Video Poker Forum

The best quarter deuces wild game at the Tampa Hard Rock is 100/60/50/20/20/15/10/5, a 97.579% game at max coins.  The best 50 cent game is 125/75/45/20/20/15/10/5 a 98.913% game at max coins.  At single coin 50 cents, this game is 97.686%.   Both are seriously negative.   Isn't the single coin 50 cent game better than the max coin quarter game?  I'm not trying to prove anything.  Just asking?

Type those into your copy of VPW software to customize a paytable if the are not already preprogrammed. Then select 1 credit to play and look at the strategy table which shows the expected return percentage for 1 credit.

I did that.  That's where I got the percentages. I just want to make sure I am not missing something.  I am aware the single coin strategy is different.   Since both are negative games, wouldn't you save money by playing single coin 50 cents instead of max coin quarters?

Then yes, single coin 50 cents has a better return only if you follow the strategy exactly for single coin which is different than max coin strategy.

Assuming you play 500 hands an hour of max coin quarter deuces wild in Tampa, your hourly coin through will be $625.00.  The house edge cost playing max coin quarters is 2.42% or $15.13 per hour. If you play 500 hands an hour of single coin 50 cent deuces wild in Tampa, your hourly coin through will be $250.00.  The house edge cost playing max coin quarters is 2.31% or $5.76 per hour.  This looks like it costs nearly three times as much per hour to play max coin quarter deuces wild in Tampa vs. single coin 50 cents.  Is this right?

Your goal as a recreational player is to play longer and lose less. In this case, although the return is lower, the single coin option accomplishes this.

Here's my take on this.  If you are going to play seriously negative (see below) video poker games, why do you want to pay more to lose more?  Playing max coin quarter deuces wild at this casino costs three times more per hour than playing single coin 50 cents.  This means you are paying three times as much per hour to experience a max coin quarter royal flush.  Players who play these games are paying to see a royal flush.  If they played smaller the game would cost them less, but the thrill of a max coin royal would be gone.  It shouldn't matter how anyone else plays VP.  What's important is they know the true cost of what they are doing. Note: The reason I used the words "seriously negative" is that comps and incentives can turn a negative game positive.  It would take a serious comp to push a 97% quarter game over 100%.   I have personally never seem a comp like that.

I think we've been over this before.

Yes, we have.   The biggest problem Recreational Players have is they ignore the math.  I have been accused of this numerous times.  Here is math showing that I have been right all along.   Playing single coin is smart in many cases as is playing slower.   Tampa is not unique.  This same scenario exists all over the country.  Thank you.

Phil is correct for his goals as a recreational player. His goal is to reduce actual losses per hour. A slightly lower EV combined with a significantly lower coin in accomplishes this.He also touched on playing slower which also helps with this goal. He could get the same loss per hour rate with the better return on the full coin option, but he would have to play 3 times slower. It might be worth considering. He would regain the thrill of the higher-paying jackpot. It's a question of whether that would be too tedious for him.