Bullseye.
On the main game, I'd agree, but on the final gamble, much lower for me - about 60% on the ItBox and 40% on Paragon/GamesNet perhaps? Whether that's because it's quicker, or because I'm a nervy bottler, I'll leave it for others to decide.dmac wrote:Presumably most of us can hit the bullseye 90%+ of the time? It always seems to play fairly to me - on the Itboxes at least.grecian wrote:A spell of bad beats on the Bullseye gamble round has meant I've tightened my belt on it.
-
Istenem
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5918
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:42 pm
- Location: the nation's capital
- Contact:
must be a lack of confidence or your hair was in your eyes before 
.
unless i'm sozzled or hungover i can hit the bull 95% of the time. the exception is the cheeky lagging on ind:e and the occasional wire shot on paragon (but T17 seems to be quite fair with the third dart).
. unless i'm sozzled or hungover i can hit the bull 95% of the time. the exception is the cheeky lagging on ind:e and the occasional wire shot on paragon (but T17 seems to be quite fair with the third dart).
nobody ever wins on those things.
For once I'm not guilty, guv. On the contrary, I have always been an advocate of the large oval Gamesnets as easily the best cabinets technically (at least once they had sorted out that bug that caused a crash when you tried to collect more than £2 at a time :x ).dmac wrote:I rarely bother trying on the Paragons/Gamesnets. As (I think) Nil Satis pointed out, the screen's a lot more jerky on the Gamesnet. On the Paragon it always seems to stop a split second after you press it - usually enough to take you off the Bull
More embarrassing, I suppose, is that I have a complete blind spot when it comes to Bullseye. I have just never seen it as lucrative enough to play it regularly, which I realise is probably a vicious circle - if I played it more, I'd get better and win more - but I have always found other things that are more promising for me to play throughout the 'Bullseye Years'. Am I in a minority of one on this?
Until the launch of £1 play Bullseye, I'd have joined you. I occasionally played the earlier versions but never thought they were worth really focusing on. That's had a number of knock-on implications: (a) I was much slower realising there was profit in £1 play Bullseye than some users of this forum, and didn't, for example, realise about the "double-double" feature/bug myself; (b) my question knowledge probably lags behind that of some users (although the Bullseye questions are pretty easy, generally speaking); and (c) I'm not as reliable with my aiming as players of longer standing. All that said, it is now one of the games I would play on ItBox, GamesNet and Paragon alike. Probably not the one I'd play *first* on any of those cabinets though.Nil Satis wrote: More embarrassing, I suppose, is that I have a complete blind spot when it comes to Bullseye. I have just never seen it as lucrative enough to play it regularly, which I realise is probably a vicious circle - if I played it more, I'd get better and win more - but I have always found other things that are more promising for me to play throughout the 'Bullseye Years'. Am I in a minority of one on this?
-
QuizMaster
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1254
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:40 pm
QM - surely, though, games which offer a £5 maximum prize (as Bullseye did until recently), are not worth spending serious amounts of time learning? I totally agree now though that Bullseye is a very serious proposition.
DMAC - I don't think I have seen the football version, but if it's as hard as the pop music version I doubt it'll be worth it. I pride myself on my music knowledge but some of the stuff pop music Bullseye throws up is brutal. Reckon I'm better at football though so maybe, maybe. (That said, my record on FFQ is lamentable, so maybe I know nothing about football.)
DMAC - I don't think I have seen the football version, but if it's as hard as the pop music version I doubt it'll be worth it. I pride myself on my music knowledge but some of the stuff pop music Bullseye throws up is brutal. Reckon I'm better at football though so maybe, maybe. (That said, my record on FFQ is lamentable, so maybe I know nothing about football.)
One factor in its longevity must be that it clearly appeals to punters in great numbers, as well as offering decent returns to good players. It shares this with Deal or No Deal and, before that, the original Millionaire. Other good payers are of little or no interest to punters - I don't think I can ever recall seeing any playing The Big Match for example - whereas there are sadly lots of games that punters love that offer no serious rewards and serve only to clog up the machines when we want to play - step forward Hex Appeal, Spot the Difference (as it is now anyway), Monopoly Hot Property, Monster Cash, ... - I'm sure you all have your own suggestions for that list!QuizMaster wrote:I'd say Bullseye forms that staple diet of most hardcore players. Other things have come and gone which have been far more lucrative, but Bullseye always remains in lean times.
I suppose my blind spot for Bullseye stemmed from frustration with the pseudo-skill element of the original end game - the way that the £1 prizes were achievable but not the higher prizes. Maybe I should give it another go, if I can drag myself away from endless Jiggy Banking...
