vpFREE2 Forums

any math reason why solo progressives would be more volatile?

#1

Had an enjoyable weekend chasing a $2200 quarter progressive this
weekend, although somebody else got it in the end. The particular
case was a one-machine progressive (rather than a bank of 9 or 10
linked machines). It's kind of nice because while you're on it, you
know nobody else can take it away from you. It's also kind of
hazardous because you're tempted to keep pouring money into it. I was
there from 2105 to 2125, about 4000 hands, but I had to go home at
last. Next day I checked on it several times and couldn't get on, and
I was sitting down the aisle waiting for my turn when the guy hit it
for 2230.

This machine seems to have a history of occasionally getting to very
high levels.Is this just coincidence or is there a math reason why
solos would be more volatile? I can't think of one, unless perhaps
there is some imperfection in the RNG.

#2

Hi there

It would seem to me machines would be same for progressive single or
progressive bank of games. However, I would rather play on games
that are banked. If you sit at game slightly over even, it only gets
better. For instance sitting at a bank of 5/8 JOB dollar games at 10
or 12 thousand. If the bank has 20 or 30 games the progressive only
gets better. Every player is building. At that number all games will
be played. The jackpot will hit fast (usually) and you get your shot
at a nice payday. A quarter progressive at $2600 will get my
attention. Find a seat, take my time getting comfortable and play
till I drop.

Cheers...Whitejeeps
.

Had an enjoyable weekend chasing a $2200 quarter progressive this
weekend, although somebody else got it in the end. The particular
case was a one-machine progressive (rather than a bank of 9 or 10
linked machines). It's kind of nice because while you're on it, you
know nobody else can take it away from you. It's also kind of
hazardous because you're tempted to keep pouring money into it. I

was

there from 2105 to 2125, about 4000 hands, but I had to go home at
last. Next day I checked on it several times and couldn't get on,

and

I was sitting down the aisle waiting for my turn when the guy hit

it

for 2230.

This machine seems to have a history of occasionally getting to

very

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "blaw57" <blaw57@y...> wrote:

high levels.Is this just coincidence or is there a math reason why
solos would be more volatile? I can't think of one, unless perhaps
there is some imperfection in the RNG.

#3

blaw57 wrote:

This machine seems to have a history of occasionally getting to
very high levels. Is this just coincidence or is there a math reason
why solos would be more volatile?

Odds are that this machine has a high progressive rate (how many cents
are added to the meter for every $ played through).

When progressive rates are identical, math is the same whether a lone
machine or a bank. A bank of players will move the meter faster, but
the frequency (in terms of number of plays) with which it attains high
values is identical.

Of course, with more play you'll see a high meter on a progressive
more often -- but not more frequently ... meaning that you'll see it
more times in any given number of days, but when viewed in terms of
number of plays the frequency is the same.

Interestingly, an argument can be made that given all other things
equal, player return on a progressive is very modestly higher than on
a lone machine. But the difference is so marginal I won't sweat the
discussion.

- Harry

#4

I'd like to hear that argument. I believe the difference is exactly zero.
If I'm wrong, I'd like to know why.

···

On Sunday 18 July 2004 11:08 am, Harry Porter wrote:

Interestingly, an argument can be made that given all other things
equal, player return on a progressive is very modestly higher than on
a lone machine. But the difference is so marginal I won't sweat the
discussion.

#5

Steve Jacobs wrote:

I'd like to hear that argument. I believe the difference is exactly
zero.

Good call, Steve (as might be expected :wink: I realized about 5 minutes
after my post that I got tripped up on the progressive mechanics -
particularly as it relates to the addition of a portion of each wager
to the meter. (Got it into my head briefly that a player benefits
from the contribution of others to the meter.)

But, bottom line, the return is a function of the expected number of
hands played between royals and the expected meter value when hit.
It's the same for either a stand alone progressive or a bank
(assuming, again, that the meter advance rate is the same in each case).

- H.

#6

I presume he's saying you would get a higher return from a banked
prog machine than a lone prog machine, assuming that you sit down at
the same point (i.e., 2190) and then hit at either the same point
(i.e., 2200) or after the same amount of play (i.e., 2000 hands)
because at a lone machine, all of the increase over 2190 comes from
your play, but on a bank some came from the other players.

I could see an argument that this isn't really extra yield, and that
in effect it would be the same as getting up from the lone prog and
letting someone else play it for a while. In both cases, if the other
person doesn't hit it, you wind up with more money, but for your
actual play time your yield is affected only by the prog level, not
the banked-or-solo nature of the set-up.

> Interestingly, an argument can be made that given all other things
> equal, player return on a progressive is very modestly higher

than on

> a lone machine. But the difference is so marginal I won't sweat

the

> discussion.

I'd like to hear that argument. I believe the difference is

exactly zero.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Steve Jacobs <jacobs@x> wrote:

On Sunday 18 July 2004 11:08 am, Harry Porter wrote:
If I'm wrong, I'd like to know why.

#7

What is the underlying game? What is the progression rate?
I have seen 25c progressive exceed $4,000 with a 1% meter.

···

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:12:10 -0000, you wrote:

Had an enjoyable weekend chasing a $2200 quarter progressive this
weekend, although somebody else got it in the end. The particular
case was a one-machine progressive (rather than a bank of 9 or 10
linked machines). It's kind of nice because while you're on it, you
know nobody else can take it away from you. It's also kind of
hazardous because you're tempted to keep pouring money into it. I was
there from 2105 to 2125, about 4000 hands, but I had to go home at
last. Next day I checked on it several times and couldn't get on, and
I was sitting down the aisle waiting for my turn when the guy hit it
for 2230.

This machine seems to have a history of occasionally getting to very
high levels.Is this just coincidence or is there a math reason why
solos would be more volatile? I can't think of one, unless perhaps
there is some imperfection in the RNG.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#8

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Elliott Shapiro <videopoker@m...>
wrote:

What is the underlying game? What is the progression rate?
I have seen 25c progressive exceed $4,000 with a 1% meter.

The meter is 0.5%. It is a multi-game machine but by far the best
game on it is Double Deuces, at 98.86% base return. This was at a dog
of a casino in VP terms where the next best VP game barely breaks
97%. But, have ya'll noticed this elsewhere, even at dog casinos, the
worst DD return is the 98.86% paytable. Makes me think IGT only
offers 3 return choices, this one and the better Tunica version that
pays 16/11 and the LV version some offer at I think 16/13 or 17/12.

(By the way, somebody on one of these boards got to watch some techs
reprogram a VP game, something I had always wondered about. He said
you do NOT have the choice to individually configure each paytable,
but only to choose from a preset list of return options.)

···

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:12:10 -0000, you wrote:

#9

As has been pointed out by others, the loss, while waiting for a
royal, can be very large because of the negative game and strategy
changes, etc in spite of the royal amount.
To overcome that, I NEVER play a progressive unless there is a strong
positive potential of at least 101.5% on dollars and nop less than
1.25% on quarters. When playing at a bare advantage, the bankroll
goes up and down like a yo-yo and I prefer a smoother curve.
$2200 on a 98.86% game is no where near 101.5% as it takes almost
$1000 over reset to beak even.

···

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:46:14 -0000, you wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Elliott Shapiro <videopoker@m...>
wrote:

What is the underlying game? What is the progression rate?
I have seen 25c progressive exceed $4,000 with a 1% meter.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:12:10 -0000, you wrote:

The meter is 0.5%. It is a multi-game machine but by far the best
game on it is Double Deuces, at 98.86% base return. This was at a dog
of a casino in VP terms where the next best VP game barely breaks
97%. But, have ya'll noticed this elsewhere, even at dog casinos, the
worst DD return is the 98.86% paytable. Makes me think IGT only
offers 3 return choices, this one and the better Tunica version that
pays 16/11 and the LV version some offer at I think 16/13 or 17/12.

(By the way, somebody on one of these boards got to watch some techs
reprogram a VP game, something I had always wondered about. He said
you do NOT have the choice to individually configure each paytable,
but only to choose from a preset list of return options.)

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#10

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Elliott Shapiro <videopoker@m...>
wrote:

$2200 on a 98.86% game is no where near 101.5% as it takes almost
$1000 over reset to beak even.

Actually, $2200 on this particular quarter 98.86% game produced a
total ER in the neighborhood of 101.8%. Cash back is relatively high
at this casino at 0.5%, which I had not previously mentioned and thus
you had no way of knowing. Also, I imagine you are straight-lining
the effect of the increased royal value, which is a good conservative
way to do things but is not accurate. The accurate way is to rerun a
VP Analyzer program with the higher royal input to the paytable. This
way you capture not only the higher value of the royal, but also the
increased likelihood of hitting it thanks to the strategy changes
that the higher royal value calls for (like holding suited AT and
favoring suited QJT over QJT8). In this game, at 220% royal value,
the net strategy gains add another 0.75% to the return because the
royal is nearly 20% more likely. Of course, offsetting the greater
royal probability is a greater drain if you don't hit the royal.

Which brings me to my second point.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Elliott Shapiro <videopoker@m...>
wrote:

As has been pointed out by others, the loss, while waiting for a
royal, can be very large because of the negative game and strategy
changes, etc in spite of the royal amount.
To overcome that, I NEVER play a progressive unless there is a

strong

positive potential of at least 101.5% on dollars and nop less than
1.25% on quarters. When playing at a bare advantage, the bankroll
goes up and down like a yo-yo and I prefer a smoother curve.

Assuming you adjust your strategy to achieve perfect play under the
new values, higher ER progs actually have greater volatility than
lower value ones. This is because as the royal gets higher, perfect
play strategy calls for favoring long shots at the royal over more
reliable hands. To take an extreme example, once the royal reaches
300%, perfect play says you should discard a pat straight flush like
9TJQK to draw to the 4-royal. Thus, playing higher positives will
INCREASE the volatility of your bankroll - the curve will become even
more jagged, not smoother.

Now, I think what you were really thinking was that more of the curve
will lie in the positive half of the graph, and that you are less
concerned with volatility between +1000 and +2000 than with
volatility between -500 and +500. This will be true after you have
hit a few royals, but until you hit that elusive first one, you will
actually experience greater volatility and bigger bankroll drain with
the higher values than with the lower values.

#11

Harry Porter wrote:

Steve Jacobs wrote:
> I'd like to hear that argument. I believe the difference is exactly
> zero.

Good call, Steve (as might be expected :wink: I realized about 5 minutes
after my post that I got tripped up on the progressive mechanics -
particularly as it relates to the addition of a portion of each wager
to the meter. (Got it into my head briefly that a player benefits
from the contribution of others to the meter.)

But, bottom line, the return is a function of the expected number of
hands played between royals and the expected meter value when hit.
It's the same for either a stand alone progressive or a bank
(assuming, again, that the meter advance rate is the same in each case).

Maybe I'm just missing the point of this discussion, but I think it depends upon the circumstances, so intuitively I must disagree that in a real world situation that they are the same; unfortunately, I don't have time to work up any math examples right now. I will admit, however, that if you and every other player at the bank of progressives play with equal skill and equal speed, then 'yes', the long term expected outcome of an unlimited number of identical opportunities will be equal. But in the real world all players do not play with equal skill nor at the same rate, and we unfortunately do not have so many great opportunities either. I think that the amount of the progressive, your bankroll and available time, and other such things factor into what is the most advantageous choice for you.

Let me give two exaggerated scenarios to try to make my 'intuitive' point without resorting to doing all the math; in both situations you are faced with an identical choice of the both the same paytable and same progressive level on either a stand alone machine or on a bank. In both situations you are at the beginning of a week's vacation with a pretty hefty bankroll, and the casino will lock your machine, whether stand alone or in the bank, to permit you to take care of personal needs.

Scenario one: the progressive has hit an astronomically high level such that the machine now offers an ER of 120%, and the bank is packed with expert players (probably more accurate and faster than I am) all aggressively chasing the Royal. What do you do? Personally, I'd opt for the stand alone machine, and I think it would be possible to show that that is the best choice, mathematically. Yes, in a period of time, assuming the Royal is not hit, the bank of progressives will be higher than the level of the lone machine, thereby offering an opportunity for an even _higher_ ER ... and that opportunity will continue to grow faster than on the lone machine until the Royal is hit. But on the other hand, statistically speaking, what are my chances of winning the Royal on a large bank, especially if I am a 'below average' player on the bank compared to so many experts? Having a 'lock' on the lone machine for an entire week, playing 800 hands/hour for 14 hours per day for seven days (78,400 hands) is certainly no guarantee that I'll hit the Royal to give me that 120% (and slowly growing) return, but my intuition tells me that my chances would be substantially better than if I were to plan to play the same number of games on the bank, because there is a significant chance that the Royal on the bank will be hit long before I'd complete playing my 78,400 games, whereas I'd have a lock on playing that many games on the lone machine. I'd pick the lone machine.

Scenario two: the progressives have just recently turned the games positive, and both machines offer the identical 101% ER; as a result, no experts have descended upon the machines to play. As you look over the shoulders of some of the players at the bank, you see at least half of them making really stupid mistakes like holding a kicker in a JoB game, drawing to inside straights and holding 3 straights or 3 flushes with no high cards, and making all sorts of very fundamental errors, which leads you to believe that you are, on average, _quite_ superior in your skills to the average players on that bank. The result: their stupidity will contribute disproportionately to the meter while you have a better than average chance of hitting the Royal. I'd pick the bank.

I can't believe both choices are equal in either one of those scenarios. Just my two cents.

Bill Velek

#12

As I understand it, the original question was: Is this just
coincidence or is there a math reason why solos[-progressive] would
be more volatile [than a bank of progressives]?

···

On Sunday 18 July 2004 11:08 am, Harry Porter wrote:
"Interestingly, an argument can be made that given all other things
equal, player return on a progressive is very modestly higher than on
a lone machine. But the difference is so marginal I won't sweat the
discussion."

To which Steve Jacobs wrote:
"I'd like to hear that argument. I believe the difference is
exactly zero. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know why."

Here's my take:
Let's relax the other things being equal assumption. The biggest
difference would be the effect of team play. It's far easier for a
team to lock up a bank of progressives, and thereby guaranteed
themselves the jackpot than for 1 individual to lock up a solo
progressive. I don't think a casino will allow a solo-progressive to
go unplayed, i.e. tied-up by an individual who needs his sleep.

What I am saying is if you look at the jazbo's analysis of
progressive meter movement: (A) Unlimited playing bankroll (you
won't have to quit because you run out of money); (B) Unlimited
playing time (you won't walk away because you have to be somewhere
or need sleep); and (C) There is no threat that someone else will
capture the jackpot while you are playing. It's clear to me (B) and
(c) are the biggest logistical problems for solo progressives.

In summary, what I am saying is the "volatility" (however that is
mathematically defined) in solo progressives comes from inability to
meet conditions (B) and (C).

#13

slight correction

Bill Velek wrote:

snip

Scenario one: the progressive has hit an astronomically high level such
that the machine now offers an ER of 120%, and the bank is packed with
expert players (probably more accurate and faster than I am) all
aggressively chasing the Royal.

That should have said: "... (probably more accurate and faster than _YOU_ are) ..." -- NOT 'than _I_ am'.
I didn't mean to mix my pronouns. Clearly, ALL _good_ players are more accurate and faster than ME.

