vpFREE2 Forums

A Reply To Just Criticism,

<<<<No, my wish was for "standalone" progressives, meaning each machine
has its own progressive jackpot, for each denomination of play.
Hitting that jackpot has no impact on the progressives next to it, or
the progressive amount of the other denominations on the same
machine. This entirely eliminates the problem of "team" play as
applied to banks of machines feeding a single progressive (or
multiple progressives).>>>>>>>>>

Sorry, I misunderstood your premise. I still see a problem. Remember
when Piggy Bankin' first came out and slot vultures were born? If the
progressive gets too high video poker vultures will swarm in and try to
intimidate the person playing the machine to leave through rude behavior
or other devious tactics. Don't believe it will happen. I've seen some
pretty despicable behavior at progressive banks with a high jackpot
including shoving to get a vacated seat. Casinos tired of the practice
with Piggy Bankin' and the format of the game was changed. There was a
discussion a short while ago on one of these groups about a Deuces Wild
machine of the format that you describe at Fiesta Rancho where a couple
was accused of monopolizing the machine until they hit the jackpot and
resulted in a lot of feelings of injustice. I really don't think most
casinos want all this grief when patrons are satisfied with flattops.
Just my opinion, I know I don't enjoy playing under these conditions.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:23:08 -0000 "brumar_lv" <brumar_lv@yahoo.com> writes:

I really don't think most casinos want all this grief when patrons

are satisfied with flattops.>>

Good observation ... rude behavior might be a problem. But if there
were a very large number of standalone progressives, in many game
types and denominations, I doubt it would be too bad, but I could be
wrong.

As for being "satisfied with flattops", well, I thought that was the
problem today. Many of us aren't satisfied with the lousy pay
schedules on flattops. The only solution (IMHO) is progressives.
It's the only way for casinos to meet their goals without losing the
advantage (regular) players.

I don't think "All Progressive VP" is necessary, or even adviseable.
Not only can lousy/less-than-full pay schedules on non-progressive VP
machines be switched to FullPay without going "All Progressive", but
a FullPay non-progressive VP machine is _always_ "positive/advantage
play(or at least "as good as it gets")", which is NOT the case with
progressive machines.

Iow, if you have an "All Progressive VP" casino, there will be times
when the advantage/regular players aren't playing there. Whereas if
you have an "All FullPay VP" casino, no such times will exist.

I'm not suggesting "All" of either type. I'm only saying that
switching ALL of the non-FullPay(non-progressive) VP machines in any
(and all!) casinos doesn't necessitate a move to "All Progressive",
and I think a mix of progressives and(_FullPay!_) non-progressives is
preferable to "All" of either type.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "brumar_lv" <brumar_lv@y...> wrote:

As for being "satisfied with flattops", well, I thought that was
the problem today. Many of us aren't satisfied with the lousy pay
schedules on flattops. The only solution (IMHO) is progressives.
It's the only way for casinos to meet their goals without losing
the advantage (regular) players.

I don't think "All Progressive VP" is necessary, or even

adviseable.>>

I agree entirely. Unfortunately, however, the casinos don't seem to
agree with us. I also would love to see a combination of
progressives and full pay non-progressives.

But the trend in recent years has been to eliminate full pay non-
progressives (degrade the pay schedules) to the point where it
usually makes no sense to play. All I'm suggesting is that
progressives are a way for the casinos to bring back players who pay
attention to the pay schedules.