http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/gaming/172515,WKP-News-bet15.article
···
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
"Guaranteed Play" Could Change VP-Very Interesting
http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/gaming/172515,WKP-News-
bet15.article
Interesting article, but I can't see this ever catching on.
Essentially you would be paying a commission on every group
of "prepaid" hands whenever you win or have a slight loss (for less
than the buy in amount) during that set of hands. You would only
benefit during the times when you would have lost more that the buy
in amount over that group of hands. So you limit your loss exposure
in exchange for paying a fixed cost. There's another word for this:
INSURANCE. I'm sure that the casinos will structure the rates to
greatly enhance their bottom line, but never mind that... I think the
big problem with this concept is that it conflicts with the whole
spirit of casino gambling. The only time you would "win", is when
you lose. Otherwise, it costs you money. Who wants to root for
themselves to lose? Who wants to pay a comission to the casino
everytime they actually win? Suddenly the game has crept toward
something more like an arcade game, where you are just paying for the
privilege of playing the game instead of gambling. Heck, if I want
to pay a time charge for entertainment, I'll go to the movies.
Whenever I hear about some new concept such as this, I always like to
cite the following rule, which is true about 99% of the time (the
other 1% is due to casino errors ;-):
"Whenever a casino changes anything or comes up with something new,
it is BAD for the players, and GOOD for the casino."
EE
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, P D <nsidechi@...> wrote:
P D wrote:
Guaranteed Play ties gaming package deal
http://tinyurl.com/yazjyj
eecounter wrote:
Interesting article, but I can't see this ever catching on ...
There's another word for this:
INSURANCE. I'm sure that the casinos will structure the rates to
greatly enhance their bottom line, but never mind that... I think the
big problem with this concept is that it conflicts with the whole
spirit of casino gambling. The only time you would "win", is when
you lose. Otherwise, it costs you money. Who wants to root for
themselves to lose? ...Whenever I hear about some new concept such as this, I always like to
cite the following rule, which is true about 99% of the time (the
other 1% is due to casino errors ;-):"Whenever a casino changes anything or comes up with something new,
it is BAD for the players, and GOOD for the casino."
I think you're perhaps a little unduly pessimistic here -- this is
definitely a wait and see situation. If I'm modestly doubtful about
prospects here, it's simply that in the scheme of things it's
infrequent that any play scenario is particularly attractive, new or old.
Your general characterization of the game is reasonably accurate.
Just to be precise, the insurance that you're "buying" is a stop loss.
The premium that you'll "pay" will take the form of willingness to
play a paytable that's poorer than what you'd accept in absence of the
stop loss.
At the very heart, the essence of Guaranteed Play (GP) isn't much
different in my book from any other where you'd play a weakened
paytable in exchange for some other benefit, such as bonus rounds.
···
-----------------
So, let's look at a game like Jacks or Better. I'm writing from an
understanding of GP gleaned from little more than the cited article,
so make allowance for some likely inaccuracies in what I present. The
basic considerations in evaluating the game are what's important.
For an 80 credit buy in ($20 if quarters), you're guaranteed that
you'll play a full 75 or 150 hands. If, at the end of those hands
your meter is negative, you simply walk away having absorbed an 80
credit loss ... even if the game meter actually shows that you've lost
200 or 300 credits. Otherwise, you simply cash out the positive
credits on the meter.
Now, because Jacks is a relatively low volatility game, I'm going to
assume that the guaranteed play period is 150 hands. You can expect
that games with larger downside potential (say, DB or DDB) will have a
smaller period since you're receiving a larger risk guarantee.
------
The newly released VP For Winners provides a distribution of expected
play results and a given number of hands. For 9/6 Jacks, there's a
little over 30% probability a player will be down 80+ credits as of
the end of 150 hands of play.
Where the ending loss is greater than the 80 credit buy in, the actual
loss averages just a little over 140 credits. So, the player benefits
from 60 credits of loss protection in those instances.
Given the 30% probability of a loss that exceeds the 80 cr buy in on
150 hands, the loss protection per round played is about 20 credits
(.3*60). When evaluated against 150 hands of play per round, or 750
credits wagered, the play guarantee adds about a 2.7% benefit to 9/6
Jacks (20/750).
------
The casino needs to weaken the paytable accordingly to maintain a
profitable game. That'll probably take a cut to 7/5 Jacks ... 8/5
Jacks doesn't reduce ER enough. "7/5" cuts 3.4%.
That may be enough, but there's room for further analysis. In cutting
the paytable from 9/6 to 7/5, certainly your loss risk on play
increases and, consequently, so does the value of the "stop loss".
It's quite possible that the casino may find it necessary to cut to a
"6/5" paytable to cover the value of the stop loss in this play.
