vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's LVA - 8 SEP 2015

#21

According to Frank Kneeland, the best strategy when a team has a bank locked up is based on a 100% game. For 9/6 Jacks that would be a 4880 coin royal. It drops the royal frequency down in the 36,000's. The effect is you are milking the meter for all it's worth.

I believe Frank understands that meter movement should also be
incorporated, so that the optimal strategy for such a team, with many
idealistic assumptions, is to play at 100%, including meter movement,
so that, with a 1% meter, they'd play as if the royal made the overall
payback 99%.

#22

Has anyone heard from Frank or have an email address for him? I'm trying to
send him something.

Thanks for any help.

Scot

···

From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 4:25 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LVA - 8 SEP 2015

  >According to Frank Kneeland, the best strategy when a team has a bank
locked up is based on a 100% game. For 9/6 Jacks that would be a 4880 coin
royal. It drops the royal frequency down in the 36,000's. The effect is you
are milking the meter for all it's worth.

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

#23

I don't believe 007's assertion here is correct ...

Playing a game with a RF value targeted to a 100% EV achieves a min-cost RF strategy. In other words, you maximize the profit of the endeavor by minimizing the expected cost between royals.

The meter advance has no impact on that cost, therefore is irrelevant to that strategy.

- H.

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

>According to Frank Kneeland, the best strategy when a team has a bank locked up is based on a 100% game. For 9/6 Jacks that would be a 4880 coin royal. It drops the royal frequency down in the 36,000's. The effect is you are milking the meter for all it's worth.

I believe Frank understands that meter movement should also be
incorporated, so that the optimal strategy for such a team, with many
idealistic assumptions, is to play at 100%, including meter movement,
so that, with a 1% meter, they'd play as if the royal made the overall
payback 99%.

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

#24

You could be right about that. I just assumed he was talking about a 100% game without including the meter.

#25

Keep in mind that playing less aggressively increases the meter
movement per royal. It's easy to check out. Playing at a royal that
makes the payback 99% increases the cost, but increases the jackpot by
even more.

Harry wrote:

···

I don't believe 007's assertion here is correct ...

Playing a game with a RF value targeted to a 100% EV achieves a min-cost RF strategy. In other words, you maximize the profit of the endeavor by minimizing the expected cost between royals.

The meter advance has no impact on that cost, therefore is irrelevant to that strategy.

- H.

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

>According to Frank Kneeland, the best strategy when a team has a bank locked up is based on a 100% game. For 9/6 Jacks that would be a 4880 coin royal. It drops the royal frequency down in the 36,000's. The effect is you are milking the meter for all it's worth.

I believe Frank understands that meter movement should also be
incorporated, so that the optimal strategy for such a team, with many
idealistic assumptions, is to play at 100%, including meter movement,
so that, with a 1% meter, they'd play as if the royal made the overall
payback 99%.

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

#26

Thanks for the push ... as you note, the calcs for a few examples are readily worked out.

My "gut sense" failed me on this one. Yes, a strategy based on a RF value that yields an ER = (100% - meter advance rate) optimizes the net payback.

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

Keep in mind that playing less aggressively increases the meter
movement per royal. It's easy to check out. Playing at a royal that
makes the payback 99% increases the cost, but increases the jackpot by
even more.

Harry wrote:

> I don't believe 007's assertion here is correct …
>
>Playing a game with a RF value targeted to a 100% EV achieves a min-cost RF strategy. In other words, you maximize the profit of the endeavor by minimizing the expected cost between royals.
>
>The meter advance has no impact on that cost, therefore is irrelevant to that strategy.
>
>- H.
>
>—In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com mailto:vpF…@…com, <007@…> wrote :
>
> >According to Frank Kneeland, the best strategy when a team has a bank locked up is based on a 100% game. For 9/6 Jacks that would be a 4880 coin royal. It drops the royal frequency down in the 36,000's. The effect is you are milking the meter for all it's worth.
>
> I believe Frank understands that meter movement should also be
> incorporated, so that the optimal strategy for such a team, with many
> idealistic assumptions, is to play at 100%, including meter movement,
> so that, with a 1% meter, they'd play as if the royal made the overall
> payback 99%.
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

#27

I'm lost. Would anyone care to dumb this down for me? Thanks.

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

Thanks for the push ... as you note, the calcs for a few examples are readily worked out.

My "gut sense" failed me on this one. Yes, a strategy based on a RF value that yields an ER = (100% - meter advance rate) optimizes the net payback.

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

#28

The value of a progressive play is maximized if the jackpot is assumed
to be at the point at which the payback is 100%, including meter
movement. This assumes that there's no chance of quitting the play,
getting kicked off, or running out of money and there will be no
competition and no other reason that the player won't have it all to
himself until he hits it. It also assumes there is no cost to the
additional time spent by playing more conservatively and that no
players on the team will get paid, make any mistakes, steal, etc.
Take 9/6 Jacks or Better with a 1% meter. It doesn't matter how high
it is. A 5 x $1 non-progressive breaks even at around $4872 and pays
back 99% at something like $2900. Playing as if the meter were fixed
at $2900 maximizes the value of the play.

···

I'm lost. Would anyone care to dumb this down for me? Thanks.

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

Thanks for the push ... as you note, the calcs for a few examples are readily worked out.

My "gut sense" failed me on this one. Yes, a strategy based on a RF value that yields an ER = (100% - meter advance rate) optimizes the net payback.

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

#29

Thank you.

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

The value of a progressive play is maximized if the jackpot is assumed
to be at the point at which the payback is 100%, including meter
movement. This assumes that there's no chance of quitting the play,
getting kicked off, or running out of money and there will be no
competition and no other reason that the player won't have it all to
himself until he hits it. It also assumes there is no cost to the
additional time spent by playing more conservatively and that no
players on the team will get paid, make any mistakes, steal, etc.
Take 9/6 Jacks or Better with a 1% meter. It doesn't matter how high
it is. A 5 x $1 non-progressive breaks even at around $4872 and pays
back 99% at something like $2900. Playing as if the meter were fixed
at $2900 maximizes the value of the play.

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

#30

This is min-cost-royal strategy. It works for non-progressives as well. In addition to counting the meter rate (zero for non-progressives or a progressive that has hit the cap) you also count all incentives, like cash back, estimated future mailers, estimated drawing values, sales from casino swag on ebay, and so on. Over 2.05% the royal is zero, which is the strategy that maximizes the return of the non-royal hands.

Summary:

at zero incentives, set Royal = 974 bets
at 1% incentives, set Royal = 580 bets
at 2% incentives, set Royal = 50 bets (same as straight flush)
over 2.05% incentives, set Royal = 0 (max-non-royals strategy)

Put these royal values into a strategy generator like the wizard's and you get min-cost-royal strategy.

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

#31

Again, please dumb it down for me one more time. Is this scenario ONLY when you have the jackpot locked up, either as a team or with someone to trade off with you but not let any outsiders gain access? Thanks.

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

This is min-cost-royal strategy. It works for non-progressives as well. In addition to counting the meter rate (zero for non-progressives or a progressive that has hit the cap) you also count all incentives, like cash back, estimated future mailers, estimated drawing values, sales from casino swag on ebay, and so on. Over 2.05% the royal is zero, which is the strategy that maximizes the return of the non-royal hands.

Summary:

at zero incentives, set Royal = 974 bets
at 1% incentives, set Royal = 580 bets
at 2% incentives, set Royal = 50 bets (same as straight flush)
over 2.05% incentives, set Royal = 0 (max-non-royals strategy)

Put these royal values into a strategy generator like the wizard's and you get min-cost-royal strategy.

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

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

#32

Wait a minute, my own question is confusing me. You included non-progressives too. My head hurts.

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

Again, please dumb it down for me one more time. Is this scenario ONLY when you have the jackpot locked up, either as a team or with someone to trade off with you but not let any outsiders gain access? Thanks.

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

#33

I'll intercede for just a second ...

Relax. Min-cost RF strategy has been discussed here a few times before (and details are included in the group FAQ).

It applies to any play. Progressives represent a special case.

Generally speaking, application to a standard play doesn't result in largely significant strategy changes (or "appreciable" added expected win/RF -- I'll define "appreciable" as meaning little change to your overall ROR ... note: noti may likely differ in perception of what "little" represents).

The preceding tends to be true because you're likely playing a near 100% (say 99%+) game already. However, if (for example) you're playing a 98% game with 2% in added cash benefits, then the concept can again be quite relevant.

Strategy adoption with progressives presume a "monopoly" situation because if you're going to factor in the benefit of a 1% or 2% meter as an "absolute", you'd pretty much better have the ultimate win locked up. (I imagine you might augment the math to factor "probability of win", but I don't believe that's been discussed here.)

I'll turn the discussion back to whoever cares to add :wink:

- H.

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

Wait a minute, my own question is confusing me. You included non-progressives too. My head hurts.

—In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com mailto:vpF…@…com, <bobbartop@…> wrote :

Again, please dumb it down for me one more time. Is this scenario ONLY when you have the jackpot locked up, either as a team or with someone to trade off with you but not let any outsiders gain access? Thanks.

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

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

#34

I think I finally have grasped the concept. In 9/6 Jacks, using a strategy based on a 4000 coin royal the frequency is 40,391. That would be the 99.54% version. You would be taking a 2.45% drop between royals.

Using a strategy based on a 2888 coin royal (this would be a 99% game, not including the 1% meter) stretches the royal odds out to 47,245. But you would only be taking a 2.18% drop between royals.

The 99.54% version has a cost of $4950 per royal. The 99% version has a cost of $5150 per royal. That's a $200 difference. But with the 99% version you would generate an extra $343 in meter movement per royal.

This would hardly seem worth it to me. But I think Frank was working in the era when there were lots of stronger meters. I think they were playing a lot of 8/5 Jacks with 2% and 3% meters.

The strongest royal meter I've ever seen was on a bank of 2 Pair Pays Even Money Tens or Better at Harvey's in Lake Tahoe in the late nineties. This game was just 90% but it had a 10% royal meter on it. I seen at least one team working that bank.

And I think Frank said that they only used the min-cost strategy when things were slow. If they had another location to send the team to after the royal was hit they wouldn't use it. .

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

#35

Excellent post, Mickey! That is a really clear way of looking at it.

--Dunbar

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

I think I finally have grasped the concept. In 9/6 Jacks, using a strategy based on a 4000 coin royal the frequency is 40,391. That would be the 99.54% version. You would be taking a 2.45% drop between royals.

Using a strategy based on a 2888 coin royal (this would be a 99% game, not including the 1% meter) stretches the royal odds out to 47,245. But you would only be taking a 2.18% drop between royals.

The 99.54% version has a cost of $4950 per royal. The 99% version has a cost of $5150 per royal. That's a $200 difference. But with the 99% version you would generate an extra $343 in meter movement per royal.

This would hardly seem worth it to me. But I think Frank was working in the era when there were lots of stronger meters. I think they were playing a lot of 8/5 Jacks with 2% and 3% meters.

The strongest royal meter I've ever seen was on a bank of 2 Pair Pays Even Money Tens or Better at Harvey's in Lake Tahoe in the late nineties. This game was just 90% but it had a 10% royal meter on it. I seen at least one team working that bank.

And I think Frank said that they only used the min-cost strategy when things were slow. If they had another location to send the team to after the royal was hit they wouldn't use it. .

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

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

#36

Another example, say you were going to play Airport Deuces (800-200-25-15-9-4-4-3-2-1) at LAS, which is almost a 99% return game with no slot club, a game that is hard to find at the posh strip hotels. The breakeven royal is about 1200 bets. If you were dealt a one deuce wild royal, you would drop the deuce and go for the royal. If there was a reasonable slot club and you had time, you would keep the wild royal.

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

#37

And I would be doing this because why? I'm at an airport?

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

Another example, say you were going to play Airport Deuces (800-200-25-15-9-4-4-3-2-1) at LAS, which is almost a 99% return game with no slot club,

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

#38

Wait a minute, my own question is confusing me. You included non-progressives too. My head hurts.

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

Again, please dumb it down for me one more time. Is this scenario ONLY when you have the jackpot locked up, either as a team or with someone to trade off with you but not let any outsiders gain access? Thanks.

It's just a matter of what costs are associated with hitting jackpots.
They're often hard to quantify. How hitting jackpots will affect what
mailers you'll get is usually hard to say. Some casinos may go out of
their way to invite people who have hit jackpots back. The cost of
hitting a progressive jackpot depends on how good the progressive was,
how much competition there was, how much longer you would have played,
what else you could be doing, etc. It may be hard to quantify, but
it's difficult to imagine there being no cost.

#39

OK, so you don't play at the airport. Let's say you're considering playing at a casino near Chinatown that has triple bonus plus. You figure the total incentives are worth about a percent and you're not at all concerned about getting backed off for hitting too many royal flushes (if you were concerned you should probably be playing max-non-royals strategy found by setting the royal to 0). So, triple bonus plus and a percent incentives is about a net 0.8%. Using the wizard's strategy generator, figure out what level of royal results in 99.2% return, try something like 500. The strategy you get is min-cost-royal strategy for this situation. Have fun!

Summary: to minimize the cost of a royal, play more aggressively for the royal if you have an underlay and less aggressively if you have an overlay.

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

#40

OK, so you don't play at the airport. Let's say you're considering playing at a casino near Chinatown that has triple bonus plus. You figure the total incentives are worth about a percent and you're not at all concerned about getting backed off for hitting too many royal flushes (if you were concerned you should probably be playing max-non-royals strategy found by setting the royal to 0). So, triple bonus plus and a percent incentives is about a net 0.8%. Using the wizard's strategy generator, figure out what level of royal results in 99.2% return, try something like 500. The strategy you get is min-cost-royal strategy for this situation. Have fun!

Summary: to minimize the cost of a royal, play more aggressively for the royal if you have an underlay and less aggressively if you have an overlay.

If you're not concerned about being backed off for hitting jackpots,
why not use max-EV strategy? If you'd prefer the Kelly optimal
strategy to max-EV, I'd bet that the Kelly optimal strategy would
generally be closer to max-EV than min-cost-royal.