Trend is not destiny! Are you you get flagged using FP on a decent vp? When possible I use it on 9/6 jacks and I have not noticed a problem.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
"bobbartop@yahoo.com [vpFREE]" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Bravo, this is the best post in the whole thread. Running freeplay through a poor paytable only costs peanuts. In the long run it will only improve your image. A sharp player should already know that. And that's if you have to play the freeplay separately from regular play. It's better if you can just play it off on a play. And frankly, the way things are nowadays, if I were to play FPDW, I'd play without a card. It's not the 90s now, that era is gone. There's nothing wrong with playing FPDW, but do it anonymously. The benefits are practically zip, and you risk flagging yourself.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <emeraldcitybj@...> wrote :
For me, there two takeaways from this thread.
First, the vast majority of casinos are poorly run. I personally like it this way. While the fact that most casinos are run by incompetent fools can be frustrating at times, I'll gladly accept some level of aggravation over an intelligent operation which presents us with little to no opportunity for making money.
Second, many otherwise intelligent players are making foolish decisions. Running off free play on the best game in the casino is one such example. The bean counters who are cutting staff to save costs are possibly the same people who will yank machines which are underperforming. Obviously, running off free play is going to hurt the holds of any machine, and if we use the best games in the casino for our free play, it will only accelerate their demise. Collectively, we would be better off if we targeted machines with less than ideal pay schedules for our free play redemptions. We might be giving up a couple bucks for every $100 of free play rewarded, but that's a small price to pay compared to the increased risk of losing the game used to generate the free play offers in the first place.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: ken orgera <keno60@hotmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (31) |
