vpFREE2 Forums

Fiesta Rancho Progressives Addenda

#1

I don't know how long they played (I was aware of their play for at
least a week), but I was told that they played around the clock for
around 2 weeks, and that they played slowly. I understood, but
didn't nail down, that they lost around $4000 overall, after taking
the $1900+ royal into consideration.

Also, I was told several days before they hit the royal that they
were down several thousand. My sources know the couple fairly well,
but whether they were reporting their results accurately is open to
conjecture.

···

On 17 Mar 2003 at 5:14, 1000MPH wrote:

Let's look at reality for a minute. Assuming 800 hpr and normal
distribution of the other hands, losing $4000 in FPDW would require
approx 400 hours or 320,000 hands without a royal.

#2

Gene Barringer wrote:

> Let's look at reality for a minute. Assuming 800 hpr and normal
> distribution of the other hands, losing $4000 in FPDW would require
> approx 400 hours or 320,000 hands without a royal.

I don't know how long they played (I was aware of their play for at
least a week), but I was told that they played around the clock for
around 2 weeks, and that they played slowly. I understood, but
didn't nail down, that they lost around $4000 overall, after taking
the $1900+ royal into consideration.

Also, I was told several days before they hit the royal that they
were down several thousand. My sources know the couple fairly well,
but whether they were reporting their results accurately is open to
conjecture.

With figures like that, a $4000 -- and even a $6000 -- pre-royal loss
starts taking on greater credibility. If they can be realistically be
expected to have logged 150-200 hours of play at a modest 500 hph
(well within what could be logged over 10 days), then I won't doubt
the numbers for a minute, although they're still on the fringes of
expected results.

What I'm curious about is whether anyone has a handle on the rate at
which that meter advances (% of coin-in). That would obviously give
us a decent rough estimate of just how much play they did log.

- Harry

#3

One last observation on this thread and then I'll put my mind back to
more constructive uses today. (But this report has fascinated me ...)

When the RF progression is considered, I imagine that this was a
theoretical $15/hr.+ opportunity at the point this couple grabbed the
machine.

I don't fault them for pushing for the final win, technically, since
I'm one of those guys who for the most part holds fast to the
"long-term vp play" argument.

However, there are damn few plays that I consider rare enough AND
valuable enough to slave over the way these guys did ... and this one
damn sure isn't one of them!

Hey, by all means grab the bull by the horns for a little excitement
in your play for a day. But unless someone has more data, this couple
frankly is just more than a little whacked out. (Somebody please tell
me that both of them work in the kitchen at a McDonald's and any
opportunity looks "up" from that perspective ...)

- Harry

#4

But unless someone has more data, this couple

frankly is just more than a little whacked out.<<

I'd been hoping that someone would question the wisdom of this couple's
play. If this couple were kitchen workers at McDonald's I would question
the wisdom even more. Someone financially well off might be forgiven for
that kind of chasing, since the net loss might not have much of an impact.

The math is no myth, but its promise can also be misleading. Even Ms Scott,
by commenting that "life is one long vp session," seems to admit that
despite the math, there is no sure thing. That some defend the approach
reportedly used by this couple is regretable.

Even when long term results fall within the SD, a win is not guaranteed.
Even if it was, it would be only in the long term, and not in the kind of
"extended" short term this couple's play involved. The results speak for
themselves.

Those who do not play many hours a day and so are less likely to benefit
from long term expectations should take note.

lb

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@verizon.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 9:26 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Fiesta Rancho Progressives Addenda

One last observation on this thread and then I'll put my mind back to
more constructive uses today. (But this report has fascinated me ...)

When the RF progression is considered, I imagine that this was a
theoretical $15/hr.+ opportunity at the point this couple grabbed the
machine.

I don't fault them for pushing for the final win, technically, since
I'm one of those guys who for the most part holds fast to the
"long-term vp play" argument.

However, there are damn few plays that I consider rare enough AND
valuable enough to slave over the way these guys did ... and this one
damn sure isn't one of them!

Hey, by all means grab the bull by the horns for a little excitement
in your play for a day. But unless someone has more data, this couple
frankly is just more than a little whacked out. (Somebody please tell
me that both of them work in the kitchen at a McDonald's and any
opportunity looks "up" from that perspective ...)

- Harry

vpFREE Links:
http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#5

Here's a coupla ideas...
2 weeks is 336 hours. Playing only 500 hph, that's $210,000 coin-in.
Subtract the $4k loss and you'd have about $515 cashback if this were at a
coast casino.

Assuming $210,000 coin-in and only an $800 rise in the meter that's about a
penny every 2 hands. About .4%

I'd take the cashback and no W2.

stu in sf
Thar she blows, the white whale...

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@verizon.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 8:55 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Fiesta Rancho Progressives Addenda

Gene Barringer wrote:
> > Let's look at reality for a minute. Assuming 800 hpr and normal
> > distribution of the other hands, losing $4000 in FPDW would require
> > approx 400 hours or 320,000 hands without a royal.
>
> I don't know how long they played (I was aware of their play for at
> least a week), but I was told that they played around the clock for
> around 2 weeks, and that they played slowly. I understood, but
> didn't nail down, that they lost around $4000 overall, after taking
> the $1900+ royal into consideration.
>
> Also, I was told several days before they hit the royal that they
> were down several thousand. My sources know the couple fairly well,
> but whether they were reporting their results accurately is open to
> conjecture.

With figures like that, a $4000 -- and even a $6000 -- pre-royal loss
starts taking on greater credibility. If they can be realistically be
expected to have logged 150-200 hours of play at a modest 500 hph
(well within what could be logged over 10 days), then I won't doubt
the numbers for a minute, although they're still on the fringes of
expected results.

What I'm curious about is whether anyone has a handle on the rate at
which that meter advances (% of coin-in). That would obviously give
us a decent rough estimate of just how much play they did log.

- Harry