VPK 105: Video Poker Paytables

The game name on a video poker cabinet is not enough to identify the game. Two machines can both say Jacks or Better while paying different amounts for a full house, flush, straight, or royal. Those small-looking differences can move long-run return by several percentage points.

A paytable is therefore more than a prize list. It defines the reward side of every hold-or-discard decision. Change the paytable and the best strategy can change with it.

Read the entire schedule before inserting money

A typical paytable lists final hands down the left and credits wagered across the top. A standard five-credit Jacks or Better schedule may look like this:

The schedule above is called 9/6 Jacks or Better because a one-coin full house pays 9 credits and a one-coin flush pays 6. The shorthand does not describe the whole table; it identifies two rows that are especially useful for distinguishing versions.

A correct comparison checks:

• full house and flush;
• straight and three-of-a-kind awards;
• four-of-a-kind categories;
• royal-flush treatment at each coin level;
• any bonus hands or kickers;
• the denomination and total stake required;
• whether a progressive jackpot has replaced a fixed royal award.

9/6 versus 8/5 Jacks or Better

The most familiar comparison changes only two common rows:

Everything else can appear identical. With an appropriate strategy and the conventional 4,000-credit five-coin royal, the approximate theoretical returns are:

• 9/6 Jacks or Better: 99.5439%;
• 8/5 Jacks or Better: 97.2984%.

The corresponding house edges are:

[ HE=1-RTP ]

For 9/6:

[ HE=1-0.995439=0.004561=0.4561% ]

For 8/5:

[ HE=1-0.972984=0.027016=2.7016% ]

A one-credit reduction in two rows increases the theoretical price by about 2.2455 percentage points. The change is large because full houses and flushes occur far more often than royal flushes.

The dedicated 9/6 Jacks or Better guide and 8/5 Jacks or Better guide explain their separate strategies and return profiles.

How a paytable becomes RTP

Return to player is the probability-weighted value of all final hands under a specified strategy.

Let:

• (P_i) = probability of final hand category (i) under the strategy used;
• (F_i) = payout per unit for category (i).

Then:

[ RTP=\sum_i P_iF_i ]

This formula explains why no single row determines the game. A spectacular award contributes little if it is extremely rare. A one-credit cut to a common category can remove more return than a large increase to a rare hand adds.

It also explains why strategy and paytable cannot be separated. Holding four cards to a flush, keeping a low pair, or breaking a made hand depends on the values assigned to the possible final outcomes. The video poker analyzer guide shows how to evaluate a specific hand against a specific schedule.

Why the full-house and flush cuts matter so much

A paytable’s return contribution can be understood without memorizing the complete final-hand distribution. Suppose a strategy produces full houses with probability (P_{FH}) and flushes with probability (P_F). Reducing each award by one unit removes:

[ \Delta RTP=P_{FH}+P_F ]

from return, before accounting for any strategy changes caused by the lower values. The loss occurs every time either category is completed, not only on a rare jackpot event.

Using approximate optimal-play frequencies for illustration, if full houses account for about 1.15% of final hands and flushes about 1.10%, a one-unit reduction to each removes roughly 2.25 percentage points of return:

[ 0.0115+0.0110\approx0.0225=2.25% ]

That is close to the observed gap between the common 9/6 and 8/5 versions. Exact figures require a full hand enumeration because the changed values can also alter a small number of hold decisions, but the contribution calculation shows why two apparently minor rows dominate the difference.

The same method applies to bonus games. A 400-credit increase to a rare four-aces-with-kicker result may add less total return than a one-credit reduction to two pair removes. The size of the printed award must always be multiplied by how often the strategy produces it.

The royal-flush column can break linear pricing

Many machines scale ordinary awards proportionally from one through five coins but give a disproportionate bonus for a five-coin royal.

In the sample table:

• one coin pays 250 for a royal;
• four coins pay 1,000, still 250 per coin;
• five coins pay 4,000, equal to 800 per coin.

A player wagering fewer than five coins is not merely playing a smaller version of the same return. The royal contribution is reduced. This is why advice to “play max coins” exists, but the correct conclusion is more precise: play the stake level that activates the best schedule only if the resulting total wager fits the budget.

On some modern games, the royal schedule is already proportional or the bonus activates at a different stake. The max-coins guide explains how to check the actual column rather than follow a slogan.

Denomination can change the paytable

A multi-denomination machine may offer 9/6 at dollars, 8/5 at quarters, and another schedule at nickels. Changing denomination can therefore change both the amount per credit and the mathematical return.

The total stake is:

[ \text{stake per hand}=\text{coin value}\times\text{coins played} ]

Five quarters cost $1.25 per hand. Five $1 credits cost $5. A higher-return dollar schedule may still create greater expected dollar loss if the stake increase is large.

Suppose the quarter game is 8/5 at $1.25 per hand and the dollar game is 9/6 at $5 per hand. At 600 hands:

[ \text{8/5 coin-in}=600\times1.25=$750 ]

[ E(L)=750\times0.027016\approx$20.26 ]

For the $5 9/6 game:

[ \text{9/6 coin-in}=600\times5=$3,000 ]

[ E(L)=3000\times0.004561\approx$13.68 ]

The better schedule has lower theoretical dollar loss in this example despite four times the stake, but it also produces much larger short-term swings. A player must compare both percentage price and bankroll exposure.

Why strategy labels must match the schedule

A strategy card labeled “Jacks or Better” may be wrong for the machine in front of you. Changes to full house, flush, straight, or four-of-a-kind awards can reverse close decisions.

Examples of schedule-sensitive conflicts include:

• four-card flush versus a low pair;
• four-card straight versus high cards;
• two pair versus a kicker opportunity in bonus variants;
• made flush versus a four-card straight flush draw;
• high pair versus three-card royal combinations.

The differences may be uncommon, but repeated small errors reduce the achieved return below the published optimum. The video poker RTP guide distinguishes the machine’s theoretical maximum from the return produced by actual decisions.

Bonus names can hide different tradeoffs

Bonus Poker, Double Bonus, Double Double Bonus, Deuces Wild, and Joker games should not be compared by the 9/6 shorthand alone. Their hand rankings, four-of-a-kind groups, wild-card rules, and strategy priorities differ.

A bonus table may raise aces or kicker awards while cutting two pair, full house, or flush. The high quad prize is visually prominent, but the lost return can be spread across common hands. Compare every changed row and use the correct strategy model.

Progressive games add another variable. A growing royal jackpot increases the royal contribution to RTP and can eventually alter strategy. The displayed jackpot must be matched to the denomination, required coin level, and actual paytable; a progressive sign elsewhere on the bank may not apply to every game selection.

What regulated display standards protect

Gaming-device standards generally require the machine to show its award schedule accurately. Nevada’s technical standards, for example, require award cards to reflect award values and identify whether awards are shown in denomination units, dollars, or another unit. See the Nevada gaming-device award-display standard.

That requirement helps the player verify what the machine promises. It does not mean all paytables have the same return or that the cabinet’s marketing name identifies the best version.

Published RTP versus achieved RTP

A paytable’s quoted return normally assumes a defined strategy, often optimal play, and a long sequence of independent hands. It is not the return every player automatically receives.

Let (R^*) be the optimal return for the schedule and (C) the average cost of strategy errors per unit wagered. Achieved return can be represented as:

[ R_{achieved}=R^*-C ]

If a 99.5439% game is played with errors costing 0.8 percentage points, achieved return is approximately 98.7439%. The machine has not changed; the hold decisions have changed the distribution of final hands.

Short sessions can depart dramatically from both figures. A royal flush can make actual return enormous over a few hundred hands, while a long royal drought can make a strong game look poor. Actual result is not a reliable estimator of the paytable’s mathematical return until a very large number of hands has been played, and even then variance remains visible.

This distinction prevents two common mistakes: declaring a short-pay game good because it produced a jackpot, and declaring a full-pay game defective because a session lost. Paytable quality, decision quality, and short-term outcome are three separate measurements.

A five-step machine comparison

Before playing:

1. Open the exact game and denomination.
2. Record the full five-coin column, not only the full-house and flush rows.
3. Confirm the royal award and the stake required to receive it.
4. Match the table to a reliable strategy or analyzer.
5. Compare expected dollar loss at the intended hands per hour and stake.

The video poker house-edge guide can translate RTP into price. The RTP comparison tool is useful when two schedules and stake levels compete.

A paytable cannot predict the next deal. It tells you what each possible final hand is worth and, with correct strategy, what the game costs over repeated play. That is enough to make it the first screen to inspect and the last detail to assume.