I don't like the way I wrote this sentence. I think it SHOULD SAY
Player A has an expectation of about $5 more per hour than Player B,
but also has an expected loss rate of $21 more per hour than Player B.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
Player A makes about $5 an hour more than Player B. But Player A's
loss rate between royals is about $21 an hour higher than Player B.
Player A has an expectation of about $5 more per hour than Player B,
but also has an expected loss rate BETWEEN ROYALS of $21 more per hour
than Player B.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
Player A has an expectation of about $5 more per hour than Player B,
but also has an expected loss rate of $21 more per hour than Player B.Okay, I'll try it again!
Both players only play when the Royal is at $6000. But they use
different strategies. I used perfect cycles to come up with the
numbers. Which strategy would you use?
What I'd do would depend on other factors, competition being the
primary one. If I were in Timbuktu, Montana, no one around me could
afford to play $5, and 40 pros weren't on their way to play it every
time it got up to $6000, I'd at least lean toward strategy B,
especially if it was the only game in town, since I'd bear the entire
cost of hitting the jackpot. In Las Vegas, I'd use strategy A. Not
that it was a significant factor, but is there really that big a
difference in variance?
Mickey,
Excellent example. Perhaps we could add one more item to the list.
Extra coin-in (40,391 - 33,202 hands) times $5 equals $35,945 on
average. This could mean more comps, cash back, and coupons from
this casino assuming there is no other equal or better play available
for player B. If this is the only good play, the less aggressive
strategy has a lot more appeal.
Chris
Both players only play when the Royal is at $6000. But they use
different strategies. I used perfect cycles to come up with the
numbers. Which strategy would you use?Player A uses the 6000 coin Royal strategy--and never changes.
It produces a royal every 33,202 hands.
The Variance is 47.
Theoretical is 100.6513% plus .5% meter.
The royal represents 3.61% of the payback.
Loss rate between royals is 2.9587%.
He plays at a constant 800 hands per hour.
Loss rate between royals in hard currency: $118.35 per hour.
He will make a royal every 41.5 hours (33,202 divided by 800)
Cost to produce royal: $4912 (33,202 X 5 X 2.9587%)
He will put $830 in meter per royal. (33,202 X 5 X .5%)
Average royal will be: $6830
Average profit: $1918
Hourly Rate: $46.22 per hour.PLAYER B uses the 4000 coin Royal Strategy--and never changes.
It produces a royal every 40,391 hands.
The Variance is 19.
Theoretical is 100.5342 plus .5% meter.
The royal represents 2.97% of the payback.
Loss rate between royals is 2.4361%.
He plays a constant 800 hands per hour.
Loss rate between royals in hard currency: $97.44 per hour
He will make a royal every 50.5 hours (40,391 divided by 800)
Cost to produce royal: $4920
He will put $1010 in the meter per royal. (40,391 X 5 X .5%)
Average royal will be: $7010
Average profit: $2090
Hourly Rate: $41.39 per hour.Player A makes about $5 an hour more than Player B. But Player A's
loss rate between royals is about $21 an hour higher than Player
B.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
Which strategy should YOU use? That's up to you.
mickeycrimm wrote:
Okay, I'll try it again!
Player A has an expectation of about $5 more per hour than Player B,
but also has an expected loss rate BETWEEN ROYALS of $21 more per
hour than Player B.
I'll bite.
If you're an active player and you're considering giving up over 10%
of your expected return over the long haul in order to conserve $21/hr
during those hours in which you don't hit, then I suggest that you're
insufficiently bankrolled for the play and that ROR considerations
advise against play under either strategy. (For clarity's sake: under
the aggressive strategy you recoup $26/hr, on average, against that
conservative strategy each time you hit)
Tom Robertson wrote:
What I'd do would depend on other factors, competition being the
primary one. If I were in Timbuktu, Montana, no one around me could
afford to play $5, and 40 pros weren't on their way to play it every
time it got up to $6000, I'd at least lean toward strategy B,
especially if it was the only game in town, since I'd bear the entire
cost of hitting the jackpot. In Las Vegas, I'd use strategy A. Not
that it was a significant factor, but is there really that big a
difference in variance?
