vpFREE2 Forums

Bob and Frank's new Progressives

#21

Of course you're right. So let me re-phrase.

I owe EVERYTHING to Bob Dancer in regard to my video poker knowledge. The dude has enriched my life. All hail Bob Dancer! lol

(oh, and yes, I paid for my software)

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "ukstages" <takeme2london@...> wrote:

aren't these two statements in conflict?

if you're armed with "his software" on your computer, then you're apparently not figuring it out yourself.

i've been away from the group for a few days and just stumbled upon this lengthy discussion, but if the argument on the table is that dancer is profiting from both sides... saying that you're using dancer's software to help you figure things out does not seem to support your suggestion that dancer does not necessarily profit personally from situations such as this.

(i'm assuming, of course, that you have a licensed, purchased version of his software on your computer. and i'm not taking a side in this discussion; i was just rather startled by what i perceived as the upside down logic of your post.)

#22

Oh man, my head hurts.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, fivespot <fivespot55@...> wrote:

here's a direct quote from dancer's article: "Most of the progressive
teams in the past would lock up all the games in a particular bank of
machines and play until the progressive was hit. Here they can't do
this because there will "always" be a good progressive to play. If
teams only went home when there were no good plays, once they showed
up at the M they could never leave!"

this is false. proof that it is false:

suppose pros are camped out on the dollar machines all the time. they
can play all the games close to perfectly. according to dancer, there
will always be good plays on this bank. so, the machines will pay out
over 100% all the time.

however, also according to dancer, the pros will be playing a strategy
that returns about 95% return on the base game. so, M will be paying
back 95% of coinin for the base game, plus 4% of coinin to feed the
meter. so, the machines will pay out around 99% in the long run.

the same set of machines cannot return over 100% all the time, and
return only 99% in the long run. hence some of the initial statements
- all taken directly from dancer's article - must be incorrect.

#23

I am looking forward to this experiment, and hope it is very successful so it can be a selling point to other open-minded casinos/slot managers in the not-so-distant future. It's exciting.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_wiz" <harry.porter@...> wrote:

I'd gladly welcome the bank to a casino accessible to us in the East.

#24

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

···

----- fivespot <fivespot55@gmail.com> wrote:

are you defending the false statements that dancer made in his column,

like when he said that this bank will "always" have a good progressive

to play?When an exaggeration is both obvious and minimal, no dishonesty should be inferred. Of course there will be times that all 8 meters will be negative, but it won't be often. The ones at Barley's had the same meter progression that the ones at the M are planned to have and everyone who was playing it professionally got sick of the place.

#25

i was accepting dancer's statement uncritically: "The underlying games
average 96.5% or so, and when the royal is high, it's appropriate to
play aggressively for the royal, which will take the base game down to
95% or so."

i should know better by now. i ran some strategies, and of the eight
games, only one (7/5 jacks) returns worse than 96% on the base game
when using a RF=12000 strategy. the cost of aggressive chasing is
under 0.3% (depending on the game), not 1.5% as he suggests.

so the machines are in fact over 100% with optimal noncollusive play,
and M will make their money on errors.

(note to frank: again, i am criticizing the article, not the machines.
in fact, i am acknowledging that the machines will be better than i
thought at first.)

cheers,

five

···

fivespot <fivespot55@gmail.com> wrote:

however, also according to dancer, the pros will be playing a strategy
that returns about 95% return on the base game. so, M will be paying
back 95% of coinin for the base game, plus 4% of coinin to feed the
meter. so, the machines will pay out around 99% in the long run.

#26

Maybe I missed this, but with such a tiny number of machines what is going to prevent the usual problem for progressives of professionals locking up the machines in shifts to prevent recreational play? Bob also mentions mailers and multipliers for players of these machines. Does that include currently no mailed players?

#27

Great rebuttal! Well said!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:

In response to fivespot's post.

Gosh everyone. I can't believe how willing many of you are to spin everything in as negative a way a possible.

I received several direct requests to see if I could convince casinos to put in better progressives. I did this BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME TO.

The only way to achieve that was to come up with a concept that could be good for casinos and patrons alike. You try doing that.

The M is putting in 100%+ games = Base Return + Meter-Rise - errors

They are expecting to make their money off errors because obviously playing 8 different strategies well will be hard. If it wasn't hard then everyone could do it. I assume you must realize a casino isn't going to put in games way over 100% if they thought they would be losing on everyone that played them???

Oh and Bob never said, "You have to come to me to learn how to play them." He said on air and in print. You can make your own strategies or, if you'd prefer we will be making some for you and posting them for free. If that is self-serving, it must be the "new definition".

I was asked to do something. I did it. Now people complain that I did what they asked and ascribe dark ulterior motives to my actions.

Five last things:

1. Bob had nothing to do with the idea other than to help me pick the games.

2. Bob got me in touch with the M casino manager and set up the meeting...very little more.

3. Part of the reason they decided to put it in was because we would be advertising it. Without the sponsorship and advertising it affords I could not have sold them on the idea.

4. I did all this including spending over a week working on the math to figure out the true game returns, because I was asked to do so by vpFREE posters.

5. Before writing a long post and guessing about someones motives, try just asking them what they were thinking, at least as a first step. That is, if you would actually like to know the truth. Some of you seem happier with your malignant fantasies.

If any of you out there think you can come up with a better idea that's pitch-able to a casino, please do so. Oh and prepare for half of vpFREE to despise you for trying to help.

~FK

#28

A general reply to thread:

I think the ongoing discussion about the new M progressive is bringing out some really good points. This is what vpFREE was meant for.

This progressive is not "perfect", not sure anything is...and I'm not just talking about casino games. When I say it was the best idea I could think of I'm deadly serious. I could think of nothing better or more pitch-able.

If anyone can come up with something better, I promise to do all I can to make it into reality.

This all has proved one thing: Bob & I do have some pull with casinos and they are willing to listen to us. If we have learned nothing else, that's great information which will come in handy down the road.

Until now I had no idea I could effect industry change. It was news to me. When I started this project I gave it a 5% chance of succeeding. Good thing I didn't have a bet on myself. I would have lost, because I would have been betting against the come.

~FK

#29

I know I am jumping ahead of the picture, but I'm wondering what it will take to convince the many many casinos that spread low base-game progressives with a 1/2 percent meter or worse, that they are defeating the "purpose" of having a progressive and inflicting a less than optimal situation on themselves.

In my view it just defies good logic to have a game like 7-5 Bonus Poker, 9-6-5 Double Bonus, i.e. typical 3rd tier paytables, with an infinitesimal meter-rise and subsequent meager jackpots. What are they thinking?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:

A general reply to thread:

I think the ongoing discussion about the new M progressive is bringing out some really good points. This is what vpFREE was meant for.

<snip>

#30

Take a walk next door to the TI. Check vpfree2 for database info.
'

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Joel Fink
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 1:54 PM
  Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Question about The Mirage

  The database is pretty accurate. The only playable games are at the $5 and up
  level. 9/6JOB, 8/5BP, 9/6DDB and I think airport deuces. Everything at the lower
  level is short pay. Drinks at the Kokomo bar are not comped. They are at the
  high limit bar.

  ________________________________
  From: steve84 <steve84@flash.net>
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Wed, May 11, 2011 1:47:03 PM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Question about The Mirage

  I am far from an expert but I like to follow this list. Next week I
  will be staying at The Mirage with a group of friends. Does anybody
  have any suggestions on what games might be worth playing there or games
  to avoid?

  Thanks

  Steve

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

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3633 - Release Date: 05/12/11 06:34:00

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

#31

I for one just wish M would being back the 3x and 5x REGULAR 8/5 Bonus Poker.

Forget this progressive. The only way to win is hit a Royal at it's peak. A 1/30,000 shot at it's best. Something I am competition with all the other players to do.

Why not convince them to bring back multi line regular games with the 1% house edge! I lost enough playing these so called "good" games without trying a game with an astronomical variance!

