vpFREE2 Forums

Fiesta Rancho FPDW progressive MIA

#1

I was writing from the players perspective, not from the house's perspective.

I agree casinos are there to make money. Someone originally postulated that players would be better off with negative expectation games with progressives to make them positive than inherently positive games.

Again, I find that to be a bad trade from a players perspective.

···

--- On Tue, 5/12/09, nightoftheiguana2000 <nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: nightoftheiguana2000 <nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Fiesta Rancho FPDW progressive MIA
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 8:45 PM

I disagree. Progressives in any form are extremely popular with the gaming public the are not compatible with current casino "Loser's Only" policy. Casinos just can't stand the thought of even one player getting away a winner.. If I owned a casino I'd bring back games like 8/5 jacks with a 2% meter and other fun games for players and winners overall for the house.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Rob Reid <rreid0859@...> wrote:

I think a trade of inherently positive game for one that is inherently negative but becomes positive with progressives is a bad trade.
�
It goes back to the underlying problem with progressives.� You can't be in all the seats, all the time.�

--- On Tue, 5/12/09, bornloser1537 <bornloser1537@...> wrote:

From: bornloser1537 <bornloser1537@...>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Fiesta Rancho FPDW progressive MIA
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 4:26 PM

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bobbartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
>
> ... that particular bank had a progressive on top of an already positive base game ...
>
> -Bob Bartop

Yes, I hear you about this specific one.� But, my comments were meant to be more general.� For me, the base pay table would not have to be "super", just "reasonable", leaving the progressive nature of the machine to drive up the EV, sometimes even to more "interesting" levels.

...... bl

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

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

#2

If you are referring to my comments, please be aware that I made no such postulation.

You should go back to see what was written. I don't believe that I said anything about replacing positive expectation games with negative expectation games with progressives.

I was opining that negative expectation games with a progressive pay table was better than what was currently available where I usually play.

..... bl

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Rob Reid <rreid0859@...> wrote:

Someone originally postulated that players would be better off with negative expectation games with progressives to make them positive than inherently positive games.

Again, I find that to be a bad trade from a players perspective.

#3

Better than Harrah's "all negative games all the time" or Dancer's "extremely slow positive games only", which is the current trend. The key is games both players and the house like, which is progressives with good meter movement. Another good game would be 8/5 double double bonus poker with a 1% meter on the royal, 1% meter on the aces with kicker, and 1% meter on the 2-3-4's with kicker. Or 8/5 double double bonus poker plus with a 1% meter on the royal, 1% meter on the aces with kicker, and 1% meter on the other quads with Ace kicker. Make it 100 coin pennies and nickels to make it accessable to every gambling budget and make sure enough machines can be made available for peak times. If players can't get on, the casino is losing money.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Rob Reid <rreid0859@...> wrote:

I was writing from the players perspective, not from the house's perspective.
�
I agree casinos are there to make money. Someone originally postulated that players would be better off with negative expectation games with progressives to make them positive than inherently positive games.�
�
Again, I find that to be a bad trade from a players perspective.