vpFREE2 Forums

"Guaranteed Play" Could Change VP-Very Interesting

#1

In a message dated 12/18/2006 12:49:34 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
harry.porter@verizon.net writes:

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.

This is a no brainer [Hey. I heard that remark] Consider how many
recreational players you see timing each other as to how many hands they play per hour.
None. GP's are going to be targeted at bad players that play slow. I think
the GP paytables will be terrible and the number of hands will be way less
than the average hands we get to play putting in a twenty on a good machine.
Given $20 for 150 hands would we risk twenty bucks to play an average of 15 mins
on Jacks 6/5 or even 8/5? Remember when Multistrike first came out? Rec
players were lining up to play horrible paytables and would still be if not for
more shortpay Multistrikes going on the floor. You can bet somebody from IGT
monitors all of our posts for two reasons; Lowered casino client profitability
on machines and the eyesore we present when, for example, playing two
machines looking like the brainy AP's that we are. Many times I've been at Orleans
hammering $2 NSU single lines [RIP] on the main floor [I played them once in
High Limits and felt uneasy when the attendant paying a $2k signer asked in a
snotty tone, "Do you want me to count this out sir?" "Do I look like Bill...
I mean Bob Dancer sitting a few seats away, hogging three machines, all with
the lights blinking on top?"] and people walk by and turn around in awe or
what ever to glance at me. Why would this new game ever be offered on
paytables that would give us an advantage counting comps and cashback. What about
seeking out casino paytable mistakes you ask? Does the Western still have a
chicken wire fence around the parking lot? So I agree with Harry on "academic
exercise".
JT

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#2

This is a no brainer [Hey. I heard that remark]

I swear I only *thought* it... :^)

Consider how many
recreational players you see timing each other as to how many hands

they play per hour.

None.

I think that depends on your definition of a recreational player. I
consider myself to be a recreational player. I seek situations that
maximize my entertainment value over total return. As such, I am
willing to play a slightly worse game to be in a more enjoyable
environment...

But, I will not play a game that does not provide me a 100% return
when I include the "extras" at a fair value. When I calculate in the
value I place on the room (varies by how nice the casino and room
are), the entertainment value of being in the casino (varies
significantly by casino), food, etc. and add this to the known values
(game return, comps, etc.) I need to be at 100%.

GP's are going to be targeted at bad players that play slow. I think
the GP paytables will be terrible and the number of hands will be

way less

than the average hands we get to play putting in a twenty on a good

machine.

A few comments...

1. I don't know about them targeted at slow players. Bad would make
sense, but not necessarily slow...

2. I suspect the base pay tables will be horrid...but that does not
mean the net result is not a good game.

3. Of course the guarantee will be for less than the average number of
hands. The point of the GP system is to guarantee a reasonable number
of hands...not the average number of hands. Guaranteeing the average
number of hands would require horrendously disgusting pay-tables to
prevent the game from being a casino-killer.

Given $20 for 150 hands would we risk twenty bucks to play an

average of 15 mins

on Jacks 6/5 or even 8/5?

I strongly suspect I would happily play an 8/5 machine. Did you read
Harry's analysis?

Remember when Multistrike first came out? Rec
players were lining up to play horrible paytables and would still be

if not for

more shortpay Multistrikes going on the floor.

As long as casino profits continue to soar, they are completely
justified in putting bad games on their floors. When they hit a rough
patch and have to seek out players, things might change.

But they are still someone limited in just HOW bad the games can
typically be. Even ploppies eventually notice that they don't seem to
have any chance at winning money. People don't need to be *likely* to
win to go ahead and gamble...but they require a *chance* to win or
they will stop.

You can bet somebody from IGT
monitors all of our posts for two reasons; Lowered casino client

profitability

on machines and the eyesore we present when, for example, playing two
machines looking like the brainy AP's that we are.

I think they monitor groups like this for a number of reasons. But I
definitely do not think IGT operates on a "screw the player" business
model...

Ken

#3

Of course this is an opinion, but here goes:

It will be too complicated for John Q and will be avoided at all costs.

