In June, this topic arose on the ACVPP group when discussing strategy
changes for progressives. Jazbo presented a VP example that clearly
illustrated in a practical setting what (I believe) Steve Jacobs is
currently explaining (but many of us are not grasping). This was
post # 7379 on the ACVPP group. You may wish to read the first few
paragraphs of post 7373 to get the gist of the thread. Perhaps a
VPFREE administrator can reproduce those posts in this group for
ACVPP nonmembers.
Max EV vs Minimum Loss
In June, this topic arose on the ACVPP group when discussing strategy
changes for progressives. Jazbo presented a VP example that clearly
illustrated in a practical setting what (I believe) Steve Jacobs is
currently explaining (but many of us are not grasping). This was post #
7379 on the ACVPP group. You may wish to read the first few paragraphs
of post 7373 to get the gist of the thread. Perhaps a VPFREE
administrator can reproduce those posts in this group for ACVPP
nonmembers.
I don't care to get the necessary authorizations to put Jazbo's post on
vpFREE, but I'll give a synopsis.
The acvpp post by Jazbo (which acknowledges Steve Jacob's min-cost
efforts) deals with the differences between a max-EV and a min-cost
strategy when playing a progressive. Steve Jacobs covered the same
ground in vpFREE post #18770:
If you have no competition, that min-cost strategy will maximize your
average final bankroll after playing however long it takes to hit the royal.
By contrast, playing a max-EV strategy will win the most $$/hour while
playing for the royal. You win more quickly, but on average you leave the
casino with fewer dollars in your pocket. I believe I originated this concept
several years ago. <<<
Jazbo also pointed out that min-cost is easier to play than max-EV because it
is a constant strategy, and that if you have competition you will lose less
using min-cost, if you don't get the royal.
vpFREE Administrator
ยทยทยท
On 24 Oct 2003 at 13:29, vpfreee wrote: