Can someone please tell me where i can find payback percentages for
multistrike games?I always assumed that payback on 9/6 job was higher in multistrike than in single line because of multiplier.
where can i determine payback percentage of multistrike games?
Can someone please tell me where i can find payback percentages for
multistrike games?I always assumed that payback on 9/6 job was higher
in multistrike than in single line because of multiplier.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=multi-strike+video+poker+odds&l=1
Cogno
Thanks for the links
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nudge51" <nudge51@...> wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
From: "dynamite9758" <dynamite67@...>
Subject: [vpFREE] where can i determine payback percentage of multistrike games?> Can someone please tell me where i can find payback percentages for
> multistrike games?I always assumed that payback on 9/6 job was higher in multistrike than in single line because of multiplier.
>You can find this information at the end of an original article that Bob Dancer did for IGT back in 2003 by clicking here:
http://www.igtproducts.com/IGTproducts/GameReview/MultiStikePoker/MultiStrikePoker.htm .
Nudge[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If you have the "VP Scouting Guide," you can quickly check it for MS returns. Those charts give the EV for every paytable available in MS machines.
The Guide also gives the break-even point for most RF progressives (quarters and dollars).
This is why I - and many other skilled and knowledgeable players - carry the Guide with them at all times when they are in a casino. There are so many different paytables that it is almost impossible to keep all this information in your head.
As far as MS, a general rule of thumb is that it adds about .2% to the base game EV - a little more or less depending on the particular game. Of course this added EV comes ONLY if you know how/when to change your strategy on each line. Not a game for the faint of heart or for someone who has a small bankroll, both psychological and financial. The volatility is mind-numbing. We had just about given up on the game when I finally got a top-line royal.
···
________________
Jean $�ott, Frugal Gambler
http://queenofcomps.com/
You can read my blog at
http://jscott.lvablog.com/
Thanks for info. I agree this game requires a nice bankroll. It is fun to play. I never hit a royal on top line but was dealt 4 aces on top line last week on DDB and then drew kicker.
Where do i get the VP scouting guide?
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <queenofcomps@...> wrote:
If you have the "VP Scouting Guide," you can quickly check it for MS
returns. Those charts give the EV for every paytable available in MS
machines.The Guide also gives the break-even point for most RF progressives (quarters
and dollars).This is why I - and many other skilled and knowledgeable players - carry the
Guide with them at all times when they are in a casino. There are so many
different paytables that it is almost impossible to keep all this
information in your head.As far as MS, a general rule of thumb is that it adds about .2% to the base
game EV - a little more or less depending on the particular game. Of course
this added EV comes ONLY if you know how/when to change your strategy on
each line. Not a game for the faint of heart or for someone who has a small
bankroll, both psychological and financial. The volatility is mind-numbing.
We had just about given up on the game when I finally got a top-line royal.
________________
Jean $¢ott, Frugal Gambler
http://queenofcomps.com/
You can read my blog at
http://jscott.lvablog.com/
dynamite9758 wrote:
Thanks for info. I agree this game requires a nice bankroll. It is
fun to play. I never hit a royal on top line but was dealt 4 aces
on top line last week on DDB and then drew kicker.
In very round numbers, you'll likely find $1 4-line multistrike play a comfortable play over the longer haul if you're presently comfortable with play of the same game in $1 single line. (The swings are actually more intense than $.50 single line play, but a bit smoothing than $1)
Just as a refresher, MS ER is about .2% greater than standard single line play provided you make appropriate strategy changes. (See Dancer article previously referenced in this thread.) Forego those and instead wing it with your standard play strategy and you can look to give up the better part of a full 2% ER away to the house.
For example, playing 9/6 Jacks standard strategy reduces your play ER to 97.8%. The higher level multipliers are an important part of return and it's necessary to adjust strategy on lower levels to increase your odds of advancement.
A strategy that changes with each level really keeps you on your toes. If your nature is for a more relaxed posture during play, it may not be the optimal choice.
A saving grace from both the complex strategy and bankroll demand perspectives is that the game can be played with an attractive ER at just 2 or 3 levels. In fact, I recommend 2 level play to those who want to dabble a bit before approaching it with regularity.