I find that a rather odd perspective. In many respects a progressive
is no different than any other attractive, high variance play. Do you
approach all high variance plays similarly (with inclination to the
more conservative hour loss, longer royal cycle "strategy B"? When
taken in aggregate, are you sure that this conservativeness doesn't
suggest that you're overplaying your bankroll?
In almost all cases, I suggest that when you compare ROR bankroll
requirements for the plays, the numbers don't shift by more than 5%
(and more likely less than 2%) under max-EV/ER strategy and the more
conservative strategy suggested. (At least this was the case under
scenarios outlined when the "min-loss" royal strategy was introduced
here by Steve Jacobs.)
Interestingly, the more conservative strategy was put forth as one for
consideration in the "competitive" progressive bank scenario ... the
one in which you're inclined to play aggressively. The idea was that
since hitting the royal was a more risky prospect than a stand alone
play, you may want to hedge your bets and reduce your loss during
those times you don't hit.
Chris (kcace) wrote:
Excellent example. Perhaps we could add one more item to the list.
Extra coin-in (40,391 - 33,202 hands) times $5 equals $35,945 on
average. This could mean more comps, cash back, and coupons from
this casino assuming there is no other equal or better play available
for player B. If this is the only good play, the less aggressive
strategy has a lot more appeal.
On a competitive progressive bank, using a less aggressive strategy
won't buy you appreciably greater play time. Other players will hit
the progressive at the same rate, and your lower cycle will only
proportionately reduce the cycle. (If you play extends your own cycle
by 20%, but there are 4 others on the bank on average, then on average
you'll only buy yourself 4% more play).
In the case of a stand-alone progressive, under a scenario where you
look to largely hog the machine until it hits, what you suggest has
some merit. But bear mind that under Mickey's less aggressive
strategy B, net profit is smaller than under A. That means that the
increased comps must by sufficient to overcome that shortfall.
Depending on variables, that may or may not be the case. In any
event, you're now suggesting an alternate goal for which there will be
yet another optimal strategy (different than Mickey's A or B).
- Harry
>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.
As Harry pointed out, it depends on what your goal is. Hitting
progressives as quickly as possible would mean disregarding all costs
of hitting them. I assume you didn't really mean that. Assuming the
goal is to maximize money won per, say, year, rather than per hour,
the duration of progressives must be taken into account. Just as not
playing as aggressively for the flush as the flush pays in the "Motel
6" flush attack situation optimizes that value, so must the value of
hitting a progressive meter take into account what is lost in the
process of hitting it. The very fact that one is playing for a
progressive and will quit after it is hit means that value is lost if
it is hit, regardless of who hits it.
I have to (again) refer to my gross naivete when it comes to VP and, especially, to
"progressives" when i asked that question. For simplicity, I am only here talking about the
RF being the sole "progressive item".
In essence, my understanding of "progressives" is that each is a "bad" play, only
temporarily made "good" because of what I will refer to as a "positive and increasing RF".
In my naive sense, I understood that the only reason that one plays a progressive is that it
is "temporarily positive". But, it is only "positive" because of the (increasing) value of the
RF. And, once the progressive has been "hit", there is no longer a reason to play it.
Therefore, I asked the simple (minded) question as to why is the strategy not to "hit" the
progressive as quickly as possible, i.e., before someone else hits it. I do not know
specifically what that strategy might be, but it just seemed "natural" to me that you play,
trying mightily for the RF, until it "hits" (trying to hit it yourself), and then go off and do
something else. Only if YOU hit it, would it have been a "worthwhile" endeavor.
This is probably a way too simplistic way to look at it.
..... bl
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <madameguyon@...> wrote:
Both players only play when the Royal is at $6000. But they use
different strategies. I used perfect cycles to come up with the
numbers. Which strategy would you use?Player A uses the 6000 coin Royal strategy--and never changes.
It produces a royal every 33,202 hands.
The Variance is 47.
Theoretical is 100.6513% plus .5% meter.
The royal represents 3.61% of the payback.
Loss rate between royals is 2.9587%.
He plays at a constant 800 hands per hour.
Loss rate between royals in hard currency: $118.35 per hour.
He will make a royal every 41.5 hours (33,202 divided by 800)
Cost to produce royal: $4912 (33,202 X 5 X 2.9587%)
He will put $830 in meter per royal. (33,202 X 5 X .5%)
Average royal will be: $6830
Average profit: $1918
Hourly Rate: $46.22 per hour.PLAYER B uses the 4000 coin Royal Strategy--and never changes.
It produces a royal every 40,391 hands.
The Variance is 19.
Theoretical is 100.5342 plus .5% meter.
The royal represents 2.97% of the payback.
Loss rate between royals is 2.4361%.
He plays a constant 800 hands per hour.
Loss rate between royals in hard currency: $97.44 per hour
He will make a royal every 50.5 hours (40,391 divided by 800)
Cost to produce royal: $4920
He will put $1010 in the meter per royal. (40,391 X 5 X .5%)
Average royal will be: $7010
Average profit: $2090
Hourly Rate: $41.39 per hour.Player A makes about $5 an hour more than Player B. But Player A's
loss rate between royals is about $21 an hour higher than Player
B.
Which strategy should YOU use? That's up to you.
Could some one explain or show me where you get all these numbers to
do the calculations thank you
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
Tom Robertson wrote:
What I'd do would depend on other factors, competition being the
primary one. If I were in Timbuktu, Montana, no one around me could
afford to play $5, and 40 pros weren't on their way to play it every
time it got up to $6000, I'd at least lean toward strategy B,
especially if it was the only game in town, since I'd bear the entire
cost of hitting the jackpot. In Las Vegas, I'd use strategy A. Not
that it was a significant factor, but is there really that big a
difference in variance?
Harry wrote:
I find that a rather odd perspective. In many respects a progressive
is no different than any other attractive, high variance play. Do you
approach all high variance plays similarly (with inclination to the
more conservative hour loss, longer royal cycle "strategy B"? When
taken in aggregate, are you sure that this conservativeness doesn't
suggest that you're overplaying your bankroll?
The conservativeness had nothing to do with the lower variance, but
entirely to do with extending the play. As you wrote, it has
similarities to a non-progressive play. If I were out in the middle
of nowhere and, by lowering my value per hour, I could extend an
attractive non-progressive play sufficiently, I'd consider it. In Las
Vegas, I wouldn't.
In almost all cases, I suggest that when you compare ROR bankroll
requirements for the plays, the numbers don't shift by more than 5%
(and more likely less than 2%) under max-EV/ER strategy and the more
conservative strategy suggested.
That sounds right. I was surprised at Mickey's figures for such a
large difference in variance between the 2 strategies. I wonder if he
used a value of $4000 in calculating the variance for the more
conservative strategy. How high the royal is affects variance far
more than differences in strategy do.
On a competitive progressive bank, using a less aggressive strategy
won't buy you appreciably greater play time.
Yes. It will affect one's chances of hitting it more than how long
the play lasts.
In the case of a stand-alone progressive, under a scenario where you
look to largely hog the machine until it hits, what you suggest has
some merit. But bear mind that under Mickey's less aggressive
strategy B, net profit is smaller than under A.
This may depend on the situation, but this is usually not true,
assuming you mean value per play and not value per hour. Having a
progressive all to oneself dictates a more conservative strategy than
the meter indicates, assuming the situation won't repeat itself.
Maximizing the value per play requires assuming the progressive meter
is at break even, including meter movement, so that, say, with a 1%
meter, strategy would assume it's a non-progressive, 99% play.
