Hmm, I may have to go back to "Party Land." That was the one table where I thought I could do better but stopped playing, because I wanted to try out the other tables.
My second-best scores, by the way, are generally quite a bit lower than each table's best score. In "Billion Dollar Gameshow," I was fighting to crack the 25 million mark (to break into the top 3 in the high score list) when I got the 50 million. In "Stones 'N Bones," I think my previous high was about a million less than yours.
You know, I don't think I like these tables very much. There's the whole issue with not having any indicators on how to do certain basic things (like lighting the prizes in "Gameshow"), but beyond that, there's the fact that scoring opportunities seem to consist of a few piddling amounts and then a few enormous amounts. Nothing in the middle. Or maybe this was just the feeling I got because I kept having long periods of scoring 0 points, because the ball could take paths that didn't give any points at all.
One thing is certain: it is much easier in these tables to score big points once you already have big points. Several scoring opportunities in these increase in value the longer you've played. So, your good games end up looking way better than your bad games. Nonlinear progression.