bornloser1537 wrote:
I guess that my comment (question) on this is that why shouldn't your
"strategy" be to "pick up" the "progressive" (whatever it is) as
quickly as possible. You are not only playing against the clock. In
my opinion, the more important opponents are the other players who
are trying to get the "progressive" before you do.
I'm going to use this question as an opportunity to intersperse some
replies to some various comments in this thread. The discussion is
focussed on variations to play strategy. In consideration such
variations, it's important to clearly identify the variables at play
so that the most optimal choice is made.
With respect to bl's question, how you approach a progressive all
depends on what your goal is. In any case, since ideally it's not an
ego exercise (although I won't deny there's an element of that in a
hit for me ;), beating others to the punch is only a primary goal if
that supports an economic goal. However, depending upon your
approach, it can be a bit of a hare/tortoise situation.
What's been suggested in this thread is that maximizing ER (total
return/total wagers ... alternatively, max-EV per play) may not
maximize your total profit per turn at the progressive. A strategy
that seeks to maximize profit per turn will be less aggressive -- you
still play at a strong-ER for what is on average a longer period of
time ... with the right strategy, this will result in a greater EV
(however, simply going with a strategy based upon a 4000 cr meter will
likely reduce your EV). More comment on this following
Tom's/gambOOler's posts below.
mickeycrimm wrote (Flush Attack "Motel 6" plays):
Using Flush125 you are at 134.9% and will play
an average of 42 games to produce a flush.
Using Flush50 you are at 129% and will play an
average of 55 games to produce a flush.
34.9% of 42 is a yield of 14.658 bets.
29% of 55 is a yield of 15.95 bets.
So it appears that, in the case of Motel 6's,
max EV in not the best way to go.
Frankly, I'd argue that this is indeed targets a max-EV strategy ...
just not a max-ER one. (btw, my guess that there is another Flush
value that yields an even higher bet value.)
The fallacy that I believe Tom means to refer to below is not that
there are cases where max-EV strategy isn't appropriate ... instead,
that max-ER doesn't always get you to max-EV.
Remember, "max-EV per play" isn't the true focus of max-EV strategy
... an effective max-EV strategy will get you the max-EV for your play
during the course of your play over an extended period of time.
Therefore, strategies which may reduce your EV per play but extend
your length of play have the potential to increase your overall EV.
This may likely be the case identified here. However, there's a key
presumption in Mickey's assessment. He identifies that 1.3 bets can
be eked out by playing less aggressively. The tradeoff is that it
takes longer to do so. That additional effort isn't what's key --
it's that during that additional time he could be attacking another
play that might yield more than 1.3 bets in the additional time,
making the less aggressive strategy less optimal.
Of course, it's probably safe to assume that Mickey didn't have
another play at hand yielding that much value. The point is simply
that looking at the play in isolation could overlook external aspects
that might make what looks like a strategy to optimize EV actually
sub-optimal.
Tom Robertson wrote:
It surprises me how little understood this
principle is. Maximizing EV per hand often
has the effect of reducing it overall. Except
for the value of one's time, if, say, one has
a coupon that's good for an extra pay on a 4
of a kind, the value of the coupon shouldn't be
included in one's strategy, assuming that one
has a commitment to play until the coupon has
been used. It's more properly seen as that the
coupon is already worth the cash that it will
be redeemed for, so that the redemption is merely
seen as changing the form of that value rather
than the 4 of a kind having the extra value.
The cost of hitting a progressive jackpot in
the form of the meter resetting, for the same
reason, should make one's strategy on progressives
more conservative.
"Little understood" suggests misunderstood. It's more the case that
it's simply not on the front burner for most people. Rightfully so.
Getting the most out of VP play involves numerous challenges -- most
of greater magnitude and consequence than the concept of alternate
strategies. However, when you're on top of your game, it's an area
worth dabbling in.
Re your 4K bonus coupon example ... I expect I disagree with you.
Well, I'm with you to the extent of the wording "commitment to play
until the coupon has been used". There's no more "commitment" called
for in playing with a coupon than when playing any other good play.
If you don't hit under the coupon, it's no different than failing to
get a good hit on any other play. But, just as with a hypothetical
short term appearance of an unusually good play (say, $1 deuces), a
player will reasonably be induced to play more than they otherwise might.
However, it might be read into your comment that no strategy change is
appropriate. Under most any goal that seeks to increase value (not
necessarily max-ER), a strategy change that plays more aggressively
for the initial quad is called for if you plan to continue play on the
game subsequent to redemption. If, on the other hand, you intend to
abandon the game after hitting the quad (the base paytable is
unattractive in absence of the coupon, for example) it may or may not
be appropriate to play more aggressive for the quad -- again,
depending upon external variables.
Your final comment re a progressive alludes to the fact that once it's
hit the meter resets. Deferring that hit, meaning that you play
longer under a strong ER situation, may or may not improve your play
profitability ... but it has that possibility.
gamb00ler wrote:
> I strongly agree with Tom's suggestion of using
> a strategy other than the one that maximizes EV.
>
> For those interested in earlier discussions of
> Tom's point, search for posts by Steve Jacobs.
> He has long been a proponent of strategies that
> are derived by maximizing some other measure than
> expected value (EV).
>
> My personal preference is to use a less agressive
> strategy when playing progressives. I do this so
> that I will play more hours, making more money in
> total. The price I pay for this method is that
> my hourly win is less.
The crux of Steve's greatest emphasis was that there were alternatives
to max-ER. (Max-EV was of lesser focus, but he certainly put forth
that there are other legitimate goals than Max-ER, such as bankroll
conservation.)
One of Steve's progressive examples looks to maximize EV out of each
progressive hit by adopting a strategy that minimizes the drain
between hits. (Accomplished by playing a hypothetical max-ER strategy
for a meter at which the game ER would be 100%, no matter what the
actual mater.)
FWIW, I believe the progressive goal you state yields an alternate
strategy than Steve's min-cost strategy above and calls for another
derivation. In any case, as noted, whether you "make more money in
total" on all of your play (vs. just that of the progressive) if, of
course, dependent upon your other play opportunities.
···
------
As I prefaced, these comments are just to clarify the underlying
variables.
My general take on alternate strategies is that with the exception of
more some more dramatic examples, when you take a hard look at their
consequences vs. max-ER strategy, the differences can be markedly
modest (as is the case with Steve's min-cost progressive strategy).
- Harry