Cheers.

Bill

#14

fordscks wrote:

As I understand it, the original question was: Is this just
coincidence or is there a math reason why solos[-progressive] would
be more volatile [than a bank of progressives]?

All things being equal, 'no' -- at least in my opinion .

"Interestingly, an argument can be made that given all other things
equal, player return on a progressive is very modestly higher than on
a lone machine. But the difference is so marginal I won't sweat the
discussion."

Harry later corrected himself and, all things being equal, he and Steve are correct that there is no difference.

To which Steve Jacobs wrote:
"I'd like to hear that argument. I believe the difference is
exactly zero. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know why."

Here's my take:
Let's relax the other things being equal assumption. ...

I make a similar point in another post, so I understand what you're saying and I agree..

... The biggest
difference would be the effect of team play. It's far easier for a
team to lock up a bank of progressives, and thereby guaranteed
themselves the jackpot than for 1 individual to lock up a solo
progressive. I don't think a casino will allow a solo-progressive to
go unplayed, i.e. tied-up by an individual who needs his sleep.

However, I assumed that you have a continuing opportunity to play by having the casino lock your machine so you can take care of personal needs. Although I've never tried to have them lock a machine while I caught a nap (and doubt that they'd lock it for a long time for _ME_, I'd assume that you could have them lock the machine while you find your spouse or a friend to play while you get some slee

What I am saying is if you look at the jazbo's analysis of
progressive meter movement: (A) Unlimited playing bankroll (you
won't have to quit because you run out of money); (B) Unlimited
playing time (you won't walk away because you have to be somewhere
or need sleep); and (C) There is no threat that someone else will
capture the jackpot while you are playing. It's clear to me (B) and
(c) are the biggest logistical problems for solo progressives.

In summary, what I am saying is the "volatility" (however that is
mathematically defined) in solo progressives comes from inability to
meet conditions (B) and (C).

I think that your opportunity, and therefore the real ER that you face as a practical matter whenever you make your choice, is affected by such things, but I can't see how "volatility" per se is affected, although I'd have to give this some thought when I'm not so tired. Had a super trip to Tunica this past weekend, and I kept dreaming about it last night, too. Any of you ever have that happen? I caught several quads in my dreams last night, like that's supposed to make up for the shortfall of quads during the real trip :-/

Cheers.

Bill Velek

···

On Sunday 18 July 2004 11:08 am, Harry Porter wrote:

#15

Bill Velek wrote:

But in the real world all players do not play with equal skill

Good point, Bill. The aggressiveness of other players on a bank
affects your ER. Your ER is determined by the expected meter value
when you hit the progressive.

If you and other players play with optimal skill, than that expected
value will be the same as if you were playing on a solo machine.

However, if other players play more aggressive (which is often the
case for a progressive bank), the average number of hands on the
progressive between royals will be shortened, and therefore the
average royal value period. This will reduce your return.

Likewise, if other players play less aggressively for the royal, the
average number of hands between royals on the bank will be lengthened.
The average value of the meter when you hit it will be increased, and
your ER accordingly.

- Harry

#16

"I think that your opportunity, and therefore the real ER that you
face as a practical matter whenever you make your choice, is
affected by such things, but I can't see how "volatility" per se is
affected, although I'd have to give this some thought when I'm not
so tired."

I think we are in agreement to our other issues (I've written my
response to Steve's post *before* reading yours or Harry's posts).
However, we differ on volatility. If a team can lock up a bank of
machines with an attractive progressive thus preventing *you* from
playing, and doesn't lock up solo progressives where *you* can play,
doesn't that fact alone affect your volatility as well as the delta
in your bankroll?(1)

Cheers.

(1) *This was my original thought, but I felt Jazbo's arguments made
a stronger case since your EV from the progressive is dependent on
hitting all three conditions because too often people would the
meter movement in their return calculations.

Also, playing with your spouse or friend on a solo progressive comes
across as team-play in my book. To me, a solo progressive (kind of
like the 8/6 JOBS at Trop in AC) was you pick the machine with the
highest acceptable jackpot, and play as long as you can. When you
come back, you again pick the machine with the highest acceptable
jackpot, and repeat the cycle. This is the "source of volatility"
that I read in the initial post of the thread.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:

#17

If you believe that a team will take the bank, etc., it is so much
easier for them to "lock up" one machine. Only takes 3 people with 8
hours shifts, etc. or 6 hours shifts, etc.

···

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:47:28 -0000, you wrote:

As I understand it, the original question was: Is this just
coincidence or is there a math reason why solos[-progressive] would
be more volatile [than a bank of progressives]?

On Sunday 18 July 2004 11:08 am, Harry Porter wrote:
"Interestingly, an argument can be made that given all other things
equal, player return on a progressive is very modestly higher than on
a lone machine. But the difference is so marginal I won't sweat the
discussion."

To which Steve Jacobs wrote:
"I'd like to hear that argument. I believe the difference is
exactly zero. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know why."

Here's my take:
Let's relax the other things being equal assumption. The biggest
difference would be the effect of team play. It's far easier for a
team to lock up a bank of progressives, and thereby guaranteed
themselves the jackpot than for 1 individual to lock up a solo
progressive. I don't think a casino will allow a solo-progressive to
go unplayed, i.e. tied-up by an individual who needs his sleep.

What I am saying is if you look at the jazbo's analysis of
progressive meter movement: (A) Unlimited playing bankroll (you
won't have to quit because you run out of money); (B) Unlimited
playing time (you won't walk away because you have to be somewhere
or need sleep); and (C) There is no threat that someone else will
capture the jackpot while you are playing. It's clear to me (B) and
(c) are the biggest logistical problems for solo progressives.

In summary, what I am saying is the "volatility" (however that is
mathematically defined) in solo progressives comes from inability to
meet conditions (B) and (C).

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#18

I do not argue the math, and yes, 1.14% is only about $500 on a deuces
game.
My wife and I hit approx 20-25 PROGRESSIVE royals per year, have w-2's
well in excess of $100,000 per year and have been doing this for many
years. I would suspect that it is more than "dumb" luck. (We are at
19 so far in 2004).

···

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:09:22 -0000, you wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Elliott Shapiro <videopoker@m...>
wrote:

$2200 on a 98.86% game is no where near 101.5% as it takes almost
$1000 over reset to beak even.

Actually, $2200 on this particular quarter 98.86% game produced a
total ER in the neighborhood of 101.8%. Cash back is relatively high
at this casino at 0.5%, which I had not previously mentioned and thus
you had no way of knowing. Also, I imagine you are straight-lining
the effect of the increased royal value, which is a good conservative
way to do things but is not accurate. The accurate way is to rerun a
VP Analyzer program with the higher royal input to the paytable. This
way you capture not only the higher value of the royal, but also the
increased likelihood of hitting it thanks to the strategy changes
that the higher royal value calls for (like holding suited AT and
favoring suited QJT over QJT8). In this game, at 220% royal value,
the net strategy gains add another 0.75% to the return because the
royal is nearly 20% more likely. Of course, offsetting the greater
royal probability is a greater drain if you don't hit the royal.

Which brings me to my second point.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Elliott Shapiro <videopoker@m...>
wrote:

As has been pointed out by others, the loss, while waiting for a
royal, can be very large because of the negative game and strategy
changes, etc in spite of the royal amount.
To overcome that, I NEVER play a progressive unless there is a

strong

positive potential of at least 101.5% on dollars and nop less than
1.25% on quarters. When playing at a bare advantage, the bankroll
goes up and down like a yo-yo and I prefer a smoother curve.

