Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Littlefield Corporation (LTFD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jimmy who wrote (5516)	12/13/1997 9:07:00 PM
From: T.K. Allen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10368

Jimmy - I have played some video poker, although it has been a few years since my last game. I think VP differs from the kind of game you and I might play some Saturday night over a few beers in the following ways: 1. The psychological element is totally gone in VP. Its pretty tough to bluff a computer!<g> 2. The VP games I played did not provide much flexibility in betting. They were pretty much just make-one-bet-and-try-for-the-best-hand sort of thing. 3. There was very little variation in the type of poker game you could play. In fact, the only variety I remember was 5 Card Draw. No such thing as 7 Card Stud, No Peek, Hi-Low, or any of the zillion other variations. About the only skill involved was having to make a judgement as to which cards to keep to give yourself the best possible odds of achieving a winning hand. Like I said, I haven't seen the machines being used in SC but I suspect they are much more advanced than what I played in Vegas a few years back. This may be why the are so popular. I keep trying to schedule a trip to SC to visit some BNGO shops but I haven't been able to pull it off yet. TKA

To: jimmy who wrote (5516)	12/13/1997 10:57:00 PM
From: Ed Pettee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10368

Jimmy-Yes there is some slight skill involved in Video Poker, it really is based on how many cards to draws. However the better players only extend the time it takes to lose but this is do to their skill over another player. I have two good friends in Mrytle Beach that play Video Poker quite often and they claim they do better than most people because of their skill. But they admit that over a long period they are losers. TK Allens description of video poker is also right on. The best example I have is my son who is an "expert card counter" at Blackjack, and can win more often than he loses against 2-deck or single deck Blackjack in Casinos. He has been barred from three casinos in Biloxi Miss. and two in Las Vegas. When he plays Blackjack on the video blackjack machines in S.C. he does better than the average player because of his knowledge of the basic stratergy. However he admits that because of the way the shuffle is set up in the machines, that it takes away the end game stratergy that a counter depends on as he nears the end of the deck. Therefore he can't claim that his skill will be sufficient to be a winner more often than a loser. What I am saying is that unlike a pure lottery where no skill is involved, these games do allow you to demonstate your skills and those who know how to play poker and Blackjack using those skills will fare better than those who just push any old button. This does not mean that those with those skills can expect to be constant winners. Remember, that these machines are set to pay back to the customer only 67-72 %. The state is changing that to 80% next year. I believe what these attorneys are trying to argue is that since computer chips are involved in the machines and the payouts are regulated that no amount of skill is going to bring you out a winner, therefore it is like a lottery. I don't believe this is so. Those with skills will do better more often than those without skills, which supports the Courts earlier decision that "some" skill is involved. Sorry for the longwinded epistle. By the way I now live in Florida and lived in S.C. in 1994-95.