What happened to 8/5 bonus multi line? How about 9/6 Jacks or Better in some denomination higher than 25 cents?

M is trying to suck it's players dry, and make it up with presents of wine and logo clothing. Cut the promo's and bring back decent machines! Give me a REASON to play! I love the casino, but the games stink!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@> wrote:
>
> A general reply to thread:
>
> I think the ongoing discussion about the new M progressive is bringing out some really good points. This is what vpFREE was meant for.
>
> <snip>
>

I know I am jumping ahead of the picture, but I'm wondering what it will take to convince the many many casinos that spread low base-game progressives with a 1/2 percent meter or worse, that they are defeating the "purpose" of having a progressive and inflicting a less than optimal situation on themselves.

In my view it just defies good logic to have a game like 7-5 Bonus Poker, 9-6-5 Double Bonus, i.e. typical 3rd tier paytables, with an infinitesimal meter-rise and subsequent meager jackpots. What are they thinking?

#32

The vpfree database shows there is 8/5 BP in 25-50-$1 increments, single line. Is that not the case? Is that much different than what you're looking for? Not quite sure where the "1% edge" comes in it that you mentioned.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "the7thwarrior" <Judy@...> wrote:

I for one just wish M would being back the 3x and 5x REGULAR 8/5 Bonus Poker.

Forget this progressive. The only way to win is hit a Royal at it's peak. A 1/30,000 shot at it's best. Something I am competition with all the other players to do.

Why not convince them to bring back multi line regular games with the 1% house edge! I lost enough playing these so called "good" games without trying a game with an astronomical variance!

#33

YES M has single line bonus poker up to $1.
But you can't get any serious coin in for this game, as you lose too quickly. At least not with my $2000 bank roll for a sessions play.

The game is 99.1% so just about a .9% house edge.

But when you look at the 3x or 5x or 10x or any multi line game the game changes to 7/5 bonus poker. Or what I call the game for ploppers.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "the7thwarrior" <Judy@> wrote:
>
>
> I for one just wish M would being back the 3x and 5x REGULAR 8/5 Bonus Poker.
>
> Forget this progressive. The only way to win is hit a Royal at it's peak. A 1/30,000 shot at it's best. Something I am competition with all the other players to do.
>
> Why not convince them to bring back multi line regular games with the 1% house edge! I lost enough playing these so called "good" games without trying a game with an astronomical variance!
>

The vpfree database shows there is 8/5 BP in 25-50-$1 increments, single line. Is that not the case? Is that much different than what you're looking for? Not quite sure where the "1% edge" comes in it that you mentioned.

#34

I'm sorry, Judy, I misread your earlier comment. My brain wasn't working yet without cup of coffee. Sorry 'bout that.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "the7thwarrior" <Judy@...> wrote:

The game is 99.1% so just about a .9% house edge.

#35

Some people here might call 8-5 a game for ploppers...

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "the7thwarrior" <Judy@...> wrote:

YES M has single line bonus poker up to $1.
But you can't get any serious coin in for this game, as you lose too quickly. At least not with my $2000 bank roll for a sessions play.

The game is 99.1% so just about a .9% house edge.

But when you look at the 3x or 5x or 10x or any multi line game the game changes to 7/5 bonus poker. Or what I call the game for ploppers.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "the7thwarrior" <Judy@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I for one just wish M would being back the 3x and 5x REGULAR 8/5 Bonus Poker.
> >
> > Forget this progressive. The only way to win is hit a Royal at it's peak. A 1/30,000 shot at it's best. Something I am competition with all the other players to do.
> >
> > Why not convince them to bring back multi line regular games with the 1% house edge! I lost enough playing these so called "good" games without trying a game with an astronomical variance!
> >
>
>
>
> The vpfree database shows there is 8/5 BP in 25-50-$1 increments, single line. Is that not the case? Is that much different than what you're looking for? Not quite sure where the "1% edge" comes in it that you mentioned.
>

#36

Of course 8/5 Bonus stinks... but when it is the best game in the house, you have to count on mailers and multiple points to make it worthwhile... BARELY.
I have limited my play extensively at those places where 8/5 bonus is the best game int he place!
I want to stay on the mailing list. Waiting for some promo that might make it worthwhile.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mike" <melbedewy1226@...> wrote:

Some people here might call 8-5 a game for ploppers...