(I'll let someone else rerun the scenario in VPFW for 7/5.)
------
The analysis of the ins and outs of the game hardly stops here. In
fact, it's here where it really starts getting interesting and it's
likely at this point that the real "expert players" will stand out
from others.
The play strategy question raises its head. Does it make sense to
play a "paytable-ER optimized" strategy. If you've exhausted your
starting 80 credits, then you no longer have money at risk. Perhaps
it makes sense to play much more aggressively to get back into the
black before the play ends (I guarantee it). If so, how aggressively?
I don't expect simple answers to this question.
For that matter, even before fully burning through your money, perhaps
the fact that any loss is cushioned is cause to play more
aggressively. I'm on the fence a bit, but I expect that's exactly
what is called for to a degree -- at least until you show some initial
gains or until the play starts winding down.
------------
I fully expect IGT to have the math largely worked out on the game.
Ultimately, if the game never sees a raw ER with standard paytable
strategy that approaches 100%, refinements that might be suggested by
the last considerations I raise are probably useless in pushing the
game to be very attractive.
However, if paytables yield a basic 99+% game with unaltered strategy,
I think there's room where a very sophisticated player might find an
advantage.
- Harry
btw, I think this could well be one of the most successful IGT
instructions in some time. I see tremendous appeal for the average
player on the floor, who tends to only be modestly paytable sensitive.
The bottom line of the game is that it reduces downside volatility,
yet leaves intact all the aspects of upside volatility. For the
average player, that's a match that I'd bet people will "pay" for.
>
>
>
http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/gaming/172515,WKP-News-bet15.article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting article, but I can't see this ever catching on.
Essentially you would be paying a commission on every group
of "prepaid" hands whenever you win or have a slight loss (for less
than the buy in amount) during that set of hands. You would only
benefit during the times when you would have lost more that the buy
in amount over that group of hands.
That's not how I read it...it says...
"After you've played all the hands you purchased, you cash out for any
positive balance you have accumulated. "
So, for $20 you are guaranteed 150 hands of JoB. If on the first hand
you get a royal, cash out the 4000 coins, but you can still play 150
more hands. If you play 149 hands and lose every one, your display
will read 1 hand remaining, balnce of -186.25. Win $200 and you only
get $13.75...but you do come out ahead.
I think the profit is that 150 hands at $1.25 per hand should cost you
less than $1, but instead costs you $20.
So you are right, this is insuarance. Insurance that you will get to
play 150 hands even if you never see anything better than a pair of
threes. And you are also right that, just like any insurance bet, you
win if you lose. But you also win if you win big.
- John
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "eecounter" <eecounter@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, P D <nsidechi@> wrote:
I may be reading something you wrote incorrectly...as I read your
post, you are saying you can hit a royal on the first hand, cash-out
4000 credits, and then play the 149 remaining hands. This is not
correct...once you cash-out, you lose any remaining hands that you
might have had.
I think this will be an interesting play option to explore. As Harry
pointed out, the analysis of pay tables and proper play strategy will
be quite complicated. There will also be a need to perform what I
will call "cash-out win-limit analysis." Basically, there has to be a
point where it is correct to cash out and preserve your win rather
than play the remaining "free" hands...but what that point is could be
quite complicated to determine.
Ken
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "murphyfields" <jkludge@...> wrote:
That's not how I read it...it says...
"After you've played all the hands you purchased, you cash out for any
positive balance you have accumulated. "So, for $20 you are guaranteed 150 hands of JoB. If on the first hand
you get a royal, cash out the 4000 coins, but you can still play 150
more hands. If you play 149 hands and lose every one, your display
will read 1 hand remaining, balnce of -186.25. Win $200 and you only
get $13.75...but you do come out ahead.
Actually, I think we are saying the same thing. Let me clarify what I
meant. From my reading of the article, here are three scenarios:
1. You play your set number of hands, and overall you won $100. You
cash out the $100 ticket, but you really only won $80 because when you
fed the machine $20 the credit meter remained at zero.
2. You play your set number of hands, and you finished dead even
(credit meter reads zero). But you really didn't come out even, you
lost the original $20 buy in.
3. You play your set number of hands, and had a horrible run where the
credit meter shows -$100. But you are only out the original $20 buy
in.
EE
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "murphyfields" <jkludge@...> wrote:
That's not how I read it...it says...
"After you've played all the hands you purchased, you cash out for any
positive balance you have accumulated. "
kkirschner wrote:
I think this will be an interesting play option to explore. As Harry
pointed out, the analysis of pay tables and proper play strategy will
be quite complicated. There will also be a need to perform what I
will call "cash-out win-limit analysis." Basically, there has to be
a point where it is correct to cash out and preserve your win rather
than play the remaining "free" hands...but what that point is could
be quite complicated to determine.
Very interesting comments, Ken. It hadn't become centered in my mind
that the higher your meter climbs the smaller the "stop loss" feature
holds. At any time there definitely is a credit threshold over which
it's appropriate to simply quit the current session, redeem credits,
and start a new one. That threshold will start out fairly high and
will fall with each ensuing hand.
If attractive paytables were to manifest themselves, I can see a
strategy surfacing that would involve shifts every 30-50 hands. Of
course, given the timidness with which new games like this tend to be
deployed on the floor, I expect the whole thing may well be nothing
more than an academic exercise. Nonetheless, it's truly one of the
most intriguing games to surface.
- Harry
... At any time there definitely is a credit threshold over which
it's appropriate to simply quit the current session, redeem credits,
and start a new one....
Yes, I'm sure that is correct. However, it's ironic that this approach
wouold be exactly opposite from the basic concept behind the game,
which is to guarantee players a certain amount of "time on machine".
... Of course, given the timidness with which new games
like this tend to be deployed on the floor, I expect the whole thing
may well be nothing more than an academic exercise....
Agree 100%.
EE
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:
Very interesting comments, Ken. It hadn't become centered in my
mind
that the higher your meter climbs the smaller the "stop loss"
feature
holds. At any time there definitely is a credit threshold over
which
it's appropriate to simply quit the current session, redeem credits,
and start a new one. That threshold will start out fairly high and
will fall with each ensuing hand.If attractive paytables were to manifest themselves, I can see a
strategy surfacing that would involve shifts every 30-50 hands. Of
course, given the timidness with which new games like this tend to
be
deployed on the floor, I expect the whole thing may well be nothing
more than an academic exercise. Nonetheless, it's truly one of the
most intriguing games to surface.- Harry
Yes very interesting comments, but I think we have to wait for it to
be in a casino to see exactly how it is set up.
Everyone is talking about cashing out after so many hands, but what
if it is set up so you can only cash out after you have played 150
hands.
So on the first hand you get 4 OAK, for a win of $11.25 ($31.25 -
$20.00), however you still have to play 149 more hands before being
allowed to cash out.
Or as in another example: you get a royal on the first hand, but you
still have to play another 149 hands, so instead of cashing for $1000
you only cash out for $813.75 ($1000 ($1.25 * 149)).
What does that do to ER's and strategies?
Jacob
Yes very interesting comments, but I think we have to wait for it to
be in a casino to see exactly how it is set up.
Of course. As with all VP games, the viability of this new pay system
is dependent on the pay tables that casinos will actually put on the
floor.
Everyone is talking about cashing out after so many hands, but what
if it is set up so you can only cash out after you have played 150
hands.
Our information is based on comments directly from the article:
"After you've played all the hands you purchased, you cash out for any
positive balance you have accumulated. Your original investment is
gone with any negative balance. You can opt to cash out at any time,
but you forfeit any remaining hands."
So on the first hand you get 4 OAK, for a win of $11.25 ($31.25 -
$20.00), however you still have to play 149 more hands before being
allowed to cash out.
This is not the case.
Or as in another example: you get a royal on the first hand, but you
still have to play another 149 hands, so instead of cashing for $1000
you only cash out for $813.75 ($1000 � ($1.25 * 149)).
Two things. First, you can cash out. Second, the chances of going
149 hands in a row without hitting a single paying hand (better than
even-money payout) are very nearly nill.
What does that do to ER's and strategies?
That's the whole premise of Harry's and my posts. The fact the you
are guaranteed hands increases our ER and dramatically changes
strategy...but the degree of ER increase and the proper strategy
changes are, as yet, unknown.
If reasonable versions of this system are put on casino floors, you
can be sure there will be people that work out strategy changes and
estimates(*) of the ER. On the other hand, if casinos short 2-pair to
an even-money payout and make it 6-5 JoB otherwise...well...I doubt
anything can overcome this and the game will never be successful...
The key from both sides is coming up with something that provides a
reasonable potential return without being likely. If casinos are
willing to offer games like NSUD in high limits (where the total value
of the play is greater than 100%) there is no reason they cannot offer
this in a version that has the *potential* to be over 100%. After
all, NSUD has a pretty easy strategy...and this game will have a
monstrously difficult optimal strategy...
Ken
(*) I don't know that anyone will ever calculate exact optimal
strategy or ER for games using this guarantee. This is because there
are a lot of factors to consider that have never been taken into
account previously. Even if you can calculate the optimal strategy
and ER, this will likely change for an almost infinite number of
scenarios based on how many hands you have remaining and how positive
or negative your balance is currently.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jacob36@...> wrote: