npf15251 wrote:
Part of it a preference for higher variance games over Jacks> has to
do with the fact that many players have bad sessions playing JOB
anyway. So, they figure if they had been playing DB (or whatever) and
gotten 800 for those four aces instead of 125 their day might have
been prolonged and turned around in a better direction. We all know
it's long term, but I did ache awhile on a triple play JOB being
dealt 4A+kicker and only getting 375. There's no similar "high" in
getting 2 pair on a JOB machine and feeling elated I wasn't playing
NSUD.
You've hit the nail on the head. I've had players cite the fact that
after running a moderate loss part way through a weekend, outside of
hitting a royal it's unlikely that you can recover the loss while
playing Jacks. The best you can realistically hope for is that play
evens out to break-even, smoothing the overall trip loss as a
percentage of coin-in. In contrast, a game such as DDB holds
significant promise that you'll pull ahead before everything is said
and done, even in absence of a royal.
There's a solid truth in this, but I expect that most players
overestimate their odds in turning things around in DDB. One thing
that has been repeatedly reinforced in all my play is that, in a "0
sum" game, as you increase the upside, the downside is proportionately
greater.
For an extended period I was a solid $1 10/7 DB player. Now, the fact
that I went about 5 cycles without a royal probably tempered my game
enthusiasm a bit, but a favorable return combined with a moderate
strategy challenge drive considerable zeal for it. Still, over time a
quad Aces hit became less and less of a particular thrill, given a
modest but significant probability that the credits won would drain
away inside of an hour.
DDB players have a keen sense that a very strong quad hit will make
them short-term winners. However, when you compare the game against
DB, for any DDB quad other than 4A+k it's more likely that you'll see
it pounded away in an hour than any DB quad -- the undertow in DDB is
that much stronger.
To be reckoned with are the occasions on which a rash of DDB quads
leave a player giddier than a kid on a roller coaster. They leave an
indelible game impression. For those who crave the excitement, that
can be something worth paying for (even if in sub par return) ... most
players are in "it" for the fun -- not the grind.
For this reason, only a narrow minded person would criticize the
chosen play of any reasonably intelligent player (a narrow mindedness
that likely blind sides themselves into some poor play decisions).
Speaking for myself again, my sentiments are that good times take care
of themselves ... I want a strong chance that when the going gets
tough I'll still have a reasonably enjoyable time. In most games of
higher variance, when you don't have a strong hit for 2 or 3 hours at
a time (or longer) the play can get very painful. By contrast, a
Jacks player sees only about 40% of the expected drain between quads
that a DDB player does. (9% vs 22%). A Jacks player can ride out quad
droughts without a growing desire to puke in the nearest wastebasket
(the other side of roller coaster indulgence 
I'm not making the least argument for Jacks play vs. any more volatile
game. However, a finance background leads me to insist on meaningful
higher expected return when undertaking greater risk. As noted,
though, there's more than one type of reward for play.
- Harry