; as in the slot example above, a
loser remains a loser. And as above, the argument is hogwash.
I am absolutely convinced the above VP phenomenon happens, but if
anyone wants to make the experiment, simply keep track of all your
3RF draws (on ANY type of machine). Of those times when you get one
royal card but not the other (about 1 in 12 such draws), how often
does the "good" card come first, and how often does it come second?
We all know the little heart-jump that happens when that first royal
card comes out. There's no such heart-jump if the three of clubs
comes FIRST!