Therefore, I asked the simple (minded) question as to why is the strategy not to "hit" the
progressive as quickly as possible, i.e., before someone else hits it. I do not know
specifically what that strategy might be, but it just seemed "natural" to me that you play,
trying mightily for the RF, until it "hits" (trying to hit it yourself), and then go off and do
something else. Only if YOU hit it, would it have been a "worthwhile" endeavor.This is probably a way too simplistic way to look at it.
..... bl
Yes, it is, but you're heading in the right direction. All your
assumptions are right, but just change your wording from ""hit" the
progressive as quickly as possible" to "play more aggressively for the
royal than if it weren't progressive, but include all relevant costs
in one's strategy" and you've got it. And, in deciding if it was
worthwhile if you didn't hit it, take a more long-term view. It's not
your fault you didn't hit it and, on average, you'll show a profit if
you go about it right.
change your wording from ""hit" the
progressive as quickly as possible" to "play more aggressively for the
royal than if it weren't progressive
OK! I see this and agree, although the term "more aggressively" can be a bit subjective.
Different people can take it to mean different things in terms of "how aggressive" one
wants/needs to be.
include all relevant costs
in one's strategy"
I have to do some more thinking here, with respect to what "all relevant costs" really
means.
And, in deciding if it was
worthwhile if you didn't hit it, take a more long-term view. It's not
your fault you didn't hit it and, on average, you'll show a profit if
you go about it right.
Yes! Of course! Right on!
Thank you!
..... bl
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <madameguyon@...> wrote:
bornloser1537 wrote:
I do not know specifically what that strategy might be, but it just
seemed "natural" to me that you play, trying mightily for the RF,
until it "hits" (trying to hit it yourself), and then go off and do
something else. Only if YOU hit it, would it have been a
"worthwhile" endeavor.This is probably a way too simplistic way to look at it.
I won't argue the "natural" part ... but circumstances often incline
us to do that which isn't in our best interest. Tom's response to
this post is strong. I'll offer up one additional angle on your comments.
You suggest that the play is strong ONLY if you hit. I'd say that
it's the opportunity, and not whether you actually hit or not, that
makes a play strong -- and strategy should be driven by that opportunity.
The nature of a bank progressive in which others play against the same
meter is that once someone hits, that opportunity no longer exists.
That gives the sense that once should increase the probability that
you'll hit for that reason alone. (And, with a progressive, it's the
expected liquidation of the meter, not the competitive aspect, that's
key.)
However, looking at another analogous scenario, if it were known that
a strong play at your favorite casino were likely or definitely going
to be removed near-term (say $1 FPDW, or perhaps a promotion that
makes a play very strong), would that lead you to play more strongly
for a RF than EV would dictate ... merely because the opportunity
might be removed?
When there's a safe presumption that similarly strong opportunities
will continue to be available with some regularity beyond the removal
of the current one ("similarly strong opportunities" means those with
comparable EV, but not necessarily form ... e.g. we don't have to be
talking about all plays being progressives to be talking "apples and
apples" in this context), then there's no need to treat the current
play as a discrete "one time" opportunity. The smart thing to do is
to maximize EV.
However, if you should be talking about a uniquely strong play (a
casino play that presents a 110%+ opportunity, e.g.), then it might be
argued that a change from max-EV strategy is warranted.
You might wish to play more aggressively for the RF, if it
sufficiently increases the probability that you'll hit and increase
correspondingly the probability that you'll realize something
approximating the EV (even if in shifting strategy you give up 1% or
so). But there are tradeoffs involved.
Bottom line, there are any number of considerations that can be
factored in approaching an atypical play. However, when you look at
the numbers carefully, you often find that any adjustments that might
be warranted are of nominal consequence and benefit.
While max-EV strategy may not always represent that absolute ideal in
play, for most players it most reliably will get them where they want
to be.