"I recommend 2 level play to those who want to dabble a bit before
approaching it with regularity."
But I would think appropriate strategy changes needed for 2 or 3 level. I normally play 3 level FPJBMS. It's still mucho fun and, as you noted, less violatile.
I love multi-strike. But Super Times Pay Multi-strike 5 play definetly the crack cocaine of VP. Yummy!
Great post, Good information.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
dynamite9758 wrote:
> Thanks for info. I agree this game requires a nice bankroll. It is
> fun to play. I never hit a royal on top line but was dealt 4 aces
> on top line last week on DDB and then drew kicker.In very round numbers, you'll likely find $1 4-line multistrike play a comfortable play over the longer haul if you're presently comfortable with play of the same game in $1 single line. (The swings are actually more intense than $.50 single line play, but a bit smoothing than $1)
Just as a refresher, MS ER is about .2% greater than standard single line play provided you make appropriate strategy changes. (See Dancer article previously referenced in this thread.) Forego those and instead wing it with your standard play strategy and you can look to give up the better part of a full 2% ER away to the house.
For example, playing 9/6 Jacks standard strategy reduces your play ER to 97.8%. The higher level multipliers are an important part of return and it's necessary to adjust strategy on lower levels to increase your odds of advancement.
A strategy that changes with each level really keeps you on your toes. If your nature is for a more relaxed posture during play, it may not be the optimal choice.
A saving grace from both the complex strategy and bankroll demand perspectives is that the game can be played with an attractive ER at just 2 or 3 levels. In fact, I recommend 2 level play to those who want to dabble a bit before approaching it with regularity.
<<In very round numbers, you'll likely find $1 4-line multistrike play a comfortable play over the longer haul if you're presently comfortable with play of the same game in $1 single line. (The swings are actually more intense than $.50 single line play, but a bit smoothing than $1)>>
Hummmm.....Harry, I really respect your VP knowledge, but I would have to disagree here. We are quite comfortable playing FIVE DOLLAR single line, even $5 Triple Play. But our $1 4-line MS long-term experience (over many many years) shows that the losing streaks are much longer and the long-term ride is much more roller-coaster like with steeper ups and downs.
Someone else wrote: <<Where do I get the VP scouting guide?>>
Go to my Web site below, in my signature block, where you will be directed to a site that handles orders for my products.
···
________________
Jean $�ott, Frugal Gambler
http://queenofcomps.com/
You can read my blog at
http://jscott.lvablog.com/
Jean Scott wrote:
<<In very round numbers, you'll likely find $1 4-line multistrike
play a comfortable play over the longer haul if you're presently
comfortable with play of the same game in $1 single line. (The
swings are actually more intense than $.50 single line play, but a
bit smoothing than $1)>>Hummmm.....Harry, I really respect your VP knowledge, but I would
have to disagree here. We are quite comfortable playing FIVE
DOLLAR single line, even $5 Triple Play. But our $1 4-line MS
long-term experience (over many many years) shows that the losing
streaks are much longer and the long-term ride is much more roller-
coaster like with steeper ups and downs.
Jean, I would be surprised if you're spot on. I'm a very infrequent MS player.
I've deferred to reports of some who I trust, who report variance experience that's lower than single line play at the same total wager.
However, MS variance for a game like 9/6 Jacks calculates as 21.0, suggesting something more volatile than the single line version (with 19.5 variance). When you factor in a higher ER by comparison, I'd expect a loss experience reasonably comparable.
But, of course, MS does dramatically differ from single line play in the long cycles of some of the highest jackpots (where, for example, a top line RF has a cycle > 300K hands). That certainly speaks to a greater lopsidedness in losing vs winning sessions.
Nonetheless, the variance math (which despite the seeming obscurity represents a fairly straightforward calculation of expected deviation from game ER) suggests a comparable loss experience overall.
It sounds like, by contrast, that you've seen a decent number of % loss sessions that lie distinctly to the south of your single line experience.
I wrote:
Jean, I would be surprised if you're spot on. I'm a very infrequent > MS player.
That was supposed to be, "I WOULDN'T BE ..."
Vp_wiz wrote:
However, MS variance for a game like 9/6 Jacks calculates as 21.0,
suggesting something more volatile than the single line version (with
19.5 variance). When you factor in a higher ER by comparison, I'd
expect a loss experience reasonably comparable.
Are you getting those numbers from the VPW bankroll calculator? I'm not
quite sure how to interpret them. The number on the left says "per coin" and
the one on the right says "player's revenue." But the one on the right is
equal to the one on the left times the square of the number of coins bet.
Clearly the variance cannot be different if, say, you bet 25 $1 coins versus
5 $5 coins on a single-line game. Standard deviation and variance are
defined with reference to a unit bet. So I'm not really sure what that
means, or if the bankroll calculator is correct.
In MS, the first line has a variance a little higher than regular 9/6 JB
(because of strategy changes). The other lines are exponentially higher
because in computing variance the payouts are squared but the probability is
not. I get 162 for the 8x game by brute force. This is about 8x the base
game, so it seems about right. If the lines were independent, you could add
the variances together to get approximately 15x the base game. They aren't
independent and I don't know how that affects the variance exactly but I
think it increases it by weeding out results closer to the mean.
So I believe MS has a variance at least 15x that of a single-line game. That
means quarter MS has almost four times the variance as dollar single
line...more like a $5 game.
Cogno
My MS variance calculation was arrived through a brute force calculation. It's expressed in unit bets squared, based upon the known win probabilities of payouts for each of the 4 levels, along with the known probabilities for advancement from one level to the next (via a win on the prior level or advancement due to Free Ride).
It's a Monte Carlo simulation that also calculates game ER and ties to published numbers. The variance results have been vetted by LED Gaming (and discussed previously in this forum).
Cogno Scienti wrote:
···
Vp_wiz wrote:
> However, MS variance for a game like 9/6 Jacks calculates as 21.0,
> suggesting something more volatile than the single line version
> (with 19.5 variance). When you factor in a higher ER by
> comparison, I'd expect a loss experience reasonably comparable.
Are you getting those numbers from the VPW bankroll calculator? I'm
not quite sure how to interpret them. The number on the left says
"per coin" and
the one on the right says "player's revenue." But the one on the right is
equal to the one on the left times the square of the number of coins bet.
Clearly the variance cannot be different if, say, you bet 25 $1 coins versus
5 $5 coins on a single-line game. Standard deviation and variance are
defined with reference to a unit bet. So I'm not really sure what that
means, or if the bankroll calculator is correct.In MS, the first line has a variance a little higher than regular 9/6 JB
(because of strategy changes). The other lines are exponentially higher
because in computing variance the payouts are squared but the probability is
not. I get 162 for the 8x game by brute force. This is about 8x the base
game, so it seems about right. If the lines were independent, you could add
the variances together to get approximately 15x the base game. They aren't
independent and I don't know how that affects the variance exactly but I
think it increases it by weeding out results closer to the mean.So I believe MS has a variance at least 15x that of a single-line game. That
means quarter MS has almost four times the variance as dollar single
line...more like a $5 game.Cogno
<<So I believe MS has a variance at least 15x that of a single-line game. That
means quarter MS has almost four times the variance as dollar single
line...more like a $5 game.>>
My gut agrees with this!!!!
···
________________
Jean $�ott, Frugal Gambler
http://queenofcomps.com/
You can read my blog at
http://jscott.lvablog.com/
I've sent you details on my variance calculation.
I believe what reconciles our figures is that in treating variance of each level as additive, you've neglected to factor the frequency which which each Level is played.
If I'm correct, your numbers would be correct once you divide 4th Level variance by appox. 8, 3rd by 4, 2nd by 2. That done, I suspect we're in synch.
- H.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@...> wrote:
Vp_wiz wrote:
> However, MS variance for a game like 9/6 Jacks calculates as 21.0,
> suggesting something more volatile than the single line version (with
> 19.5 variance). When you factor in a higher ER by comparison, I'd
> expect a loss experience reasonably comparable.Are you getting those numbers from the VPW bankroll calculator? I'm not
quite sure how to interpret them. The number on the left says "per coin" and
the one on the right says "player's revenue." But the one on the right is
equal to the one on the left times the square of the number of coins bet.
Clearly the variance cannot be different if, say, you bet 25 $1 coins versus
5 $5 coins on a single-line game. Standard deviation and variance are
defined with reference to a unit bet. So I'm not really sure what that
means, or if the bankroll calculator is correct.In MS, the first line has a variance a little higher than regular 9/6 JB
(because of strategy changes). The other lines are exponentially higher
because in computing variance the payouts are squared but the probability is
not. I get 162 for the 8x game by brute force. This is about 8x the base
game, so it seems about right. If the lines were independent, you could add
the variances together to get approximately 15x the base game. They aren't
independent and I don't know how that affects the variance exactly but I
think it increases it by weeding out results closer to the mean.So I believe MS has a variance at least 15x that of a single-line game. That
means quarter MS has almost four times the variance as dollar single
line...more like a $5 game.Cogno
H,
I did factor in the frequency with which each level is played. However, I
neglected to factor out the square of the 4x initial bet. So I think your
number is correct. And my conclusion is that variance is not a very useful
number for identifying the risk of this game since the distribution is so
non-normal.
One way to look at the risk is to note that 1.5% of the return depends on
wins that have frequency 1/2, 1/4, and 1/8 of the top jackpot in single
line. This is quite different from the infrequent dealt royal in other
multiline games, which contributes only 0.12% of the return.
Another way to look at it is as if you were playing four different games.
Playing quarter MS is very much like playing single-line quarters, then half
as many hands of single-line 50-cent, then 1/4 as many hands of single-line
dollars, then 1/8 as many hands as single-line $2. Intuitively (which is
always a yellow flag when dealing with probability) the volatility of the $2
will swamp the volatility of the other games.
So I'm going with a compromise working hypothesis. The reason the variance
is similar to single-line is that you're playing a game with eight times the
risk, but essentially you have to hit the button eight times to play one
hand. That means that unlike single-line video poker, where you have a 68%
chance of hitting the top jackpot in 40,000 or so hands, in MS you must play
320,000 hands before you get to a 68% chance of hitting the top jackpot
(which contributes 0.5% of the return).
Thanks for the exercise. I think the lesson is that we can't fall in love
with variance and standard deviation as they only work well for normal
distributions. In jackpot games, the cycle and contribution of the top
jackpot is very important when determining risk.
Cogno
···
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf
Of vp_wiz
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:00 AM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: where can i determine payback percentage of
multistrike games?I've sent you details on my variance calculation.
I believe what reconciles our figures is that in treating variance of
each level as additive, you've neglected to factor the frequency which
which each Level is played.If I'm correct, your numbers would be correct once you divide 4th Level
variance by appox. 8, 3rd by 4, 2nd by 2. That done, I suspect we're
in synch.- H.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@...>
wrote:
>
> Vp_wiz wrote:
>
> > However, MS variance for a game like 9/6 Jacks calculates as 21.0,
> > suggesting something more volatile than the single line version
(with
> > 19.5 variance). When you factor in a higher ER by comparison, I'd
> > expect a loss experience reasonably comparable.
>
> Are you getting those numbers from the VPW bankroll calculator? I'm
not
> quite sure how to interpret them. The number on the left says "per
coin" and
> the one on the right says "player's revenue." But the one on the
right is
> equal to the one on the left times the square of the number of coins
bet.
> Clearly the variance cannot be different if, say, you bet 25 $1 coins
versus
> 5 $5 coins on a single-line game. Standard deviation and variance are
> defined with reference to a unit bet. So I'm not really sure what
that
> means, or if the bankroll calculator is correct.
>
> In MS, the first line has a variance a little higher than regular 9/6
JB
> (because of strategy changes). The other lines are exponentially
higher
> because in computing variance the payouts are squared but the
probability is
> not. I get 162 for the 8x game by brute force. This is about 8x the
base
> game, so it seems about right. If the lines were independent, you
could add
> the variances together to get approximately 15x the base game. They
aren't
> independent and I don't know how that affects the variance exactly
but I
> think it increases it by weeding out results closer to the mean.
>
> So I believe MS has a variance at least 15x that of a single-line
game. That
> means quarter MS has almost four times the variance as dollar single
> line...more like a $5 game.
>
> Cogno
>------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
Cogno Scienti wrote:
So I'm going with a compromise working hypothesis. The reason the
variance is similar to single-line is that you're playing a game
with eight times the risk, but essentially you have to hit the
button eight times to play one hand. That means that unlike
single-line video poker, where you have a 68% chance of hitting the
top jackpot in 40,000 or so hands, in MS you must play 320,000
hands before you get to a 68% chance of hitting the top jackpot
(which contributes 0.5% of the return).Thanks for the exercise. I think the lesson is that we can't fall
in love with variance and standard deviation as they only work well
for normal distributions. In jackpot games, the cycle and
contribution of the top jackpot is very important when determining
risk.
Glad you enjoyed. Digging into the underlying mechanics of MS is a bit of a satisfying intellectual exercise, and one that I think pays of in a practical sense in better appreciating what's at work with video poker risk in general.
In my mind I've constructed a similar analogy to single line play that better highlights the variance dimension. I'll come back to this in just a second.
···
------
I'll first sidestep that by noting that I wouldn't argue your concluding statement re variance and sd, except to note that once you consider a length of play where you expect to encounter the most infrequent hands at least 20x, then variance/sd concepts begin to play a reliable role. For something short of that, then those infrequent hands take on a more "wild card" nature.
For multistrike, and the 300K top hand cycle, certainly the top line jackpot is very much of a wild card. But with generally fairly strong hit frequencies on wins outside of the 4th Level RF hit, it means that if you consider play mechanics for everything but that appeox 0.25% top line hit, you stand a good chance at quantifying play expectations within reasonably narrow tolerances (relative to other vp games).
So, what I'm suggesting is that for a low variance game just as Jacks or Better, I can see where you might be looking at nailing the roughly 99.48% ER (x. top line RF) with a stronger reliability than when playing single line JB with a full 99.54% ER.
In fact, I've previously written here that the variance of 3 or 2 line play has lower total variance (unit bets squared) than single line play, and because of a still strong ER, can be attractive on that count in particular.
------
So, stepping back to the analogy I've mentioned that for me goes a fair way to "rationalizing" the relative variance of MS vs it's single line counterpart ...
One could think about respective play volatility, for a given amount of actual play, in terms of actual return from a given hand type (e.g. 3K or F) vs expected.
I suggest we think of MS return by aggregating the pays for each hand type from all levels. (Obviously, a source of variance in this number will be how actual hands hit are distributed amongst the 4 levels vs. expectation).
Now, let's consider a play length of 1+ million hands in either the single play or MS case. The exercise works reasonably well for shorter play, but I suggest this amount because I find it reasonable to assume that the bulk of results outside of the RF will fall within a modest band of variance that, relative to the large variance expected from RF payouts, can be ignored.
In other words, I very much find that the lion's share of my single line Jacks play variance over such a length of time is purely related to RF incidence alone ... there's good reason given the hand frequencies involved with MS to assert this is similarly true for MS royals (in aggregate, at and level, although Level 3/4 RF's are clearly a top variance contributor alone).
Having outlined the exercise in this manner, play variance for single line is reduced to the total actual RF payout vs expectation. In considering $1 single line vs $.25 MS play, for 1 million hands you're looking at roughly 25 single line royals expected, or $100,000 (with, if I recall correctly, 2/3 of actual results falling something like +/- 8 of that number.)
For MS, over the course of 1 million plays the expectation is for roughly 50 royals in total, with about 1/2 on Level 1, 1/4 on Level 2, 1/8 on Level 3, 1/16 on Level 4.
What manifests for me out of this, is that with around 47 royals expected between Level 1/2/3, you're looking at a higher hit RF frequency and lower dependence of payout on each (on average) vs. single line play. That should definitely translate into a significantly reduced variance.
While the Level 4 is going to be a big variance booster, it's again notable that the .25% return from that hit is roughly equal to the overall game ER boost of MS vs play of the single line counterpart.
The bottom line from this for me is that when looking at a low variance game such as Jacks (and I can see where Deuces might be expected to pan out reasonably similar), one wouldn't look to much appreciably stronger loss risk over the medium to longer term when playing MS vs. play of a single line counterpart at the same total wager.
Vp_wiz wrote:
For multistrike, and the 300K top hand cycle, certainly the top line
jackpot is very much of a wild card. But with generally fairly strong
hit frequencies on wins outside of the 4th Level RF hit, it means that
if you consider play mechanics for everything but that appeox 0.25% top
line hit, you stand a good chance at quantifying play expectations
within reasonably narrow tolerances (relative to other vp games).
I hesitate to disagree with your math again, but I come up with 0.5% for the
top (and other) line royals.
Line 1: 4000 / 40000 /20 = 0.005
Line 2: 8000 / 80000 / 20 = 0.005
Line 3: 16000 / 160000 / 20 = 0.005
Line 4: 32000 / 320000 / 20 = 0.005
Nu?
Cogno
Cogno Scienti wrote:
I hesitate to disagree with your math again, but I come up with 0.5%
for the top (and other) line royals.
Absolutely. 2% overall RF return, evenly divided over each Level. Call it a fat finger/fat brain slip in a post that was entered in near "stream of consciousness" mode.
<Now, I have to ask: Is that slip the only post content meriting reply? Frankly, it was little more significant than noting a dropped semi-colon.>
Notwithstanding the slip. the key points of the post stand: The top line RF accounts for the lion share of game variance, but the is significantly offset (obviously not entirely) by the ER improvement of MS vs single line play. Other MS factors ... higher hit frequency, lower average payout per hit ... clearly serve to lessen variance.
As an aside, I'm not discounting Jean Scott's reported adverse MS experience whatsoever. But do attribute it to the sour play experience that can be encountered in any moderate variance game as the exception, rather than suggestive of a harsher expectation overall.
H,
I wanted to wait until we agreed on the 0.5%, since your thesis was that the
0.25% additional ER made up for the top jackpot. I guess it only makes up
for half of it.
We agreed that "variance" isn't sufficient to identify risk until many
cycles of the top jackpot. With 1.5% of the return having a cycle 2x, 4x,
and 8x single line, the additional ER is not sufficient to compensate an
unlucky run even in a million hands.
In the medium term, it's not only the top jackpot. Quads on the top three
lines count for almost 4.5% of the return and dry spells will last 2x, 4x,
and 8x longer.
So what are we trying to establish? I think people are interested in three
things: the ER, which we all agree on; the short-term bankroll requirements
(how much do I need to bring to the casino to play n hands); and the
long-term risk (how likely is it I'll go broke or die before hitting my ER).
For short-term bankroll requirements it would probably be easiest to run
simulations. The added length of each cycle is ameliorated somewhat by the
regression to the mean in the shorter cycles that occur simultaneously. I'm
guessing it's about the same as a single-line game of the same total wager,
which I think was your point in the first place.
For long-term risk, the longest cycle is 8x the single-line game, so I'm
asserting that by some measure the game is 8x worse than single line in that
respect. The added ER does make up for part of it, so maybe it's only 4x
worse than single line. But denomination is irrelevant to this calculation,
so at least with respect to long-term risk MS is significantly riskier than
a single-line game of the same total wager.
Cogno
···
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf
Of vp_wiz
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2010 12:45 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: where can i determine payback percentage of
multistrike games?Cogno Scienti wrote:
> I hesitate to disagree with your math again, but I come up with 0.5%
> for the top (and other) line royals.Absolutely. 2% overall RF return, evenly divided over each Level.
Call it a fat finger/fat brain slip in a post that was entered in near
"stream of consciousness" mode.<Now, I have to ask: Is that slip the only post content meriting
reply? Frankly, it was little more significant than noting a dropped
semi-colon.>Notwithstanding the slip. the key points of the post stand: The top
line RF accounts for the lion share of game variance, but the is
significantly offset (obviously not entirely) by the ER improvement of
MS vs single line play. Other MS factors ... higher hit frequency,
lower average payout per hit ... clearly serve to lessen variance.As an aside, I'm not discounting Jean Scott's reported adverse MS
experience whatsoever. But do attribute it to the sour play experience
that can be encountered in any moderate variance game as the exception,
rather than suggestive of a harsher expectation overall.------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links