Bonus Deuces at Golden nugget

[John.G.Zaroff]

"kiwiboy4921" wrote ....

That's exactly what the percentages mean. For every $10 gambled the
meters increase by 2.6% or 26 cents.

Of course the base game only pays back 96.77%. What makes the game
playable is the round up on a four of kind (1c rounds up to 25c).
If you assume that 4oK is always 21 coins the base game is 98%. Add
on the other 2.1% from the progressives (not including 4oK) and you
get your return.

I did a couple of quick counts and got 2.5% for the progressive. I added them all up so there may be a 0.1%
rounding error in my number.

Kiwiboy, I don't think the average value of the progressives tells you very much except how
likely it is that the game will be playable when you walk up to it. Regardless of how quick the meter
moves, if the progressive values aren't very high, the game returns much less than 98% + 2.1%.
I think it's a mistake to treat this like a 100.1% game.

In jacks or better, quads come up every 423 hands on average. However, after about 293 hands, you
are as likely to hit a quad as not hit a quad. This number is about 69% of the average number. I would use this
number instead of the average number to figure out an 'equally likely ' value.

Also, you are not guaranteed to have at least 21 coins for the quads. The screen displays are slower than the
actual event. I have played that game, had the quads display $5.07 , hit the quads and only get 20 coins. If you are the first hand after the quad is hit and you hit the quads, you get 20 coins. I have also seen the meter at $5.00, got 3 of a kind dealt, waited til the meter hit $5.01, drew the quads and still got $5.00. Someone else snuck in a quad before I did.

It's a fun game to play and since Golden Nugget looks at time on the machine as well as coin in, it can be a very good comp play.

···

****************************************************************************************

Note: If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you.

****************************************************************************************

[brucem]

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Zaroff, John" <John.G.Zaroff@d...>
wrote:

Kiwiboy, I don't think the average value of the progressives tells

you very much except how

likely it is that the game will be playable when you walk up to it.

Regardless of how quick the meter

moves, if the progressive values aren't very high, the game returns

much less than 98% + 2.1%.

I think it's a mistake to treat this like a 100.1% game.

That's my reaction too. Still, the feed rate seems much higher than
normal, so this is probably a game that goes "positive" fairly often.
Also, with six progressives, most people won't know the return. That
works in favor of those who can figure it out ... play (or wait) nearby
until it goes positive. Let someone else drive it up.

Give me the paytable at reset and I'll setup a table so its easy to
determine the return.

[Wayne_Stocks]

I know that people value progressives differently. This is simply how
I value the game. In the longterm I believe that the progressive rate
will dictate the payback. While from time to time you might hit a high
value you also might hit it right after someone else hits.

Overall I think that the game is actually higher due to people playing
with incorrect strategy. I noticed the STFL was always higher than
normal (how many rookies hold Deuce + 2 STFL 1 gap?). Also when I was
playing there were 3 people playing short coin. Heaven!

Cheers

···

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Zaroff, John" <John.G.Zaroff@d...>
wrote:
> Kiwiboy, I don't think the average value of the progressives tells
you very much except how
> likely it is that the game will be playable when you walk up to it.
Regardless of how quick the meter
> moves, if the progressive values aren't very high, the game returns
much less than 98% + 2.1%.
> I think it's a mistake to treat this like a 100.1% game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That's my reaction too. Still, the feed rate seems much higher than
normal, so this is probably a game that goes "positive" fairly often.
Also, with six progressives, most people won't know the return. That
works in favor of those who can figure it out ... play (or wait) nearby
until it goes positive. Let someone else drive it up.

Give me the paytable at reset and I'll setup a table so its easy to
determine the return.

[Harry_Porter]

kiwiboy4921 wrote:

I know that people value progressives differently. This is simply
how I value the game. In the longterm I believe that the
progressive rate will dictate the payback. While from time to time
you might hit a high value you also might hit it right after someone
else hits.

Overall I think that the game is actually higher due to people
playing with incorrect strategy. I noticed the STFL was always
higher than normal (how many rookies hold Deuce + 2 STFL 1 gap?).
Also when I was playing there were 3 people playing short coin.
Heaven!

A little feedback (typed in haste, I'm due out the door):

Some of your statements are on target. From the casino's perspective,
speaking in rough numbers, it's clear that their expected payout
calculated from the meter reset value is increased by the progression
rate.

However, I wouldn't suggest that an individual player should calculate
their ER in that fashion. Their expected return is going to be a
function of the meter at the time they sit down and expected number of
hands played. (If you want, average these values over several
sessions to get an average ER.)

To best illustrate the distinction I'm making, I'll pass along an
example that was put to me by another player: Take a player who sits
down at a 9/6 Jacks machine with a 1% RF meter. They only take a seat
after reset, play exactly one hand and then walk away until the bank
is next hit. You'll hardly credit them with a 100.54% ER -- when they
hit a RF, they'll benefit from only a hand or two meter advance.

Alternatively, take a player who only takes a seat at the bank when
the meter is at 6400 cr. I'll suggest that their ER is the base
100.9% plus some fraction of the meter advance rate -- corresponding
to the fraction of a royal cycle of hands played on the bank while
they're playing (prior to a royal being hit).

There's room for refinement here. My point is that to add the full
meter rate to your ER is an overestimation.

As far as the effect of other player strategy on your ER, to the
extent that they play less aggressively for the jackpot they increase
the cycle for that hand on the bank as a whole and increase the
expected meter at which you'll hit on average -- increasing your ER.
Contrarily, if they play aggressively for the jackpot, they reduce
your ER. In either case, they increase the house hold from the game,
as is the case with any ER suboptimal strategy.

- Harry