Assuming you adjust your strategy to achieve perfect play under the
new values, higher ER progs actually have greater volatility than
lower value ones. This is because as the royal gets higher, perfect
play strategy calls for favoring long shots at the royal over more
reliable hands. To take an extreme example, once the royal reaches
300%, perfect play says you should discard a pat straight flush like
9TJQK to draw to the 4-royal. Thus, playing higher positives will
INCREASE the volatility of your bankroll - the curve will become even
more jagged, not smoother.

Now, I think what you were really thinking was that more of the curve
will lie in the positive half of the graph, and that you are less
concerned with volatility between +1000 and +2000 than with
volatility between -500 and +500. This will be true after you have
hit a few royals, but until you hit that elusive first one, you will
actually experience greater volatility and bigger bankroll drain with
the higher values than with the lower values.

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#19

fordscks wrote:

"I think that your opportunity, and therefore the real ER that you
face as a practical matter whenever you make your choice, is
affected by such things, but I can't see how "volatility" per se is
affected, although I'd have to give this some thought when I'm not
so tired."

I think we are in agreement to our other issues (I've written my
response to Steve's post *before* reading yours or Harry's posts). However, we differ on volatility. If a team can lock up a bank of
machines with an attractive progressive thus preventing *you* from
playing, and doesn't lock up solo progressives where *you* can play,
doesn't that fact alone affect your volatility as well as the delta
in your bankroll?(1)

I think in _that_ respect -- perhaps referring to the "volatility of your gambling experience for that day" (trip, or whatever) -- then yes, I'd have to agree. Being prevented from playing otherwise available advantage games for any reason -- by teams, crowds, a cranky wife, or whatever -- in a sense does affect your ER, etc., by forcing you to settle for less desireable games or at least forego the good opportunity, thereby reducing the average ER and variance for your "play" for that session. But I wasn't referring to it, or even considering it, in _that_ sense; rather, I was thinking in terms of that particular game itself, and comparing choices between playing the identical game with identical progressive jackpot on either a solo progressive or in a bank. And as I said, I'm tired. I ought to quite playing here and take a nap, but there's something that goes against the grain of lying down so early when I have so much catching up to do -- even if it is just play stuff like newsgroups. :slight_smile:

Anyway, my knee jerk reaction was to think that "volatility" = "variance" (more or less), and although variance is affected by the strategy that one uses, which in turn is affected by the ER for the game and how the relative paytable values shift, those shifts ought to occur for us regardless of whether we're playing on a solo progressive or a bank. And I presumed that we would use the same strategy on either machine, and also modify our strategy at the _same_ times as each progressive grows to higher levels. However, it does finally dawn on me that if we can reasonably expect, as a practical matter, that our earnings from those opportunities will actually be affected by other circumstances -- such as when there is a team aggressively chasing the Royal so that even if we played for infinity I'd never win my statistically expected number of Royals or achieve the Royal earnings that they achieve -- then logically I have to agree that circumstances will likewise affect variance and volatility.

Cheers.

(1) *This was my original thought, but I felt Jazbo's arguments made
a stronger case since your EV from the progressive is dependent on
hitting all three conditions because too often people would the
meter movement in their return calculations.

Also, playing with your spouse or friend on a solo progressive comes
across as team-play in my book. To me, a solo progressive (kind of
like the 8/6 JOBS at Trop in AC) was you pick the machine with the
highest acceptable jackpot, and play as long as you can. When you
come back, you again pick the machine with the highest acceptable
jackpot, and repeat the cycle. This is the "source of volatility"
that I read in the initial post of the thread.

One other factor. When playing in a bank, I think it would be natural to feel pressured to play about as fast as possible, because you've got to 'beat' the other players to the Royal, and this increases likelihood of errors and a reluctance to want to take the time to check your strategy charts for shifts in strategy as the progressive grows. When you and your spouse/friend can 'team' a solo progressive, those considerations go out the window -- assuming you have plenty of time to play.

I think we see this the same.

Cheers.

Bill Velek

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote: