vpFREE2 Forums

Bob and Frank's new Progressives

SO NOW M has removed MORE machines that were marginally playable for these "worthless" progressives.

They took out the ACES Bonus poker. I really wanted to get those A_C_E_S in order ONCE before I die, but now that they have removed all but 3 machines, I don't think I will have a shot at it.

BOOO HOOO!

Another reason to cross M off the list. Sad but true!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

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".
>

I've been talking to the7thwarrior about this and I believe I've cleared up her questions. Since none of you were privy to those private exchanges I thought I should summarize here.

She's upset that they removed some machines she was playing in lieu of a progressive that to her is useless because she isn't planning on playing it.

Here's what you need to know:

1. We pitched it to the M to ADD a progressive, not remove anything.
2. They did not consult with us at all as to what they would be replacing with the new progressive.
3. I am truly sorry that getting them to add something, caused the removal of anything any of you were playing.
4. Guess it had to go somewhere.
5. Unintended consequence.

If you don't play progressives then yes, a progressive of any type is "worthless" to you. If you do play high progressives, you should find some of the highest meters you've seen in awhile at the M soon.

They have under-seeded the progressive and it may take a few days to get up.

It appears to me that "the7thwarrior" might not understand all the particulars of progressive math, no shame in that. Progressive math is hard. I've been having a difficult time figuring out how to respond to her. Here's a quote from an email she sent me: I asked first if she minded me posting this.

···

---------------------------------------
the7thwarrior
So if a progressive is at 106% and there are 5 people playing, I figure it like this, only ONE person can hit that progressive. So 106% minus the base game say 96%, you have 10% extra due to the progressive, divided by the 5 people playing, you have a 2% edge added to the base game which makes it 98%...
------------------------------------------

Could one of the lurking math gurus out there please answer this for me. For the second time in a week I'm at a loss for words.

No contest this time, just my gratitude.

~FK

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

SO NOW M has removed MORE machines that were marginally playable for these "worthless" progressives.

They took out the ACES Bonus poker. I really wanted to get those A_C_E_S in order ONCE before I die, but now that they have removed all but 3 machines, I don't think I will have a shot at it.

BOOO HOOO!

Another reason to cross M off the list. Sad but true!

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@> wrote:
>
> 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".
> >
>

Sure. 106% is 106%... sorry, that's as far as my math goes. If your projections are correct it should be an interesting experiment.

Chandler

···

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

---------------------------------------
the7thwarrior
So if a progressive is at 106% and there are 5 people playing, I figure it like this, only ONE person can hit that progressive. So 106% minus the base game say 96%, you have 10% extra due to the progressive, divided by the 5 people playing, you have a 2% edge added to the base game which makes it 98%...
------------------------------------------

Could one of the lurking math gurus out there please answer this for me. For the second time in a week I'm at a loss for words.

via Frank, the7thwarrior writes:

So if a progressive is at 106% and there are 5 people playing, I
figure it like this, only ONE person can hit that progressive.

It is true that you would only have approximately a 1/5 chance of being
the lucky person who hits the progressive (assuming everyone plays at
the same speed with the same strategy adjustments etc.), but that is
irrelevant to your expectation.

If the expected value of the play is 106% with the bank all to yourself,
it is still 106% if there are 5, 10, or a thousand other people playing
the same bank.

Think about it this way: how do we calculate the expected return
of a game? By looking at the probability of various dealt hands,
figuring out which cards should be held from each of the possible deals,
then calculating the probability of various ending hands, and finally
multiplying those by their paytable values.

That being the case, the *only* thing that matters to your expected
return, is what the pay table reads when you press the DEAL button.
If someone else hits the progressive, you stop playing.

Or look at it another way: suppose there is a single 106% machine that
you have all to yourself. But before you can hit a royal, your spouse
comes by and says "You have to stop playing, we're going to dinner *now*"
and your spouse is not the sort of person you want to cross.

You had to stop playing before you hit the royal. Does this mean you
weren't playing at 106% like you thought you were? Of course not.

You may not be the one to hit the royal *this* time, but if you keep
making 106% bets, your long-term results will approach 106% of the
aggregate amount you wagered.

To peter: Outstanding reply. I could not have said it better. Thanks! I owe you one.

~FK

Frank wrote:

---------------------------------------
the7thwarrior
So if a progressive is at 106% and there are 5 people playing, I
figure it like this, only ONE person can hit that progressive. So
106% minus the base game say 96%, you have 10% extra due to the
progressive, divided by the 5 people playing, you have a 2% edge
added to the base game which makes it 98%...
------------------------------------------

Could one of the lurking math gurus out there please answer this
for me. For the second time in a week I'm at a loss for words.

No contest this time, just my gratitude.

This takes a bit of common sense ... not "guru" math ...

The "106%" ER is the average expected return for all play on the bank -- winning and losing ... not just the return expected by the one who successfully hits the progressive (that win, when expressed as a percentage of wagers over the course of session(s), will likely by higher.

If one were to apply 7thwarrior's "methodology", the one player on a bank of 5 players who can be expected to hit the progressive might be looking at an ER of something north of 150%, while the other unsuccessful players are looking at something south of 93%.

Maybe you were aware of more of these machines than I was, since all 10 of the ones near the buffet were still alive and well an hour ago and I didn't check the 3 that were near the sports book. I assume those are the 3 you're referring to.

It took a while to find the new progressives. I was looking for an overhead sign with meters. Will there be one? They're just outside that lounge in the middle of the casino. All 16 meters were around $50 over reset.

···

----- the7thwarrior <Judy@realtor.com> wrote:

SO NOW M has removed MORE machines that were marginally playable for these "worthless" progressives.

They took out the ACES Bonus poker. I really wanted to get those A_C_E_S in order ONCE before I die, but now that they have removed all but 3 machines, I don't think I will have a shot at it.

BOOO HOOO!

Another reason to cross M off the list. Sad but true!

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

>

> 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".

> >

>

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

Maybe they should have worked to put this in a bar setting. I still have complete faith that what they have done will work and be a success, for both the casino and the player. Just give it a little time to catch on. But I still am of the opinion that bars and progressives go well together.

No matter what happens, I think we've all got to applaud Bob and Frank for the effort.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:

It took a while to find the new progressives. I was looking for an overhead sign with meters. Will there be one? They're just outside that lounge in the middle of the casino. All 16 meters were around $50 over reset.

Yes there will be signs. They rushed it in before the signage was finished.

I went there tonight and played all the machines. Six of them had broken progressive links and weren't putting money on the meters. They are now turned off and should be working soon. They didn't reimburse be the $60 I spent checking for errors. No justice.

MR is as advertised on the working machines: 4%.

It is a pity so few people on vpFREE know how big a deal a 4% meter actually is.

Oh, and they are blazingly fast when set to highest speed. When it gets up it'll be a feeding frenzy.

So what do you think would be a good name:
1. The Rapid Hydra
2. Frankenstein's Monster

Hay, 007 if you need a team manager again, I might know someone:)

~FK

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote: Maybe you were aware of more of these machines than I was, since all 10 of the ones near the buffet were still alive and well an hour ago and I didn't check the 3 that were near the sports book. I assume those are the 3 you're referring to.

It took a while to find the new progressives. I was looking for an overhead sign with meters. Will there be one? They're just outside that lounge in the middle of the casino. All 16 meters were around $50 over reset.

"The Ploppy's Pitfall"
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...

···

So what do you think would be a good name:
1. The Rapid Hydra
2. Frankenstein's Monster

Hay, 007 if you need a team manager again, I might know someone:)

~FK

Bob and Frank's Gambling with an Edge Video Game

···

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

So what do you think would be a good name:
1. The Rapid Hydra
2. Frankenstein's Monster

Speaking on behalf of recreationally experienced but not super-technical players, I think there is a failure to recognize some of truth in the7thwarrior's complaint about playing progressives, generally. Sure, 106% EV is 106% EV, but you're gonna hit it or you ain't, and if you ain't, you're gonna pay---dearly---for the attempt. In other words, the volatility (variance) is much, much higher than whatever the game itself would normally be, and it is VERY possible that, on the few occasions the meter gets high enough, and you can find a seat, and you can play for 40 hours without sleeping, eating, or peeing (lest you lose your seat, unless you have help), that overall you just can't get enough plays in to even out that variance. For a recreational player who if lucky could play, say, 10 hours a year in a positive progressive situation, it is easy to see that player play an otherwise 97% game for life without ever hitting that royal. And that's going to be expensive. I've read many times in this forum stories about going 4-5 cycles without hitting a royal, and if you're in that unfortunate 2nd or 3rd standard deviation to the left, you're going to get killed playing these even if you are able to get a lot of hands in. So progressives serve to benefit either the very fortunate (over-royaled) or the very organized who make it their business to pounce on the opportunities when they arise. For those folks, they'd better hope there will be enough "ploppies" to play 97% games with 4100 coin royals, because you won't see people like me pumping them up over the weekend.

···

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

To peter: Outstanding reply. I could not have said it better. Thanks! I owe you one.

~FK

At the current rate of progression, the Ploppies are NOT doing their job. $20/day increase means it is going to take MONTHS for these to be playable.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mr_hat" <mr_hat_1@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@> wrote:
>
> To peter: Outstanding reply. I could not have said it better. Thanks! I owe you one.
>
> ~FK
>

Speaking on behalf of recreationally experienced but not super-technical players, I think there is a failure to recognize some of truth in the7thwarrior's complaint about playing progressives, generally. Sure, 106% EV is 106% EV, but you're gonna hit it or you ain't, and if you ain't, you're gonna pay---dearly---for the attempt. In other words, the volatility (variance) is much, much higher than whatever the game itself would normally be, and it is VERY possible that, on the few occasions the meter gets high enough, and you can find a seat, and you can play for 40 hours without sleeping, eating, or peeing (lest you lose your seat, unless you have help), that overall you just can't get enough plays in to even out that variance. For a recreational player who if lucky could play, say, 10 hours a year in a positive progressive situation, it is easy to see that player play an otherwise 97% game for life without ever hitting that royal. And that's going to be expensive. I've read many times in this forum stories about going 4-5 cycles without hitting a royal, and if you're in that unfortunate 2nd or 3rd standard deviation to the left, you're going to get killed playing these even if you are able to get a lot of hands in. So progressives serve to benefit either the very fortunate (over-royaled) or the very organized who make it their business to pounce on the opportunities when they arise. For those folks, they'd better hope there will be enough "ploppies" to play 97% games with 4100 coin royals, because you won't see people like me pumping them up over the weekend.

They should have primed the pump first by upping the royals to make it at least 100% payback from the start and filled the seats.

Because nothing draws a crowd, like a crowd.

- My Two Cents

···

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

At the current rate of progression, the Ploppies are NOT doing their job. $20/day increase means it is going to take MONTHS for these to be playable.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mr_hat" <mr_hat_1@> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@> wrote:
> >
> > To peter: Outstanding reply. I could not have said it better. Thanks! I owe you one.
> >
> > ~FK
> >
>
> Speaking on behalf of recreationally experienced but not super-technical players, I think there is a failure to recognize some of truth in the7thwarrior's complaint about playing progressives, generally. Sure, 106% EV is 106% EV, but you're gonna hit it or you ain't, and if you ain't, you're gonna pay---dearly---for the attempt. In other words, the volatility (variance) is much, much higher than whatever the game itself would normally be, and it is VERY possible that, on the few occasions the meter gets high enough, and you can find a seat, and you can play for 40 hours without sleeping, eating, or peeing (lest you lose your seat, unless you have help), that overall you just can't get enough plays in to even out that variance. For a recreational player who if lucky could play, say, 10 hours a year in a positive progressive situation, it is easy to see that player play an otherwise 97% game for life without ever hitting that royal. And that's going to be expensive. I've read many times in this forum stories about going 4-5 cycles without hitting a royal, and if you're in that unfortunate 2nd or 3rd standard deviation to the left, you're going to get killed playing these even if you are able to get a lot of hands in. So progressives serve to benefit either the very fortunate (over-royaled) or the very organized who make it their business to pounce on the opportunities when they arise. For those folks, they'd better hope there will be enough "ploppies" to play 97% games with 4100 coin royals, because you won't see people like me pumping them up over the weekend.
>

laserjobs wrote:

They should have primed the pump first by upping the royals to make
it at least 100% payback from the start and filled the seats.

Because nothing draws a crowd, like a crowd.

Well, I don't know about "100%", but meters that at least make you "sit up and take notice at first glance" would have been a good start.

But, any such seed money would be money down the tubes wasted on the first to hit and not a good indicator of the longer-term viability of the bank (which is what I'd be most interested in, were I the casino).

Truth is, I imagine it should only take a couple of active casino weekends for ploppy play to move the quarter meters to $1500+. The meters are likely to take off from there at that point, despite the underlying paytables. Some good signage will help.

Not really a great shock. With horrible variance no one knowledgeable will play these games at 97%....or 98% or 99% for that matter.
Ploppies are going to get sodomized by this game and swear off it quickly-very quickly. Think about it-without a RF or SF what are we talking about here-about a 92% game? Might be better of at Wheel-Of-FORTUNE! LOL.
Nice try though. How about NSUD with dual .25% meters and no place to even stick in a players card. Start it off the first time at 100%.

···

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

At the current rate of progression, the Ploppies are NOT doing their job. $20/day increase means it is going to take MONTHS for these to be playable.

i haven't noticed any shortage of people playing triple double bonus...

cheers,

five

···

<melbedewy1226@hotmail.com> wrote:

Not really a great shock. With horrible variance no one knowledgeable will play these games at 97%....or 98% or 99% for that matter.
Ploppies are going to get sodomized by this game and swear off it quickly-very quickly. Think about it-without a RF or SF what are we talking about here-about a 92% game?

Speaking on behalf of recreationally experienced but not super-technical
players, I think there is a failure to recognize some of truth in
the7thwarrior's complaint about playing progressives, generally.

I don't think there's any such failure at all.

Sure, 106% EV is 106% EV, but you're gonna hit it or you ain't, and
if you ain't, you're gonna pay---dearly---for the attempt.

Sure. Did anyone say otherwise? I haven't seen anyone claim that just
because a play is 106%, your return for any session on that play will
be 106%.

···

On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:35 AM, mr_hat <mr_hat_1@123mail.org> wrote:

I've never heard of it. I see from vpgenius it is a 99.5% game. How does that compare to these horrid under 97% games at M?

···

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

<melbedewy1226@...> wrote:

i haven't noticed any shortage of people playing triple double bonus...

cheers,

five

[talking about Triple Double Bonus]

I've never heard of it. I see from vpgenius it is a 99.5% game. How
does that compare to these horrid under 97% games at M?

The point is, TDB has ridiculously high variance. Also he never
said specifically full pay TDB.

This is in response to your statement: "With horrible variance no one
knowledgeable will play these games at 97%....or 98% or 99% for that
matter."

You were replying to a discussion about ploppies not playing the new
progressives at the M. First off, do you consider ploppies knowledgeable?
Second, given that people play TDB, full pay or otherwise, your statement
is empirically wrong.

···

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:55 AM, mike <melbedewy1226@hotmail.com> wrote: