I certainly hope that everyone realizes (and if I'm wrong, I'm amazed) that the suggestion to reduce one's efforts to get royal flushes is tongue-in-cheek / sarcasm / some form of humor! If not taken as a joke, it is certainly the worst advice ever given on this list, assuming that winning (or at least losing the minimum) is more important than just being allowed to keep playing, at any cost.
Reducing risk by avoiding hands that lead to royals is only done at the cost of reduced return -- and since the royal is approximately 2% of one's return, if you aren't going to try to get royals where strategy dictates you should do so, you are reducing the return on most games to 98% or less -- and you might as well play blackjack (without counting cards) or shoot craps if that's all the return you're looking for - the "table games" actually will be better played with the simplest of basic strategies (roulette would be a poorer choice). Or stop playing video poker at all (which some casinos will arrange for you if you actually decide to play correctly and are too successful -- not all, but some).
Which leads back to the on-topic post I made that lead to the question (who bars video poker players?) that was asked. My point was that successful players against the "poker bot" machine MAY find themselves barred from playing. If it's like blackjack, they will have a supervisor tap them on the shoulder and tell them "I'm sorry, but we can't let you play this poker machine anymore at our casino. You are welcome to play any of our other games." -- and then, depending on the casino, "we'll be happy to still honor the comp'ed room we gave you" OR "we also are withdrawing the comp'ed room we gave you for the rest of your stay, you can pay for the room or check out". When playing blackjack, I got each of these responses (at different places, of course)!
3d. Re: Fascinating new poker machine
Really?
Stop hitting Royals?
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:35 AM, <
nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I may have the facts wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, if so I
> apologize in advance, but if you want another example of someone who's been
> barred from playing video poker, my understanding is that Bob Dancer has
> been permanently barred from all MGM properties for life and into the
> afterlife because his ex-wife had the audacity to hit one royal on a $100
> machine. Even though Bob is now legally divorced, his record is still
> tainted by the actions of his former wife, in the eyes of the all powerful
> MGM. There is a lesson here, don't be so aggressive trying to hit royal
> flushes in video poker, casinos don't like to see royal flushes and many
> will take negative action against those who hit that particular hand, as
> well as relatives, family members, perceived team members, etc. If you
> gamble in NJ, you're luckier, in that state casinos are not allowed to bar
> law abiding citizens and so far it is still not a crime to hit a royal
> flush, however NJ casinos can still take action against royal flush
> hitters, such as reducing promotions, exclusion from promotions, and so on,
> and trust me, take action they will.
>
>
>