#4

deuceswild1000 wrote:

Of course this is an opinion, but here goes:

It will be too complicated for John Q and will be avoided at all
costs.

Gee, I thought it unlikely that someone held the intellect of John Q
with lower esteem that myself :wink:

Come on, now ... here's the proposition to the player:

Play like you normally would. If you run out of cash before 150 hands
have been played, you get to continue playing into negative credits.
If you bring yourself back to a positive balance at the end of 150
hands, the credits are yours to keep.

I think your average WOF player might barely manage that gaming concept.

···

------

Here's the real killer for most players. After the 150 hands, the
game's ER takes a 3% plunge if it should allow you to continue playing
a normal game, without any further play guarantee. I'm counting on
the game design to permit just that (I can't imagine that the game
would pause, force a cashout, and require a new wager of 80 credits to
continue play with a renewed play guarantee) and most players to
continue in that fashion as well.

And, of course, I doubt most players will quit in advance of
completing 150 hands if they get a good winning streak, at which point
they're being penalized with a poor paytable without the offsetting
benefit of a meaningful protection against excess losses.

------

As I noted before, I think a game that reduces downside volatility
while leaving upside hit potential unchanged is going to have strong
appeal to John Q, even if when everything is said and done credits
drain faster than their existing plays.

Unless players are far more paytable sensitive than I give them credit
for, I see this as potentially being quite a hit. And, frankly, what
we've observed at Coast Casinos and more recently at Caesars leads me
to believe that John Q is pretty clueless.

- Harry

#5

-I know something about the people who designed this game, they are
very smart and very aware of AP video poker players - unlike other
times when you get lucky because the slot director was an 8th grade
drop out who got juiced into his job, these people are quite bright -
they painstankingly made sure the people on this site could not beat
the game - therefore there is nothing interesting about except that if
it takes off, all good play at video poker will be dead shortly
thereafter.

#6

caplatinum wrote:

-I know something about the people who designed this game, they are
very smart and very aware of AP video poker players - unlike other
times when you get lucky because the slot director was an 8th grade
drop out who got juiced into his job, these people are quite bright -
they painstankingly made sure the people on this site could not beat
the game - therefore there is nothing interesting about except that
if it takes off, all good play at video poker will be dead shortly
thereafter.

My biggest fear is that the concern of an unduly attractive game would
be addressed simply by restricting paytables to god awful values :slight_smile:

I have no doubt concerning the expertise of the folks at IGT and it's
partners. AP players aside, IGT is under constraints in various
jurisdictions that prohibit 100%+ games with optimal strategy. Should
IGT mess up in its calculations, the consequence would be messy at
best. (And with folks like Shackleford out there, I don't think they
could simply depend that should they screw up, no one would figure it
out.)

···

------

But you're dead wrong in suggesting there's "nothing interesting"
about the game's economic potential. Should paytables be reasonably
strong (say 99%-100% ER), then play incentives and promotions can make
such a game very "interesting", just as with any other strong ER game.

Further, because of the unique structure of some promotions, any game
with unusual features has the potential to be ideally positioned to
take advantage of, for example, a bonusing provision. That could
prove true of G.P., where the flux in ER as the meter moves could open
some interesting, novel windows that only the strongest player would
likely be able to take advantage of (suggesting the possibility of a
long sustained play).

------

But, I'm merely suggesting what could be the case. As I believe
you're suggesting, I look for very weak paytables. Given the novelty
of the play, it's unlikely that a stronger paytable would be effective
at drawing much more play than a weak one so there's little incentive
to offer such a paytable.

Bottom line, I imagine my general sentiments are reasonably in line
with yours. There's far greater downside potential with the game
than upside. If only there was a way to structure some type of
"guarantee" to cushion the implications of that.

- Harry

#7

..........Here's the real killer for most players. After the 150
hands, the game's ER takes a 3% plunge if it should allow you to
continue playing a normal game, without any further play guarantee.
I'm counting on the game design to permit just that (I can't imagine
that the game would pause, force a cashout, and require a new wager
of 80 credits to continue play with a renewed play guarantee) and
most players to continue in that fashion as well....................

···

--In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:

=============================================

Harry, I'm sure that you're right about this aspect of the game. I
do agree 100% with the poster who proclaimed that if the casino
believes that it will enhance their profits, that the player is
probably going to get the shaft.

If this is true, however, and there is not a "forced cashout" or
even a warning given, are we assuming that Jane/John Q., ploppies
that they are, are actually going to count down 150 played
hands, so that they know when to stop? I think that this is a
dubious supposition, at best. They MAY cash out eventually with
some of their initial $20.00 bankroll still intact. Or, IMO, more
likely, they will continue pounding away, at an inferior pay table,
until all the credits are gone. Of course, they will have had
the "satisfaction" of playing longer in their losing effort. (- :

As for me, I am much too suspicious of the casino's motives in
providing this game, to play it. Furthermore, even a non-prog.
8/5JOB pay schedule (and I doubt that it will be that good) would
discourage me from investing as much as a Hamiliton just to try it
out.

Regards,
~Babe~

#8

Harry Porter said:

But, I'm merely suggesting what could be the case. As I believe
you're suggesting, I look for very weak paytables. Given the novelty
of the play, it's unlikely that a stronger paytable would be effective
at drawing much more play than a weak one so there's little incentive
to offer such a paytable.

Bottom line, I imagine my general sentiments are reasonably in line
with yours. There's far greater downside potential with the game
than upside. If only there was a way to structure some type of
"guarantee" to cushion the implications of that.

- Harry

I may be missing something here, but wouldn't this be profitable for
the casinos even with a good paytable?

In general with a game (with no gauranteed play), the higher the ER,
the less it costs you to play. A 100% game should cost you nothing to
play in the long run. Play the same game with gauranteed play,
assuming no change in strategy, and the casino makes $20. The only
way they would have made more money from you playing the conventional
game is if you would have spent more than $20 to get 75-150 hands. It
is unlikely they would have won much more than $20 in those cases. So
it seems like guaranteed play can turn a good game bad. Anything
wrong with this analysis?

However, I am very curious how this will effect comps. Taking a
simple system of $1 per point and playing dollars, will you still earn
5 points per hand even if you have a negative balance?

- John

#9

Everything up until this paragraph was solid and made sense. But I
suspect you would later regret not hammering away at an 8/5 JoB pay
schedule.

Ken

···

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

As for me, I am much too suspicious of the casino's motives in
providing this game, to play it. Furthermore, even a non-prog.
8/5JOB pay schedule (and I doubt that it will be that good) would
discourage me from investing as much as a Hamiliton just to try it
out.

#10

I may be missing something here, but wouldn't this be profitable for
the casinos even with a good paytable?

You are missing something...I'll get to it in detail below...

In general with a game (with no gauranteed play), the higher the ER,
the less it costs you to play. A 100% game should cost you nothing to
play in the long run.

Correct.

Play the same game with gauranteed play,
assuming no change in strategy, and the casino makes $20. The only
way they would have made more money from you playing the conventional
game is if you would have spent more than $20 to get 75-150 hands. It
is unlikely they would have won much more than $20 in those cases. So
it seems like guaranteed play can turn a good game bad. Anything
wrong with this analysis?

You are wrong with this analysis. Hopefully I can explain...

The Guaranteed Play feature, as described in existing literature,
limits your losses without limiting your potential win. If you decide
you are going to play 150 hands of quarter 9/6 JoB, you are cycling
$187.50 through the machine. Your expected loss is $0.86. BUT, you
get to this loss via a wide range of results -- some with huge wins,
some with losses of more like $40-$50.

According to Harry's rough analysis, around 30% of all results will be
A loss of more than $20. Clipping these to just a $20 loss cannot
lower the overall return of the game; on the contrary, it serves to
increase return.

Think of this similarly to the loss-rebates casinos sometimes
offer...they do not guarantee a positive EV play, but they can shift a
-EV game into positive territory is played correctly.

I just thought of a good example to help show how this is a +EV
situation. Let's say we are flipping a fair coin. If it is heads, I
give you $1; for tails, you give me $1 -- a 100% game long-term. We
will flip the coin 3 times -- your win is not limited, but I am nice
and limit your potential loss to just $1!

There are 8 possible results: HHH, HHT, HTH, THH, HTT, THT, TTH, TTT

Without the loss limit, here are the potential financial results:
Win $3 -- 1-in-8 --> +$0.375 EV
Win $1 -- 3-in-8 --> +$0.375 EV
Lose $1 -- 3-in-8 --> -$0.375 EV
Lose $3 -- 1-in-8 --> -$0.375 EV

Adding these up, you get a $0 EV game.

But if you get the loss limit, the possible results shift to:
Win $3 -- 1-in-8 --> +$0.375 EV
Win $1 -- 3-in-8 --> +$0.375 EV
Lose $1 -- 4-in-8 --> -$0.5 EV

Adding these up, you get $0.25 EV. Divide this by the $3 you wagered
and you get a 108.33% game -- the loss limit changed a 100% game into
a 108% game...

The same principle applies to the Guaranteed Play video poker --
clipping the worst-case scenarios increases the EV of the game.

However, I am very curious how this will effect comps. Taking a
simple system of $1 per point and playing dollars, will you still earn
5 points per hand even if you have a negative balance?

This is something I thought about but did not want to get into. I
think it is a good topic, but one I would rather cover at another time.

Ken

···

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

#11

--There is no loss limit. You buy a certain amount of play, let's
say $125 for 100 spins on a five coins quarter game - if you play
all 100 spins, you get any amount that is left there, but it could
be negative . If negative you get nothing. You know when you use
Winpoker, you can have a negative coin balance without limit
starting with the meter at zero - the same principle applies here.
Of course, you can always cash out before your 100 spins. If you
hits quads on the first spin and get 125 quarters, you can take
$31.25, but because you paid $125, you will have a net loss of
$(93.75). There is no chance that this game is being put on full pay
deuces of anything of the sort. As for comps, this get really bad -
comps will be based on the casinos expected win cannot be higher
than the buy-in, regardless of time played. Because whether somone
has a negative meter after 100 spins of negative $50 or negative $75
or negative $200 does not matter to the casino, the most they can
win is the $125 you paid to buy-in.

Use the quarter example above, hit quads first spin in VP as we know
it - you are up $31.25, perhaps you decide because it is a double
points day, to play through more coin with a stop loss of to where
you will stop in net win hit $20, so you can guarantee the $20
profit. Well if you play even for two hours you will get lots of
points, but in guaranteed play, you will get no more comps for
extended play.

This was not created by IGT by the way. It was created by Walker
Digital, one of the most prolific creators of new inventions in this
country, including the guys who created priceline. They only made
one mistake with this - this system works better for slot players
than video poker players IMHO. Because of the comp issue, I don't
think this think works in real life.

#12

Ken:

I like your analogy, but you are forgetting that I have to pay
something in order to get you to insure my bets. Remember, I give you
some money up front that you get to keep if I win or lose. Sure, I
would love to have a free loss limit...that would definitely raise the
EV for me. However, if I pay more for the privilege than I expect to
gain from the game, the overall EV turns negative.

- John

> I may be missing something here, but wouldn't this be profitable for
> the casinos even with a good paytable?

You are missing something...I'll get to it in detail below...

> In general with a game (with no gauranteed play), the higher the ER,
> the less it costs you to play. A 100% game should cost you nothing to
> play in the long run.

Correct.

> Play the same game with gauranteed play,
> assuming no change in strategy, and the casino makes $20. The only
> way they would have made more money from you playing the conventional
> game is if you would have spent more than $20 to get 75-150 hands. It
> is unlikely they would have won much more than $20 in those cases. So
> it seems like guaranteed play can turn a good game bad. Anything
> wrong with this analysis?

You are wrong with this analysis. Hopefully I can explain...

The Guaranteed Play feature, as described in existing literature,
limits your losses without limiting your potential win. If you decide
you are going to play 150 hands of quarter 9/6 JoB, you are cycling
$187.50 through the machine. Your expected loss is $0.86. BUT, you
get to this loss via a wide range of results -- some with huge wins,
some with losses of more like $40-$50.

According to Harry's rough analysis, around 30% of all results will be
A loss of more than $20. Clipping these to just a $20 loss cannot
lower the overall return of the game; on the contrary, it serves to
increase return.

Think of this similarly to the loss-rebates casinos sometimes
offer...they do not guarantee a positive EV play, but they can shift a
-EV game into positive territory is played correctly.

I just thought of a good example to help show how this is a +EV
situation. Let's say we are flipping a fair coin. If it is heads, I
give you $1; for tails, you give me $1 -- a 100% game long-term. We
will flip the coin 3 times -- your win is not limited, but I am nice
and limit your potential loss to just $1!

There are 8 possible results: HHH, HHT, HTH, THH, HTT, THT, TTH, TTT

Without the loss limit, here are the potential financial results:
Win $3 -- 1-in-8 --> +$0.375 EV
Win $1 -- 3-in-8 --> +$0.375 EV
Lose $1 -- 3-in-8 --> -$0.375 EV
Lose $3 -- 1-in-8 --> -$0.375 EV

Adding these up, you get a $0 EV game.

But if you get the loss limit, the possible results shift to:
Win $3 -- 1-in-8 --> +$0.375 EV
Win $1 -- 3-in-8 --> +$0.375 EV
Lose $1 -- 4-in-8 --> -$0.5 EV

Adding these up, you get $0.25 EV. Divide this by the $3 you wagered
and you get a 108.33% game -- the loss limit changed a 100% game into
a 108% game...

The same principle applies to the Guaranteed Play video poker --
clipping the worst-case scenarios increases the EV of the game.

> However, I am very curious how this will effect comps. Taking a
> simple system of $1 per point and playing dollars, will you still

earn

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "kkirschner" <ken.kirschner@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "murphyfields" <jkludge@> wrote:
> 5 points per hand even if you have a negative balance?

This is something I thought about but did not want to get into. I
think it is a good topic, but one I would rather cover at another time.

Ken

#13

Hi Ken,

Though I have every confidence in the accuracy of the math and
computer strategies developed by the minds that are capable of
producing this kind of brilliant work, I am (unfortunately) the
furthest thing from a math head imaginable. Believe me, I am not
proud of a lack of talent and understanding in the field of
math/science, I am merely stating a truthful fact.

Under the circumstances, I just can't figure out why I would be
happy playing 8/5JOB. Can you attempt to enlighten me, Ken?

Thanks!
~Babe~

···

=======================================================
--In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "kkirschner" <ken.kirschner@...> wrote:

Everything up until this paragraph was solid and made sense. But I
suspect you would later regret not hammering away at an 8/5 JoB pay
schedule.
Ken

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@>
wrote:
As for me, I am much too suspicious of the casino's motives in
providing this game, to play it. Furthermore, even a non-prog.
8/5JOB pay schedule (and I doubt that it will be that good) would
discourage me from investing as much as a Hamiliton just to try it
out.

#14

--There is no loss limit.

Yes, there is. You are limited to the loss of the money you put in.
According to all reports, that money buys you more than the minimum
number of hands possible given your buy-in.

You buy a certain amount of play, let's
say $125 for 100 spins on a five coins quarter game

<<rest snipped>>

Either you are wrong or the articles that exist on the game are. All
of the analysis by Harry and myself are based on the articles.

In your buy-in scenario, you are not getting anything. You are paying
full price for your spins -- this would be EXACTLY what we have today.
According to the article, instead of paying $125 for the 100 spins,
you would pay something like $20 for 75 or 150 spins (depending on the
game). The $20 would be the coin-in for just 16 spins, but you are
guaranteed a lot more even if you lose every single hand. This makes
a lot more sense...

The point of Guaranteed Play is to avoid the possibility of minimal
play for your money. Your description does not fit with everything
else out there about the game...I think your analysis of the game is
fundamentally flawed.

Ken

···

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

#15

John,

You are correct in that the analogy was incomplete. I was trying to
show how a loss-limit can turn a 100% game into a +EV game rather than
making a direct comparison between flipping coins and the GP system.

Certainly the payment for the loss limit is important. In my analogy,
$0.25 is the break even point -- pay more than this to get the loss
limit and you are lowering return; pay less than this and the net
result is an increased return.

Ken

···

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

Ken:

I like your analogy, but you are forgetting that I have to pay
something in order to get you to insure my bets. Remember, I give you
some money up front that you get to keep if I win or lose. Sure, I
would love to have a free loss limit...that would definitely raise the
EV for me. However, if I pay more for the privilege than I expect to
gain from the game, the overall EV turns negative.

- John

#16

Babe,

I hope the posts on the coin-flipping help to explain this somewhat.

Basically, it is my belief that the increase in EV from the loss-limit
will be substantial. I do not think the loss in EV from buying this
loss-limit will be too high...though a full analysis would be
necessary. I suspect that 8/5 GP JoB will have a return above that of
9/6 JoB...and for this reason I would think you would regret not
playing the game...

Obviously, we have not seen the final implementation(s) of the game
yet. Until that time, it will be next to impossible for any of us to
come up with a reasonable estimate of the EV for different pay
schedules. But once it is on the floor, I think people will start
working it out. However, I think a full analysis will be a looong
time coming since there are so many potential variables that do not
exist in other forms of video poker.

Ken

···

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

Hi Ken,

Though I have every confidence in the accuracy of the math and
computer strategies developed by the minds that are capable of
producing this kind of brilliant work, I am (unfortunately) the
furthest thing from a math head imaginable. Believe me, I am not
proud of a lack of talent and understanding in the field of
math/science, I am merely stating a truthful fact.

Under the circumstances, I just can't figure out why I would be
happy playing 8/5JOB. Can you attempt to enlighten me, Ken?

Thanks!
~Babe~

#17

jackessiebabe wrote:

If this is true, however, and there is not a "forced cashout" or
even a warning given, are we assuming that Jane/John Q., ploppies
that they are, are actually going to count down 150 played
hands, so that they know when to stop? I think that this is a
dubious supposition, at best.

Nah, while supposition, players aren't going to trust that they're
actually getting 150 hands (or likely 75 in the case of a more
volatile game such as DDB) unless there's a visible countdown.

They MAY cash out eventually with some of their initial $20.00
bankroll still intact. Or, IMO, more likely, they will continue
pounding away, at an inferior pay table, until all the credits are
gone. Of course, they will have had the "satisfaction" of playing
longer in their losing effort. (- :

I expect you've got the situation nailed cold in the latter
expectation. They'll look at as they're having "beat" the machine in
surviving the 150 hands with a positive cash balance.

As for me, I am much too suspicious of the casino's motives in
providing this game, to play it. Furthermore, even a non-prog.
8/5JOB pay schedule (and I doubt that it will be that good) would
discourage me from investing as much as a Hamiliton just to try it
out.

You disappoint me, Babe ... thought you were a true advantage player
who wouldn't turn down any prospect that could be shown to be reliably
strong :). The more I noodle the math (and, trust me, aside from
penning these posts I haven't given it more than 15 min time) the more
comfortable I am that it isn't going to take Einsteinian
sophistication to evaluate the rough merits of a machine. (I think
something considerably short of a Shackleford effort will yield a
passible, reliable guestimate.)

- Harry

#18

murphyfields wrote:

I may be missing something here, but wouldn't this be profitable for
the casinos even with a good paytable?

In general with a game (with no gauranteed play), the higher the ER,
the less it costs you to play. A 100% game should cost you nothing
to play in the long run. Play the same game with gauranteed play,
assuming no change in strategy, and the casino makes $20.

There's been a bid of a misleading misconception (er, a redundancy I
suppose -- are misconceptions every NOT misleading :wink: in the phrasing
of there being a "cost" to play the game. The $20 is merely a buyin
for the standard 80 $.25 credits.

What you "pay" in exchange for the play guarantee is playing a
paytable that may be weaker than you'd otherwise accept (for John Q,
that supposition may be dubious :wink:

What you get in exchange for the weaker paytable is the economic value
of being able to run into negative credits without additional cost and
the option to quit early if you run up a decent profit ... at which
point the guarantee has little added value and now you're simply
saddled with the drain of the inferior paytable. I estimate for a
game such as Jacks that this may likely add 3%+ to the game ER.

However, I am very curious how this will effect comps. Taking a
simple system of $1 per point and playing dollars, will you still
earn 5 points per hand even if you have a negative balance?

The suggestion in the write-ups is that this would exactly be the case
and would be an aspect that would appeal to many. However, this
benefit is entirely illusory. If the overall ER should be inferior to
a standard game, the expected earned comps over a moderately short
period of time will be inferior.

- Harry

#19

jackessiebabe wrote:

Furthermore, even a non-prog. 8/5JOB pay schedule (and I doubt that it
will be that good) would discourage me from investing as much as a
Hamiliton just to try it out.

kkirschner wrote:

Everything up until this paragraph was solid and made sense. But I
suspect you would later regret not hammering away at an 8/5 JoB pay
schedule.

As my posts should suggest, I agree in spades with you kk.

Mind you, all my statements are based on interpretation of a very
limited amount of disclosure concerning the machine. There could be
other unattractive aspects that haven't been discussed that would
entirely change my bias.

- Harry

#20

caplatinum wrote:

--There is no loss limit. You buy a certain amount of play, let's
say $125 for 100 spins on a five coins quarter game - if you play
all 100 spins, you get any amount that is left there, but it could
be negative . If negative you get nothing.

I'll suggest another perspective on this. You buy in for $20. You
crap out after the first 100 spins. But you're guaranteed 150 spins.
The next 50 spins are essentially all on the house. If you come out
ahead, it's your's to keep. You paid nothing for the additional 250
credits of play since they wouldn't be yours on a standard game with
the same paytable. If you lose another $10 on those plays, you're out
nothing. Hence the translation of the guaranteed play feature into a
"loss limit". Your risk for those 150 plays is limited to your $20
buy in.

As for comps, this get really bad - comps will be based on the
casinos expected win cannot be higher than the buy-in, regardless of
time played. Because whether somone has a negative meter after 100
spins of negative $50 or negative $75 or negative $200 does not
matter to the casino, the most they can win is the $125 you paid to
buy-in.

No worse than the difference in ER to the casino between the Guarantee
Play machine and the alternate machine you would play ... no different
than the difference between any other two machines. I understand the
gut feeling that the buy-in puts a limit on the casino's expected win
for a player's run at the machine. However, bear in mind that the
"loss limit" aspect of the machine actually improves the player's ER
and expected longevity of play vs. a standard machine with the same
paytable.

Relative comp expectation will all come down to ER, assuming that the
casino accurately rates each machine on the floor (which, of course is
rarely the case and one factor that any strong AP weighs in their play
decisions).

This was not created by IGT by the way. It was created by Walker
Digital, one of the most prolific creators of new inventions in this
country, including the guys who created priceline. They only made
one mistake with this - this system works better for slot players
than video poker players IMHO. Because of the comp issue, I don't
think this think works in real life.

As I've suggested in recent posts, I think the slot mentality is alive
and thriving in John Q. I'm beginning to suspect that all the rampant
press of the Scotts, Dancers, etc. have been effective in luring slot
players over to the "light side of the force" (or whatever the
converse of dark is). However, they're an unlikely bunch to sift
through the harder education ... they simply grasp they get a better
run for their money (and in almost all cases, that's likely true). I
think "Guarantee Play" has tremendous appeal for that crowd. As
stated, I think there's no comp issue whatsoever.

- Harry