patricia wrote: > ...If I am going to a new casino I like VPFree to list whatever the
> best game there is.... even if it is "bad" Most often if you are
> going to a casino you don't know, it is because you are traveling or
> meeting someone else there. "Nothing good" is no help at all and a
> waste of time IMHO as then I will wander around looking for something
> to play. If a 96% game is listed as their best game at least I know
> where to set my expectations! I know many won't play at this
> level...but I'm with five300 if I'm there for a few hours I'm
> probably going to play something......
I understand your point of view. A lot of us would like certain
types of information provided for free --- and somebody else's
determination of what should or should not be listed on vpfree2 might
not satisfy our needs.
It is, however, costly to provide this
information. If I were a casino monitor, I couldn't rank the various under 98%
Deuces Wild pay schedules as to which one is best without doing some
homework. (Can you?) I know the ones that are good, but the others I just haven't
studied. To me the difference between a 96.8% game and a 97.3% game is irrelevant. I do not see one as half a percent better than the other. To me they are both equally unplayable.
To identify ALL pay schedules, instead of just the
"good" ones greatly amplifies the work required and the knowledge
required to collect and process that information.
One thing
about a free site. People always want more information--- and they
insist on the additional information being free as well.
The
managers of vpfree2 have to make practical decisions about what
information would be useful to the most number of people --- and how
much it costs to collect and distribute that information. It's very
possible they think people who would actually play a 96% game wouldn't
have enough savvy to check vpfree2 anyway. They might believe that these players actually hurt the cause of good video poker because the only way to get better pay schedules is to have players refuse to play the bad ones.
All in all, I think the site provides a valuable service to players.
Perhaps they should have a policy that if you have a special request, you should first agree to monitor three casinos near where you live for at least six months. It strikes me as fair that the ones who contribute to providing information to others should have the best chance of getting their wishes granted. The people who only use the information, complain about it, and do not contribute should have a lesser chance of getting their wishes granted. But that's just my opinion.
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (34) |