- Harry
john wrote:
Could some one explain or show me where you get all these numbers to
do the calculations thank you
mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@> wrote:
>
> Both players only play when the Royal is at $6000. But they use
> different strategies. I used perfect cycles to come up with the
> numbers. Which strategy would you use?
>
> Player A uses the 6000 coin Royal strategy--and never changes.
> It produces a royal every 33,202 hands.
> The Variance is 47.
> Theoretical is 100.6513% plus .5% meter.
> The royal represents 3.61% of the payback.
> Loss rate between royals is 2.9587%.
> He plays at a constant 800 hands per hour.
> Loss rate between royals in hard currency: $118.35 per hour.
> He will make a royal every 41.5 hours (33,202 divided by 800)
> Cost to produce royal: $4912 (33,202 X 5 X 2.9587%)
> He will put $830 in meter per royal. (33,202 X 5 X .5%)
> Average royal will be: $6830
> Average profit: $1918
> Hourly Rate: $46.22 per hour.
>
>
> PLAYER B uses the 4000 coin Royal Strategy--and never changes.
> It produces a royal every 40,391 hands.
> The Variance is 19.
> Theoretical is 100.5342 plus .5% meter.
> The royal represents 2.97% of the payback.
> Loss rate between royals is 2.4361%.
> He plays a constant 800 hands per hour.
> Loss rate between royals in hard currency: $97.44 per hour
> He will make a royal every 50.5 hours (40,391 divided by 800)
> Cost to produce royal: $4920
> He will put $1010 in the meter per royal. (40,391 X 5 X .5%)
> Average royal will be: $7010
> Average profit: $2090
> Hourly Rate: $41.39 per hour.
>
> Player A makes about $5 an hour more than Player B. But Player A's
> loss rate between royals is about $21 an hour higher than Player
B.
>
> Which strategy should YOU use? That's up to you.
John, Mickey may wish to step through this in detail. Most of the
numbers fall out pretty readily once you have the base statistics of
the game in each scenario.
However, here's one example of how the calculations are performed:
In Scenario B, JB play using a 4000 meter, game statistics under a
4000 meter can be found from a program such as winpoker. It's simply
a matter of adjusting them upwards to represent the actual 6000 meter.
> PLAYER B uses the 4000 coin Royal Strategy--and never changes.
> It produces a royal every 40,391 hands.
> The Variance is 19.
> Theoretical is 100.5342 plus .5% meter.
> The royal represents 2.97% of the payback.
> Loss rate between royals is 2.4361%.
With "standard" 9/6 Game play and a 4000 meter, the RF contributes
1.98% to game return. If the actual meter is 6000 cr, then that
contribution increases 50% to 2.97%.
No matter what the meter, when playing 9/6 Jacks by "standard" max-EV
strategy, you expect to lose 2.44% of wagers in absence of a royal
hit: (100-99.54) + 1.98
I'll argue with two of Mickey's numbers above:
--> The variance against the 100.53% ER noted above is much higher
than "19" (actually, it's 39 -- still moderately lower than the "A"
max-EV strategy value of 47 noted above).
The "19" calculation is against a 99.54% return value. (Variance must
be recalculated against revised game ER to be "apples to apples" with
the variance stated for the alternate strategy.)
--> Micky adds the meter advance rate to determine the player's theo
for play. That's only true if the player is on a stand-alone bank AND
sits down determined to play until they hit a RF each and every time
they sit down.
Outside of that scenario, only a portion of the meter advance rate is
appropriately added to base ER in determining their theo. That
portion equals the advance rate x the fraction of a RF cycle that will
be played through in the current session. e.g., if the player intends
to play through 10,000 hands in the example above, then their theo is
(100.53 + .5/4) = 100.65.
(I leave off greater discussion of the reasoning behind this assertion.)
- Harry
Definitely. I struggle with how to play them. There's definitely an
element of art to it.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <madameguyon@...> wrote:
change your wording from ""hit" the
progressive as quickly as possible" to "play more aggressively for the
royal than if it weren't progressiveOK! I see this and agree, although the term "more aggressively" can be a bit subjective.
Different people can take it to mean different things in terms of "how aggressive" one
wants/needs to be...... bl
When there's a safe presumption that similarly strong opportunities
will continue to be available with some regularity beyond the removal
of the current one ("similarly strong opportunities" means those with
comparable EV, but not necessarily form ... e.g. we don't have to be
talking about all plays being progressives to be talking "apples and
apples" in this context), then there's no need to treat the current
play as a discrete "one time" opportunity. The smart thing to do is
to maximize EV.
There's some truth to both. There will always be profitable plays,
but just the fact that one is playing any particular machine means
that there is a theoretically quantifiable cost to it being removed,
even including the value of what other opportunities there are.
While max-EV strategy may not always represent that absolute ideal in
play, for most players it most reliably will get them where they want
to be.- Harry
It's at least simple, even if not optimal.
--> Micky adds the meter advance rate to determine the player's theo
for play. That's only true if the player is on a stand-alone bank AND
sits down determined to play until they hit a RF each and every time
they sit down.Outside of that scenario, only a portion of the meter advance rate is
appropriately added to base ER in determining their theo. That
portion equals the advance rate x the fraction of a RF cycle that will
be played through in the current session. e.g., if the player intends
to play through 10,000 hands in the example above, then their theo is
(100.53 + .5/4) = 100.65.
- Harry
The difference between what might be called "marginal theo" and what
might be called "overall theo" is relevant here. The value of one's
own meter movement is definitely less than the total meter movement,
so that the value of playing the next hand should only include part of
what that hand adds to the meter, but assuming that one has the same
commitment as everyone else to play until a progressive is hit,
including the intent to come back later and play another session,
one's "overall theo" includes the entire meter movement. Just as
competitors benefit from one's own meter movement, so does one benefit
from one's competitors' meter movement.
Tom Robertson wrote:
The difference between what might be called "marginal theo" and what
might be called "overall theo" is relevant here. The value of one's
own meter movement is definitely less than the total meter movement,
so that the value of playing the next hand should only include part
of what that hand adds to the meter, but assuming that one has the
same commitment as everyone else to play until a progressive is hit,
including the intent to come back later and play another session,
one's "overall theo" includes the entire meter movement. Just as
competitors benefit from one's own meter movement, so does one
benefit from one's competitors' meter movement.
It's not the competitive aspect that's at issue.
If someone arrives at a progressive with a given base ER and a 1%
meter advance, their theo isn't fixed at that ER+1%.
If each time they play until they hit or play through 10,000 hands,
whichever comes first, they realize only about 1/4% ER on the meter
advance. There's ultimately no meter benefit from earlier sessions in
which you didn't hit. At the extreme, a player who sits down for only
100 hands of play each session will recognize only a negligible added
ER from the meter advance (when the base ER is measured against the
meter at the time they first sit down).
That math comes down to the addition from the meter advance being
equal to the meter rate x the probability that you'll hit during a
given session.
- Harry
Could someone explain or show me where you get all these numbers to
do the calculations. Thank you.
> Both players only play when the Royal is at $6000. But they use
> different strategies. I used perfect cycles to come up with the
> numbers. Which strategy would you use?
>
> Player A uses the 6000 coin Royal strategy--and never changes.
> It produces a royal every 33,202 hands.
I use Winpoker for stuff like this. You can do the same on all
programs. I use Win because I've been using it the longest and it's
easy to go in and get a number.
Open up Win.
Click on Games.
Click on Jacks or Better.
Click on Options
Click on Change Paytables
Click on Default to make sure the payscale is right
Change the royal to 6000 coins then click on OK
Click on Analyze
Click on Game
You will now be on the Winpoker Game Analysis screen.
Click on Run Analysis
When the analysis is through go up to the Royal Flush line and scan
across to the "occurs every" column. It should say 33,201.94.
> The Variance is 47.
The variance is shown on the same screen. However, if I'm not
mistaken, variance is calculated at 600 games per hour. It it is
then the variance at 800 HPH would be higher.
> Theoretical is 100.6513% plus .5% meter.
This number is also on the Game Analysis screen.
> The royal represents 3.61% of the payback.
On the same screen, go back up to the Royal Flush line, and just to
the right of "occurs every" is the "% of Return" column. You will
see that the royal contributes 3.61% of the payback of the game.
> Loss rate between royals is 2.9587%.
Take the overall payback, 100.6513% and subtract 3.61%. It should
show 97.0413%. Subtacting 97.0413% from 100% shows a loss rate
between royals of 2.9587%.
> He plays at a constant 800 hands per hour.
Self explanatory.
> Loss rate between royals in hard currency: $118.35 per hour.
The total wager per hour is 800 HPH multiplied by the the $5 bet, or
$4000 per hour. 2.9587% of $4000 is $118.35.
> He will make a royal every 41.5 hours (33,202 divided by 800)
The math is already up here. A royal every 33,202 games divided by
800 HPH is 41.5 hours.
> Cost to produce royal: $4912 (33,202 X 5 X 2.9587%)
33,202 games multiplied by the $5 bet is a total wager per royal of
$166,010. 2.9587% of this number is $4912.
> He will put $830 in meter per royal. (33,202 X 5 X .5%)
0.5% of the total wager per royal ($166,010) is $830. Per the long
run you will accrue this money.
> Average royal will be: $6830
You start at $6000 everytime and average putting $830 in the meter
per royal. Hence, average royal is $6830.
> Average profit: $1918
Average royal is $6830, average cost is $4912. Subtracting $4912
from $6830 shows average profit at $1918.
> Hourly Rate: $46.22 per hour.
Average profit is $1918. You average a royal every 41.5 hours.
$1918 divided by 41.5 is an expectation of $46.22 per hour.
The math for player B works the same as above. EXCEPT, I must show
you how I calculated the 100.5342% theoretical. Player B uses
strategy based on a 4000 coin royal. However, the royal is at 6000
coins. So we take the extra $2000 and convert it into "units"
or "bets." $2000 divided by the $5 wager is 400. 400 divided by the
royal odds (40,391) shows an add-on of 0.99031%. Adding this number
to the base game (99.5439%) shows a theoretical of 100.5342%.
Practice on your programs to see if you can come up with the same
numbers I put up.
>
>
> PLAYER B uses the 4000 coin Royal Strategy--and never changes.
> It produces a royal every 40,391 hands.
> The Variance is 19.
> Theoretical is 100.5342 plus .5% meter.
> The royal represents 2.97% of the payback.
> Loss rate between royals is 2.4361%.
> He plays a constant 800 hands per hour.
> Loss rate between royals in hard currency: $97.44 per hour
> He will make a royal every 50.5 hours (40,391 divided by 800)
> Cost to produce royal: $4920
> He will put $1010 in the meter per royal. (40,391 X 5 X .5%)
> Average royal will be: $7010
> Average profit: $2090
> Hourly Rate: $41.39 per hour.
>
> Player A makes about $5 an hour more than Player B. But Player
A's
> loss rate between royals is about $21 an hour higher than Player
B.
>
> Which strategy should YOU use? That's up to you.
>
Could some one explain or show me where you get all these numbers
to
Therefore, I asked the simple (minded) question as to why is the
strategy not to "hit" the
progressive as quickly as possible, i.e., before someone else hits
it. I do not know
specifically what that strategy might be, but it just seemed
"natural" to me that you play,
trying mightily for the RF, until it "hits" (trying to hit it
yourself), and then go off and do
something else. Only if YOU hit it, would it have been a
"worthwhile" endeavor.
If your goal is to hit a royal as quickly as possible, your optimal
strategy is called the "Royal-only" strategy, commonly used in
tournaments. You only keep cards that are the best draw to a royal, if
you have no royal cards, you discard all five and redraw. The problem
with this strategy is that it is very expensive, the average return is
something like 50%. It's not "worthwhile" from an economic sense to
get royals if on average it costs you more to get them than they are
worth. Economically speaking, it's not enough just to get jackpots,
the cost of getting the jackpot has to be less than the value of the
jackpot, your win is the difference in these prices, not the value of
the jackpot alone.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@...> wrote:
Thanks, guys! Great food for thought!
And, as said elsewhere, it is almost an "art" to play these "progressives".
And, has been said at some other elsewhere, it depends on what YOU might want out of
the "progressive".
There seem to be no hard and fast rules.
..... bl
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...>
wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@> wrote:
> Therefore, I asked the simple (minded) question as to why is the
strategy not to "hit" the
> progressive as quickly as possible, i.e., before someone else hits
it. I do not know
> specifically what that strategy might be, but it just seemed
"natural" to me that you play,
> trying mightily for the RF, until it "hits" (trying to hit it
yourself), and then go off and do
> something else. Only if YOU hit it, would it have been a
"worthwhile" endeavor.If your goal is to hit a royal as quickly as possible, your optimal
strategy is called the "Royal-only" strategy, commonly used in
tournaments. You only keep cards that are the best draw to a royal, if
you have no royal cards, you discard all five and redraw. The problem
with this strategy is that it is very expensive, the average return is
something like 50%. It's not "worthwhile" from an economic sense to
get royals if on average it costs you more to get them than they are
worth. Economically speaking, it's not enough just to get jackpots,
the cost of getting the jackpot has to be less than the value of the
jackpot, your win is the difference in these prices, not the value of
the jackpot alone.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
--> Micky adds the meter advance rate to determine the player's theo
for play. That's only true if the player is on a stand-alone bank
AND
sits down determined to play until they hit a RF each and every time
they sit down.Outside of that scenario, only a portion of the meter advance rate
is
appropriately added to base ER in determining their theo. That
portion equals the advance rate x the fraction of a RF cycle that
will
be played through in the current session. e.g., if the player
intends
to play through 10,000 hands in the example above, then their theo
is
(100.53 + .5/4) = 100.65.
(I leave off greater discussion of the reasoning behind this
assertion.)
- Harry
The higher a royal meter goes the more action the banks gets. That's
my experience. I much prefer to play when the bank is full. There
is a reason for it. I don't want to get tied up so long that I'm
using toothpicks to keep my eyes open.
Nine other players and myself sit down on a 10 machine bank. It's
dollar 9/6 Jacks progressive. The royal is at $6000 with a .5%
meter. We all play at 800 games per hour. Sure, there is some
variation, but I'll go with this example.
I can make some calculatons off of the above scenario.
Since we are all playing aggressive strategy, the expected number of
games on the bank is about 33,000. Since we are all playing at about
800 games per hour the average amount of time for a royal to hit
somewhere on the bank is about 4 hours.
The meter is rising at the rate of $200 per hour. I'm contributing
only $20 per hour to that meter and my competitors are collectively
contributing $180 per hour.
For one play this scenario doesn't mean much. But by putting your
money into play over and over again, in this kind of spot, you
protect your meter win.
The Club Cal-Neva/Reno used to have several quarter progressives with
strong royal meters, 1%, 1.5%, and 2%, for the games involved. Plays
developed frequently. I knew the numbers "the team" would come in
on. They were smart enough not to try and monopolize the whole
bank. We would jokingly "get mad" if they were late. They would
take about half the machines and us independent agents would take the
rest. And the race was on.
Sure, I didn't get the royal most of the time. But I got my share.
I protected my meter win in the process.
And it was only once in a blue moon when this old cat would miss out
on some beauty sleep.