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "the7thwarrior" <Judy@> wrote:
>
>
> YES M has single line bonus poker up to $1.
> But you can't get any serious coin in for this game, as you lose too quickly. At least not with my $2000 bank roll for a sessions play.
>
> The game is 99.1% so just about a .9% house edge.
>
> But when you look at the 3x or 5x or 10x or any multi line game the game changes to 7/5 bonus poker. Or what I call the game for ploppers.
>
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "the7thwarrior" <Judy@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I for one just wish M would being back the 3x and 5x REGULAR 8/5 Bonus Poker.
> > >
> > > Forget this progressive. The only way to win is hit a Royal at it's peak. A 1/30,000 shot at it's best. Something I am competition with all the other players to do.
> > >
> > > Why not convince them to bring back multi line regular games with the 1% house edge! I lost enough playing these so called "good" games without trying a game with an astronomical variance!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > The vpfree database shows there is 8/5 BP in 25-50-$1 increments, single line. Is that not the case? Is that much different than what you're looking for? Not quite sure where the "1% edge" comes in it that you mentioned.
> >
>

#37

Could someone elaborate on what, "ploppers" means? I have not heard the term before.

Also, if I understand the sentiment in thread, some are suggesting that if one were to play negative expectancy machines with lower variance, they might have a better chance of winning than playing higher variance games with an edge?

A. I'm not sure that's what they meant. I emailed them privately asking for elaboration but have received no reply...so I'm guessing as to what they meant for certain.

B. If that is what they were saying, I believe depending on bankroll and the number of hands played, there could be a mathematical precedence for favoring the lower variance games. So in a sense they are correct.

I would add several things:

1. Obviously with infinite play and infinite bankroll the higher return game is always the better play...and let variance be dammed.

2. If we take a small fixed bankroll of $1,000, your chance of being ahead is slightly grater playing something like 8/5 BoPo. "Ahead how much???", would be the pregnant question.

3. If you were willing to lose $1,000 playing 8/5 BoPo, your chance to hit a RF would be greater than on a higher base-hold game, of course at the end of this trial you would only get a $1,000 JP and net somewhere between a $1-$1,000 profit.

4. The same $1,000 BR played on a very high progressive has a smaller chance of getting you to the RF, but if you did hit the big one you would be up potentially life altering amounts of money rather than back where you started.

5. And lastly, if you really only had $1,000 to gamble with, not gambling at all would likely be your most prudent course of action.

In summery, it is possible to make a solid mathematical case for a negative lower variance game being the better choice, but in so doing one must set the variables in such a way as to make "not gambling at all" an even better idea.

All this assumes that "winning" is your ultimate goal. If you play for fun disregard this post. Of course from a pro POV I would think hitting a really big progressive would be more "fun" than a garden variety non-progressive.

~FK

#38

I think we can all assume the word is "ploppy".

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:

Could someone elaborate on what, "ploppers" means? I have not heard the term before.

#39

Agreeing with Bob Bartop, that you probably mean "ploppies". You'll likely be hard-pressed to find an official definition - but this one from Chandler's post #46808 on 08/11/05 is about as good as any:

I have always taken it to mean an individual who "plops" on a stool infront of any table or machine, without regard for paytable, rules or strategy. Someone who chooses "where to play" randomly, and "how to play" cluelessly.

Neil M.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:

Could someone elaborate on what, "ploppers" means? I have not heard the term before.

#40

http://www.google.com/search?q=blackjack+ploppy

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@> wrote:

> Could someone elaborate on what, "ploppers" means? I have not heard the term before.
>

I think we can all assume the word is "ploppy".