Flash, permit me to respond and say that without the Royal Flush, your odds are better than 95% in fp 9/6 J o B vp. According to the Wizard of Odds http://wizardofodds.com/jacksorbetter/simple.html you only sacrifice roughly 2% of your edge by not being able to get a Royal Flush. In addition there is a fallacy with your argument. You neglect to mention that the 95% figure you get with slots, is also based on hitting the jackpot or best paying line. Without that, your odds drop quite a bit too. Anyway you slice it or dice it, VP is better.FLASH1296 said:Permit me to point out something to you, as you hasten to criticize me.
If you play a full-pay 9/6 JOB V.P. machine what is your expected return?
If you say anything remotely near 99.5% you are referring to the long-range expectation only ?
That high figure is heavily keyed to hitting a Royal Flush.
Obviously, if you play VP for a few minutes (or hours) you are very unlikely to hit one.
Similar to a Slots Jackpot, eh ?
So ... you ignore the Royal Flush.
Now your return is perhaps, at most, 95%
Similar to the slots, eh ?
The difference is that the higher the stakes are at slots the lower the House Advantage is.
That does not hold for V.P. that is already at Full-Pay.
Last edited: