vpFREE2 Forums

Franknbob progressive gone from M

#21

I don't think so. I also spoke with the casino manager and he said no such thing.

They just wanted the progressives all in a row. so they put them in line with the 3x quarters that was already there.

Now out of the 100's of machines at M 13? are halfway decent. NONE are multi line games.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:

This tends to be true, but please understand, they did not take out the game you liked, because they were putting in the max-royals progressive. They were taking out the game you liked anyway. Had we not pitched the max-royals progressive to M, your favorite game would simply have been replaced with something else other than the max-royals progressive.

Your are seeing a correlation where there isn't any. The one event did not create the other.

I was next to him when the casino manager was trying to figure out where to put the new progressives and he said (exact words), "Oh we could put them here, we were taking these out anyway."

I am sharing direct firsthand knowledge.

~FK

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "the7thwarrior" <Judy@> wrote:
>
> AND THAT IS WHAT I COMPLAINED ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE!
> Once a "decent" game is gone it never comes back, even if the replacement game is a bust.
> M needs to look to bring back some more decent multi line games!
>
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "irdd3000" <irdd@> wrote:
> >
> > actually the bad news is they didn't put back the aces bonus game where it originally was....
> >
> >
> > > > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The M max-royals progressive has been permanently removed from M.
> > > > >
> > > > > ~FK
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

#22

I was offline for about 7 weeks....and when I get back the M progressives are gone, and Frank quit the radio show and moved to Australia. What's going going on around here? Can't I leave you guys alone for a couple months without every thing breaking down?

On a serious note, from all the posting activity I've seen on the M progressives, It appears that that bank was getting a tremendous amount of action. For those of you who played it could you take the time to fill us in?

1. How many machines were there?

2. Was the bank getting round the clock action?

3. Does anyone have any idea of what the average daily handle was?

4. Was it the busiest bank of machines in the house?

This is just guesswork but it seems to me that this bank would have attracted well financed and seasoned vp players who were probably cranking out a 1000 hands per hour or more each.

Theres only 3 possible scenarios:

A. The house was making some good money.

B. The house was losing money

C. The house was making a little money but figured it wasn't enough so they chopped the payscale.

I think we can nix scenario A right off the bat. They wouldn't pull it down if they were making good money. That leaves B and C.

So they chopped the payscale and it went from being the busiest bank in the casino to the slowest? Is that correct?

Their profit margin darn sure went up! Now they are getting 100% of nothing! But at least it's a hundred percent. ROTFLMAS!

#23

Don't forget the DOW falling 600 points. This is all your fault, Mickey.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:

I was offline for about 7 weeks....and when I get back the M progressives are gone, and Frank quit the radio show and moved to Australia. What's going going on around here? Can't I leave you guys alone for a couple months without every thing breaking down?

#24

Apparently it was (C.)

It started off too goodda thing, with good cashback, multipliers, and bounceback. So they chopped it, from feast to famine. The goose that laid the golden egg turned into an empty shell. The suits decided they were just annoyed with it and yanked it.

Here's something Frank said that I have saved on my hard drive.

"Nameless corporate oversight & pencil pushing micromanagement."

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:

Theres only 3 possible scenarios:

A. The house was making some good money.

B. The house was losing money

C. The house was making a little money but figured it wasn't enough so they chopped the payscale.

I think we can nix scenario A right off the bat. They wouldn't pull it down if they were making good money. That leaves B and C.

So they chopped the payscale and it went from being the busiest bank in the casino to the slowest? Is that correct?

Their profit margin darn sure went up! Now they are getting 100% of nothing! But at least it's a hundred percent. ROTFLMAS!

#25

Bob, with what you are telling me about the addons I think I have to go with B. In todays market why would they run off major major action if they were making anything at all.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:

Apparently it was (C.)

It started off too goodda thing, with good cashback, multipliers, and bounceback. So they chopped it, from feast to famine. The goose that laid the golden egg turned into an empty shell. The suits decided they were just annoyed with it and yanked it.

Here's something Frank said that I have saved on my hard drive.

"Nameless corporate oversight & pencil pushing micromanagement."

#26

And while you were gone: all children who are not yet fourteen years old are now fourteen years old.

Welcome back!

OK, you asked a lot of question that have all been answered during the last few weeks. Call me tomorrow and I'll give you a catch-up.

~FK

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:I was offline for about 7 weeks....and when I get back the M progressives are gone, and Frank quit the radio show and moved to Australia. What's going going on around here? Can't I leave you guys alone for a couple months without every thing breaking down?

#27

If you are going to keep quoting me on that one I'd like to amend it to:

Never underestimate the penny wise pound foolish profit mongering of Nameless corporate oversight & pencil pushing micromanagement, determined to fix all things (even those not broken). Preferably with something new, even if it is untested and must replace something tried and true, because new is good (their idea) and old is bad (not their idea).

In my book I have a rant about why no two car garages are the same. Since its writing, I got to talk to an actual car garage architect and asked him why that was. Apparently it doubles your commission on a project if the plans are original. He also admitted that all the good designs were used up 50 years ago. Now all architects are progressively consigned to diverging farther and farther away from what would be the best design. With no end in sight to the downward spiral, unless we experience a paradigm shift in our economic system where efficiency will once again be favored over originality (here--pointless originality).

I have heard of the expression, "Those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it".

In America we have apparently adopted a new motto: Those that attempt to remember the past and learn from it will be punished. Just give us some new crap, (we'll pay you double).

~FK

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:
Here's something Frank said that I have saved on my hard drive.

"Nameless corporate oversight & pencil pushing micromanagement."

#28

Frank said they made a dollar.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:

Bob, with what you are telling me about the addons I think I have to go with B. In todays market why would they run off major major action if they were making anything at all.

#29

Bob, who is "they." Was it Frank and the boys or was it the M. Also, if they shut the bank down where did they hang the progressive money?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:

Frank said they made a dollar.

#30

Lol, Frank said that the M tallied up their profits for the first period (month or two) and it came to ONE dollar exactly. lmao! Wtf, it's better than losing a dollar.

At some point, probably on last week's show, Bob Dancer said that the progressive money was to be distributed to the other progressives, I think he said the ones at the bars. I think he said a $1000 at a time, I may be wrong on the details. And they apparently have 30 days to get it done, so if they are approaching 30 days and still have a bunch of money they may load more of it at one time.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
>
> Frank said they made a dollar.
>
Bob, who is "they." Was it Frank and the boys or was it the M. Also, if they shut the bank down where did they hang the progressive money?

#31

So it was scenario C. The M was making a little money but didn't figure it was enough. Now I'm LMAO!

I think the M should have tried a 1% meter cut instead of chopping the payscales.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:

Lol, Frank said that the M tallied up their profits for the first period (month or two) and it came to ONE dollar exactly. lmao! Wtf, it's better than losing a dollar.

#32

They lowered the paytables, in at least the case of Double Double they lowered it from 8-5 to 6-5, skipping 7-5. They also lowered the meter rise from cumulative 4% to 3.2%. And, they eliminated the multipliers. A triple whammy!

I don't blame them for needing to do something. But WHAT were they thinking? Seriously, I would have loved to had been a fly on the wall when they were discussing the proposed changes. I am sure they never asked anyone for advice, they just did it. I mean, it was Frank's suggestion in their ears to start with. One would think they would at least ask him for his ideas on their new changes before they implemented them. So apparently after they went ahead and did their own thing, the machines sat there with NO ONE touching them. lol SURPRISE!!!

After that, probably a combination of confusion and embarrassment I'm guessing, they threw up their hands in ANNOYANCE and said "fk it, let's yank them, they're a pain in the ass anyway."

And Mickey, lest you get the wrong impression from me, I was a huge supporter of the idea and I am very grateful to Frank for his effort. I hope he will not get discouraged.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:

So it was scenario C. The M was making a little money but didn't figure it was enough. Now I'm LMAO!

I think the M should have tried a 1% meter cut instead of chopping the payscales.

#33

Well it's worse than that. They had me ask vpFREE for recommendations and had me waste several days (and my time) accumulating suggestions and passing them along, and then went with a different plan of their own.

There were multiple people involved in the decision and the person I had been dealing with was overruled.

In their defense, ownership changed after the machines were put in. That's always a recipe for out with the old and in with the new.

Had M not experienced a change in ownership, I have little doubt things would have gone differently.

~FK

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey" <mickeycrimm@> wrote:
>

> So it was scenario C. The M was making a little money but didn't figure it was enough. Now I'm LMAO!
>
> I think the M should have tried a 1% meter cut instead of chopping the payscales.
>

They lowered the paytables, in at least the case of Double Double they lowered it from 8-5 to 6-5, skipping 7-5. They also lowered the meter rise from cumulative 4% to 3.2%. And, they eliminated the multipliers. A triple whammy!

I don't blame them for needing to do something. But WHAT were they thinking? Seriously, I would have loved to had been a fly on the wall when they were discussing the proposed changes. I am sure they never asked anyone for advice, they just did it. I mean, it was Frank's suggestion in their ears to start with. One would think they would at least ask him for his ideas on their new changes before they implemented them. So apparently after they went ahead and did their own thing, the machines sat there with NO ONE touching them. lol SURPRISE!!!

After that, probably a combination of confusion and embarrassment I'm guessing, they threw up their hands in ANNOYANCE and said "fk it, let's yank them, they're a pain in the ass anyway."

And Mickey, lest you get the wrong impression from me, I was a huge supporter of the idea and I am very grateful to Frank for his effort. I hope he will not get discouraged.

#34

What are you talking about? Ownership changed last year, not during the life of these progressives!

http://articles.philly.com/2010-10-09/business/24980841_1_casino-gambling-space-eric-schippers

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:

Well it's worse than that. They had me ask vpFREE for recommendations and had me waste several days (and my time) accumulating suggestions and passing them along, and then went with a different plan of their own.

There were multiple people involved in the decision and the person I had been dealing with was overruled.

In their defense, ownership changed after the machines were put in. That's always a recipe for out with the old and in with the new.

Had M not experienced a change in ownership, I have little doubt things would have gone differently.

~FK

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey" <mickeycrimm@> wrote:
> >
>
> > So it was scenario C. The M was making a little money but didn't figure it was enough. Now I'm LMAO!
> >
> > I think the M should have tried a 1% meter cut instead of chopping the payscales.
> >
>
>
> They lowered the paytables, in at least the case of Double Double they lowered it from 8-5 to 6-5, skipping 7-5. They also lowered the meter rise from cumulative 4% to 3.2%. And, they eliminated the multipliers. A triple whammy!
>
> I don't blame them for needing to do something. But WHAT were they thinking? Seriously, I would have loved to had been a fly on the wall when they were discussing the proposed changes. I am sure they never asked anyone for advice, they just did it. I mean, it was Frank's suggestion in their ears to start with. One would think they would at least ask him for his ideas on their new changes before they implemented them. So apparently after they went ahead and did their own thing, the machines sat there with NO ONE touching them. lol SURPRISE!!!
>
> After that, probably a combination of confusion and embarrassment I'm guessing, they threw up their hands in ANNOYANCE and said "fk it, let's yank them, they're a pain in the ass anyway."
>
> And Mickey, lest you get the wrong impression from me, I was a huge supporter of the idea and I am very grateful to Frank for his effort. I hope he will not get discouraged.
>

#35

As far as I knew 1 month after we put them in management changed.

It's possible the ownership changed before that, and they simply hadn't put in the new people yet.

~FK

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "caribou321" <caribou321@...> wrote:

What are you talking about? Ownership changed last year, not during the life of these progressives!

http://articles.philly.com/2010-10-09/business/24980841_1_casino-gambling-space-eric-schippers

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@> wrote:
>
> Well it's worse than that. They had me ask vpFREE for recommendations and had me waste several days (and my time) accumulating suggestions and passing them along, and then went with a different plan of their own.
>
> There were multiple people involved in the decision and the person I had been dealing with was overruled.
>
> In their defense, ownership changed after the machines were put in. That's always a recipe for out with the old and in with the new.
>
> Had M not experienced a change in ownership, I have little doubt things would have gone differently.
>
> ~FK
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey" <mickeycrimm@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > So it was scenario C. The M was making a little money but didn't figure it was enough. Now I'm LMAO!
> > >
> > > I think the M should have tried a 1% meter cut instead of chopping the payscales.
> > >
> >
> >
> > They lowered the paytables, in at least the case of Double Double they lowered it from 8-5 to 6-5, skipping 7-5. They also lowered the meter rise from cumulative 4% to 3.2%. And, they eliminated the multipliers. A triple whammy!
> >
> > I don't blame them for needing to do something. But WHAT were they thinking? Seriously, I would have loved to had been a fly on the wall when they were discussing the proposed changes. I am sure they never asked anyone for advice, they just did it. I mean, it was Frank's suggestion in their ears to start with. One would think they would at least ask him for his ideas on their new changes before they implemented them. So apparently after they went ahead and did their own thing, the machines sat there with NO ONE touching them. lol SURPRISE!!!
> >
> > After that, probably a combination of confusion and embarrassment I'm guessing, they threw up their hands in ANNOYANCE and said "fk it, let's yank them, they're a pain in the ass anyway."
> >
> > And Mickey, lest you get the wrong impression from me, I was a huge supporter of the idea and I am very grateful to Frank for his effort. I hope he will not get discouraged.
> >
>

#36

I am sure there was something RECENTLY in print about the Penn takeover becoming final. I am half-way talking out my ass (not unusual) without finding the exact article. So perhaps both of you are right, the proceedings may have started earlier but something just finalized. I'll look for the article if no one else does. It must have been in the LVA I would think.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:

As far as I knew 1 month after we put them in management changed.

It's possible the ownership changed before that, and they simply hadn't put in the new people yet.

~FK

#37

They would have made plenty if they would have just left them there and gave them time to find an audience. It takes a while for people to figure out that there are decent progressives to be played at the M. Especially for the M since it is out of the way and lots of people don't get there very often. Nothing is worse for a casino than being a ghost town. People come in take one look at how empty it is then turn right back around. Those things were drawing an audience and would have continued to draw more. They were solving a problem that the cavernous empty M really needs to solve. So now they put them on extra crappy pay tables just exacerbating their empty casino floor problem.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey" <mickeycrimm@> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
> >
> > Frank said they made a dollar.
> >
> Bob, who is "they." Was it Frank and the boys or was it the M. Also, if they shut the bank down where did they hang the progressive money?
>

Lol, Frank said that the M tallied up their profits for the first period (month or two) and it came to ONE dollar exactly. lmao! Wtf, it's better than losing a dollar.

At some point, probably on last week's show, Bob Dancer said that the progressive money was to be distributed to the other progressives, I think he said the ones at the bars. I think he said a $1000 at a time, I may be wrong on the details. And they apparently have 30 days to get it done, so if they are approaching 30 days and still have a bunch of money they may load more of it at one time.