Last updated: 12 May 2026
VideoPokerEdge publishes math-first reference content about video poker paytables, return-to-player (RTP), optimal strategy, variance, and related topics. This page explains how we source, verify, present, and correct information.
Mission
VideoPokerEdge exists to provide clear, source-cited video poker reference material without unsupported claims, prediction systems, or marketing-driven conclusions.
Every quantitative claim should be traceable to a stated source. Every RTP figure should include the paytable and strategy assumptions behind it. Every strategy explanation should distinguish between full optimal play, simplified learning frameworks, and variant-specific exceptions.
If a number cannot be sourced or explained, it does not belong on the Site.
Primary source policy
We rely on a limited set of high-credibility sources for video poker mathematics and strategy. The exact source mix depends on the page topic and the availability of reliable references.
Primary mathematical references
- Wizard of Odds — used as the primary reference for video poker RTP tables, optimal strategy charts, variance figures, probability values, and paytable analysis where available.
- Published gambling mathematics literature — books and long-form references by established video poker and gambling mathematics authors may be used where directly relevant.
- Official paytable or game-rule documentation — used when analysing a specific game version, software provider, or operator-disclosed rules.
Secondary and contextual sources
- Paytable catalogues and archives
- Historical availability references
- Operator rule pages
- Specialist gambling mathematics discussions where the underlying calculation can be checked
Secondary sources may help confirm context, naming conventions, availability, or historical usage. They are not used as a substitute for mathematical verification when a primary mathematical source is available.
Sources we do not use as mathematical authority
- Affiliate-driven pages that list RTP without paytable and strategy assumptions
- Social media posts, casual forum comments, or Reddit threads as primary proof for RTP or strategy
- AI-generated content that has not been independently checked
- Casino marketing copy as the sole authority for a mathematical claim
- Unsourced “best game” or “highest RTP” lists
RTP verification workflow
RTP claims are reviewed before publication. The level of verification depends on the importance of the claim, the availability of sources, and whether the figure appears in a headline, table, body paragraph, or methodology note.
For important RTP figures, the workflow is:
- Identify the exact paytable or schedule being discussed
- Identify the strategy assumption, such as optimal, simple, intermediate, or variant-specific strategy
- Identify the credit-count assumption, especially where a royal flush bonus changes at 5-credit play
- Check the figure against a primary mathematical source where available
- Cross-check against secondary sources where reliable secondary sources exist
- Record the last verification date on pages where the figure is central to the content
- State uncertainty clearly when sources disagree or when only limited source coverage is available
Confidence levels
- High confidence: a primary mathematical source supports the figure, and no reliable contradictory source has been identified.
- Medium confidence: the figure is supported by a credible source, but secondary confirmation is limited or naming conventions vary.
- Lower confidence: sources disagree, the figure is from secondary references only, or the paytable naming is inconsistent. Lower-confidence figures should be labelled or avoided where possible.
When a figure is uncertain, we prefer to explain the uncertainty rather than present a false level of precision.
Mandatory conditions for RTP claims
An RTP value is only meaningful when its assumptions are clear. VideoPokerEdge pages should state these conditions either inline, in a table caption, or in a nearby methodology note:
- Paytable specification: for example, “9/6 Jacks or Better” or “Full Pay Deuces Wild 25-15-9-5-3-2”.
- Strategy assumption: for example, optimal strategy, simple strategy, intermediate strategy, or variant-specific strategy.
- Credit-count assumption: especially where 5-credit play is required to preserve the full royal flush payout.
- Source and verification date: where the figure is central to the page.
Headlines and meta descriptions may use compact forms such as “99.54% RTP” or “100.76% RTP”, but the body of the page must explain the assumptions behind the figure.
Strategy chart standards
Strategy pages must distinguish between full optimal charts and simplified frameworks.
- Full optimal chart: a chart that aims to reproduce all relevant priority decisions and exceptions from the underlying source.
- Condensed chart: a practical chart that groups some rare edge cases for readability.
- Learning framework: an explanatory structure intended to help readers understand the logic, not a replacement for full optimal strategy.
If a page presents a condensed chart or learning framework, it must not imply that the chart covers every rare penalty-card or edge-case situation. Where appropriate, the page should link to the primary full optimal source.
Paytable standards
Paytable pages should show the actual payout rows that determine RTP. A game name alone is not enough. For example, “Jacks or Better” can refer to 9/6, 8/5, 7/5, 6/5, or other schedules, each with different return.
Paytable pages should identify:
- The full payout schedule or the variable rows that define the variant
- The resulting RTP under stated strategy assumptions
- The key identification markers for the paytable
- Whether the schedule is full pay, short pay, or a named variant
- Any uncertainty around naming conventions or market usage
International and jurisdiction-neutral wording
VideoPokerEdge is written for an international English-reading audience. Content should avoid unnecessary jurisdiction-specific wording unless a page is specifically about that jurisdiction.
General pages should use neutral language such as:
- “Gambling rules, availability, and legal age vary by jurisdiction.”
- “5-credit play” instead of location-specific coin or denomination examples where possible.
- “Game interface” or “paytable display” where the same advice applies online and in land-based venues.
When jurisdiction-specific information is used, it should be labelled as such and should not be presented as globally applicable.
Responsible gambling standards
VideoPokerEdge does not present gambling as income, investment, or a reliable way to make money. Even mathematically favourable paytables can produce long losing periods because of variance.
Pages should avoid:
- Guaranteeing profit or implying predictable session results
- Encouraging chasing losses
- Promoting systems that claim to predict random outcomes
- Using urgency tactics or emotional pressure to encourage play
- Minimising the risk of gambling-related harm
Responsible gambling language should be jurisdiction-neutral unless a page specifically lists country-level support resources.
Commercial independence
VideoPokerEdge may introduce affiliate or commercial links in the future. Current status and disclosure rules are described in the Affiliate Disclosure.
Commercial relationships must not determine mathematical conclusions. Specifically:
- RTP figures must not be adjusted to favour a partner
- Paytable classifications must not be softened for commercial reasons
- Strategy recommendations must remain based on expected value and source analysis
- Negative or limiting information about an operator must not be suppressed because of affiliate status
- Commercial links must be disclosed where applicable
Practices we avoid
The following practices are not allowed on VideoPokerEdge:
- Publishing RTP figures without paytable or strategy assumptions
- Presenting theoretical RTP as a session guarantee
- Claiming that a betting or gambling system can overcome random game math
- Fabricating testimonials, user counts, credentials, or “as featured in” claims
- Using fake scarcity, countdown timers, or pressure tactics
- Presenting affiliate links as neutral editorial references
- Changing factual analysis to satisfy a commercial partner
- Using AI-generated claims without human verification
Correction policy
Errors can occur. When they do, VideoPokerEdge aims to correct them clearly and promptly.
How to report an error
If you find an error, contact us at [email protected]. Please include:
- The URL of the affected page
- A clear description of the possible error
- The corrected value or explanation, if known
- A reliable source citation, especially for RTP, probability, paytable, or strategy claims
Examples of correctable errors
- Wrong RTP figure
- Wrong paytable row or payout value
- Incorrect probability or combinatoric explanation
- Incorrect strategy priority or misleading simplified chart
- Broken or outdated source citation
- Incorrect attribution
- Outdated legal, availability, or responsible gambling information
Correction handling
Confirmed factual errors are corrected as soon as reasonably practical. Substantive corrections may receive a note on the affected page explaining what changed and when. If a correction affects related pages, we review those pages as well.
Editorial disagreements, wording preferences, or differences in risk tolerance are reviewed, but they do not automatically require correction unless a factual or methodological error is identified.
Use of AI tools
AI tools may assist with drafting, summarisation, formatting, or workflow. They do not replace human review for mathematical claims.
Any AI-assisted output that includes RTP, paytable values, strategy rules, probability, legal claims, or responsible gambling information must be checked against reliable sources before publication.
Independence statement
VideoPokerEdge is an independent editorial project. We are not formally affiliated with Wizard of Odds, gambling support organisations, casino operators, software providers, regulators, or any other third-party source cited on the Site unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Links to third-party sources are provided for citation, context, or reader support. They do not imply partnership, endorsement, or sponsorship.
Updates to these standards
These standards may be updated when our editorial workflow changes, when new source policies are adopted, or when correction procedures are revised. Updates will be reflected by changing the “Last updated” date at the top of this page.
Questions or feedback
For questions about our editorial standards, sourcing decisions, or corrections, contact us at [email protected].