Excellent!!!
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:
Yea there are some even better ideas that could make it good for all parties concerned. For instance progressives that go up on on total play in the casino rather than just play on that individual bank.
This way no one has to pump the meter when it's low.
Backup meters to avoid total reset, etc...
I've always thought something like that too. So let me see if I am on the same page.
First of all, the jackpot is "banked", so that is not the casino's money. And as the jackpot goes up, it is correct for the players to adjust their strategy, (i.e., break high pairs for RF3 draws, etc.) So the player makes money because the jackpot is high enough, and he adjusts his strategy.
On the other side of the coin, and at the same time, the casino makes money because the BASE game is still quite negative by itself. So even at the point where the jackpot makes the game break-even for the player, the casino continues to profit on subsequent action. And ALSO, if the player adjusts his strategy correctly, then the casino makes even more money off the base game and subsequent action. It's an interesting situation, because breaking the high pair to draw to a RF3 is better for the player AND the casino at the same time. Kinda difficult concept to grasp.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:
There's something you are all forgetting. As long as all the players on the bank aren't a single team playing a conservative strategy, fighting for the high progressive and playing for the high meters considerably increases the casino's rake. It's odd but what's good for the player is also good for the casino.
You could put in a 9/6 JoB game with .5% MR and still make money as long as the competition was adjusting their strategy "correctly".
This has to do with the dynamics of immediate expectancy vs long term profit.
Well you hit the nail on the head. It is so hard to grasp it is not in fact grasped by casino personnel.
~FK
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bobbartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:It's an interesting situation, because breaking the high pair to draw to a RF3 is better for the player AND the casino at the same time. Kinda difficult concept to grasp.
It's a clash of strategies. MaxEV strategy maximizes the average return of each hand on a hand by hand basis, but Min_Cost_Royal strategy minimizes the average cost of hitting a royal so it extracts the greatest value from each royal progressive jackpot. Steve Jacobs tried to explain this at one time:
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ_S.htm
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:
Well you hit the nail on the head. It is so hard to grasp it is not in fact grasped by casino personnel.
~FK
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bobbartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:It's an interesting situation, because breaking the high pair to draw to a RF3 is better for the player AND the casino at the same time. Kinda difficult concept to grasp.
The dual meter system that the Westward Ho had for their 9-6 JOB was a great idea.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:
Yea there are some even better ideas that could make it good for all parties concerned. For instance progressives that go up on on total play in the casino rather than just play on that individual bank.
This way no one has to pump the meter when it's low.
Backup meters to avoid total reset, etc...
~FK
Another way to put it: A lot of players will use MaxEV strategy on progressives, but that's actually the wrong strategy to use if your goal is to extract the largest value from the progressive jackpot. In that sense the casino makes money when players use MaxEV strategy on progressives. Even worse some players are overly aggressive and use something closer to the royal only strategy which maximizes their chance of hitting the royal but decreases everyones value in the play, that's another way casinos can make even more money on progressives. Again, anytime you force players to compete with each other, that's almost always a win for the casino. And usually the players consider it a win as well (a win-win situation) because they love to compete against each other. Players don't mind losing as much if they see it's possible to win and someone like them indeed does win. For example: state lotteries, very popular with players and very profitable for states.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
It's a clash of strategies. MaxEV strategy maximizes the average return of each hand on a hand by hand basis, but Min_Cost_Royal strategy minimizes the average cost of hitting a royal so it extracts the greatest value from each royal progressive jackpot. Steve Jacobs tried to explain this at one time:
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/FAQ_S.htm
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@> wrote:
>
> Well you hit the nail on the head. It is so hard to grasp it is not in fact grasped by casino personnel.
>
> ~FK
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bobbartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:It's an interesting situation, because breaking the high pair to draw to a RF3 is better for the player AND the casino at the same time. Kinda difficult concept to grasp.
>
MaxEV per hand VS. Max Value/Playtime
You know I had no idea anyone had even tried to explain this bizarre phenomenon outside of my book. Thank you for the heads up. I believe the explanation of this topic is better covered in my Book, but of course I took half a chapter to do it.
For those of you that are having trouble following nightoftheiguana's and my mutual back patting match, I recommend reading/re-reading all of Chapter 5 "Is That A calculator in Your Pocket, or are You Just Happy to See Me?" in my book. The main subheadings that cover it are: Zen & The Art of Preserving Play Time, Optimum-Play Number, and Opportunity Cost.
I knew it was a very hard to grasp concept, so I didn't skimp on the verbiage...not that I ever do.
For those of you that don't have a copy and never will, a couple of points.
1. This only applies to progressives
2. The main dynamic causing a strategy alteration to be both correct and wrong at the same time is the loss of playtime.
3. On a non-progressive you are free to hit as many Jackpots as you like during your designated play-time in the course of a day.
4. On a progressive it's great to hit the Jackpot, but as soon as you do, you're out of work (until the progressive gets up again).
5. It's like a temporarily 86ing yourself for hitting the Jackpot.
6. Therefore speeding up the 86ing process has its cost.
~FK
P.S. Here "couple" is defined as "6".
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote: It's a clash of strategies. MaxEV strategy maximizes the average return of each hand on a hand by hand basis, but Min_Cost_Royal strategy minimizes the average cost of hitting a royal so it extracts the greatest value from each royal progressive jackpot. Steve Jacobs tried to explain this at one time: