vpFREE2 Forums

New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

#1

One-Eyed Jacks was discussed briefly on this List a while ago. It is a VERY
difficult strategy--perhaps the hardest of all games.

Brian

···

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

In a message dated 7/10/2011 12:43:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
frank@progressivevp.com writes:

BDW was tossed around and the consensus was that it was too easy. It is
unfamiliar and that wasn't something we considered.

Your input is appreciated. Keep em coming.

~FK

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Lucy" <luckylucyano9@...> wrote:

How about Bonus Deuces Wild, they have two quarter progressive banks at

South Point (their closest competitor) and get plenty of play. You want a
game that people are not ultra familiar with (like Jacks or Better) but not
so obscure (like All American and 2 Pair Joker) that they will only get
played when they are positive by professionals.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@> wrote:
>
>
>
> All American is right at the top of our short list. Of course not

everyone will be familiar with it, but that's exactly the point isn't it? To
pick games people are less familiar with.

>
> I can see this from both a players POV and the casinos. From both

sides of the argument the most important thing is sustainability.

>
> If the games are familiar and easy the meter-rise is simply to high.

96.3% + 4% MR + .3% CB + "perfect play" is a loss for the casino.

>
> As a player I'd like to keep it easy and familiar, just like all of

you would want. Also as a player, I'd like this bank not only to last but to
multiply into other venues. Keeping the games easy simply isn't an option
if play preservation and proliferation is to be our paramount concern.

>
> Just tell yourself it'll be "fun" to learn new games.
>
> ~FK
>
> P.S. Did I spell "fun" correctly? Seems like the last time I used the

word it had a silent "q".

>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
> >
> > I was thinking about what Frank said on the radio show the other

night about M Resort wanting to switch out the 7-5 Jacks-or-better for
something else, something a bit more challenging (and more profitable for the
casino). I was wondering what would be a good, and different, choice.

> >
> > What about All American? What about a pay table like the following?
> >
> >
> > 1-1-3-7-7-7-40-200-800
> >
> >
> > Would that work?
> >
>

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

#2

One-Eyed Jacks was discussed briefly on this List a while ago. It is a VERY
difficult strategy--perhaps the hardest of all games.

Brian

How about 1 line Quick Quads?

#3

They used to have them at the Hard Rock...

Don the Dentist

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:

How about 1 line Quick Quads?

#4

Quick Quads are a great idea.

Here is another thought on the meter movement consept.
You could reduce the meter when the games go positive.
For example at $1800 the meter reduces by 80% for the
balance of time until hit.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Don the Dentist <dds6@cox.net>
To: vpFREE <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 11, 2011 8:04 am
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

They used to have them at the Hard Rock...

Don the Dentist

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:

How about 1 line Quick Quads?

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

#5

On these games it is more like $2700, not $1800.

Anyway, I don't want to sound rude, but this is a lousy idea. Nothing personal. lol

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, jaycee5353@... wrote:

Here is another thought on the meter movement consept.
You could reduce the meter when the games go positive.
For example at $1800 the meter reduces by 80% for the
balance of time until hit.

#6

LOL indeed! You must be expressing a player's perspective. That's
the worst idea I've heard from my point of view, also, but if you
owned the M, would you regard it as a lousy idea? Barley's didn't
tolerate this arrangement for long. I can't imagine often having
$4500 quarter royals being optimal for them.

···

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:49:55 -0000, Bob Bartop wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, jaycee5353@... wrote:

Here is another thought on the meter movement consept.
You could reduce the meter when the games go positive.
For example at $1800 the meter reduces by 80% for the
balance of time until hit.

On these games it is more like $2700, not $1800.

Anyway, I don't want to sound rude, but this is a lousy idea. Nothing personal. lol

#7

Thinking about this makes my head hurt. But isn't it GOOD for the casino too? I mean, the higher the jackpot, the more play they get. If we just figure the jackpot is whatever percentage off the top being set aside, then that is money they're never going to have. But subsequent action is still making money for the casino because the BASE game is so negative. And if players are breaking high pairs for 3-card royals, then it's even more profit in the casino's pocket. To me it seems like a win-win when the jackpot is very high and people are lined up to get a seat. Am I wrong on the math? Ooh, my head hurts already.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:

LOL indeed! You must be expressing a player's perspective. That's
the worst idea I've heard from my point of view, also, but if you
owned the M, would you regard it as a lousy idea? Barley's didn't
tolerate this arrangement for long. I can't imagine often having
$4500 quarter royals being optimal for them.

#8

I'm sure you realize that "the higher the jackpot, the more play they
get" must stop being profitable for the casino at some point. The
arrangement they have may be profitable for them and more profitable
than the machines that were removed to make room for them, but what if
they can get 98% of the play they get by reducing the meter movement
and add further to their profits? I admire Frank for how he likes
challenges, but organizing the institution of machines that pros like
while advising casino management how he believes is best for them is a
tall order.

···

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:15:51 -0000, Bob Bartop wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:

LOL indeed! You must be expressing a player's perspective. That's
the worst idea I've heard from my point of view, also, but if you
owned the M, would you regard it as a lousy idea? Barley's didn't
tolerate this arrangement for long. I can't imagine often having
$4500 quarter royals being optimal for them.

Thinking about this makes my head hurt. But isn't it GOOD for the casino too? I mean, the higher the jackpot, the more play they get. If we just figure the jackpot is whatever percentage off the top being set aside, then that is money they're never going to have. But subsequent action is still making money for the casino because the BASE game is so negative. And if players are breaking high pairs for 3-card royals, then it's even more profit in the casino's pocket. To me it seems like a win-win when the jackpot is very high and people are lined up to get a seat. Am I wrong on the math? Ooh, my head hurts already.

#9

I never made the request, but I play it a lot.

···

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:17:02 -0000, Sai Sai wrote:

Frank wants to hear ideas that will be good for the M and good for the pros currently hitting that play every day so a reduction in the meter rise is not going to work. If the actual pros stop playing the bank it would be a lot more profitable for the M and it wouldn't need a change. Out of curiosity Frank you keep mentioning that it was a big request from VPfree posters to have this type of progressive. The only person riding the FrankNBobs kool-aid seems to be BartopBob. How many actual VPree members play this bank that made this request?

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:49:55 -0000, Bob Bartop wrote:

>--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, jaycee5353@ wrote:
>
>>
>> Here is another thought on the meter movement consept.
>> You could reduce the meter when the games go positive.
>> For example at $1800 the meter reduces by 80% for the
>> balance of time until hit.
>>
>>
>
>
>On these games it is more like $2700, not $1800.
>
>Anyway, I don't want to sound rude, but this is a lousy idea. Nothing personal. lol

LOL indeed! You must be expressing a player's perspective. That's
the worst idea I've heard from my point of view, also, but if you
owned the M, would you regard it as a lousy idea? Barley's didn't
tolerate this arrangement for long. I can't imagine often having
$4500 quarter royals being optimal for them.

#10

No, I don't realize it. Seriously. And maybe that's why my head hurts. What if the meter rise were 3% instead of 4? Help me out here, this part is confusing to me.

And speaking of meter rise, what IF they were to do that? That is, lower the rise to 3%. That's still pretty fast. Would that solve any problems?

And if I may digress, here's something I hate, and just don't get. There are a gazillion casinos with progressives like 7-5 Bonus Poker, (98%), and the meter rise is 2/10ths percent, OR LESS! What is up with THAT? I mean, why even have a progressive? The jackpot never goes up. Weeks later, the thing is $1023. lol

In my opinion, "progressive" should just be PART of video poker. Period. IGT should send the machines out like that. Make it 1% meter rise MINIMUM SETTING. lol

In fact, I've tested some reel slot machines before and found some really slow rises. Now that's weird. The slot machine probably returns 92% or less, and these morons have the meter rise at 1/2 a percent. What are they thinking?!!!!!!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:

I'm sure you realize that "the higher the jackpot, the more play they
get" must stop being profitable for the casino at some point.

#11

I'm sure you realize that "the higher the jackpot, the more play they
get" must stop being profitable for the casino at some point.

No, I don't realize it. Seriously. And maybe that's why my head hurts.

If the meter were 20% on each of 8 meters, so that the average jackpot
was well into 5 or possibly 6 figures, would you say that they were
giving up too much or would you say that the additional play that
would encourage would help the casino's bottom line? Keep in mind
that as soon as a play attracts pros, the quality of play increases.
I believe casino managers have often made the mistake of assuming that
error rate is unaffected by theoretical value, such as if the actual
return is 96% on a machine that theoretically pays 99%, they conclude
that they can put in a machine that pays 101% theoretically, have it
actually return 98% and, with more than twice as much play, increase
their profits.

What if the meter rise were 3% instead of 4? Help me out here, this part is confusing to me.

I don't know the numbers, but I assume there's a tradeoff between
meter progression and volume of play. The optimal solution for the
casino is a balance between too much meter progression and too little
play. I'm hoping, pessimistically, that the M can prove that 4% meter
progression or more is optimal.

···

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:57:24 -0000, Bob Bartop wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:

#12

A 25% reduction in the meter-rise would make the games exceed 100% return approximately 1/16 as often, and would reduce the playability of the bank by around 93%, leaving only 7% of the value it currently has.

These are estimates, but close. It's a non-liner progression.

If he has time perhaps 007 could explain it concisely. Took me a chapter in the book.

Because of software limitations the smallest decrement we could make to MR is .8% (it would then have .4% x 8 = 3.2%) This would effectively kill it. There is no way to make "slight" changes to the hold by adjusting the MR. The variable is too sensitive.

Certainly this would raise the hold, but play would drop to nothing. This concept only works if we dance on the razor's edge of 100% and let errors account for all the hold.

I also find this dynamic enlightened. Play correctly make money. Play incorrectly lose money. Seems fair to me...of course what the hell do I know...I know I want a vacation, fishing sounds nice.

~FK

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:
And speaking of meter rise, what IF they were to do that? That is, lower the rise to 3%. That's still pretty fast. Would that solve any problems?

#13

I thought we were looking for an idea that would serve both the player and the house.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: 007 <007@embarqmail.com>
To: vpFREE <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Jul 11, 2011 11:57 am
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:49:55 -0000, Bob Bartop wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, jaycee5353@... wrote:

Here is another thought on the meter movement consept.
You could reduce the meter when the games go positive.
For example at $1800 the meter reduces by 80% for the
balance of time until hit.

On these games it is more like $2700, not $1800.

Anyway, I don't want to sound rude, but this is a lousy idea. Nothing personal. lol

LOL indeed! You must be expressing a player's perspective. That's
the worst idea I've heard from my point of view, also, but if you
owned the M, would you regard it as a lousy idea? Barley's didn't
tolerate this arrangement for long. I can't imagine often having
$4500 quarter royals being optimal for them.

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

#14

No, of course I would not say that. But it isn't 20%, it's 4%. I was fully aware of that when I made my comment about continued play.

So I still don't understand when you said they "must stop being profitable to the casino at some point". I don't get it.

If a single line quarter machine has 7-5 Bonus Poker (98%) on it with a 1% meter rise, doesn't the casino continue to profit regardless of whether the jackpot is $2000, $4000, or even $10,000? It's essentially like a continuous 99% game for the casino. No?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:

If the meter were 20% on each of 8 meters, so that the average jackpot
was well into 5 or possibly 6 figures, would you say that they were
giving up too much or would you say that the additional play that
would encourage would help the casino's bottom line?

#15

Wow, that's amazing, to me anyway. I naturally don't understand it, but I do take your word for it. I believe you. So that answers my question about lowering it to 3%.

···

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

A 25% reduction in the meter-rise would make the games exceed 100% return approximately 1/16 as often, and would reduce the playability of the bank by around 93%, leaving only 7% of the value it currently has.

#16

Frank, you know I respect you, I respect your intellect and your mathematical ability. But you are quite wrong about one thing.

Fishing SUCKS!

···

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

I also find this dynamic enlightened. Play correctly make money. Play incorrectly lose money. Seems fair to me...of course what the hell do I know...I know I want a vacation, fishing sounds nice.

#17

I think my idea of reducing the meter rate AFTER the jackpot is at 100% plus
would allow the house to hold the meter reduction until hit.
Take the California pg just hit at 19,000. I'm guessing that was 104% play
or better. I don't know what the meter movement was but reducing
it at say 10,000 would not have lost any players.

···

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

Frank, you know I respect you, I respect your intellect and your mathematical ability. But you are quite wrong about one thing.

Fishing SUCKS!

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

#18

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote: Frank, you know I respect you, I respect your intellect and your mathematical ability. But you are quite wrong about one thing.

Fishing SUCKS!

FK Reply:

Not if you go with a Playboy Playmate & some 15 year old wine:)

My best fishing story (It is Micky Crimm-ish) (TRUE)

I had just gotten off work (Restaurant Photographer) at Harvey's in Lake Tahoe and swung by my friend Gunnar's house for drinks, at 3:30 am in the morning he says, "Let's go down to the river and catch some breakfast." Not having any good arguments as to why this was impossible, we headed out the back door and a short 15 minute hike later had our lines and feet in the South Truckee (near Myers).

30 min, 3 bears, and no fish later he suggested we try a small lake he knew that was near by.

We got there, cast in our lines and before I could open another beer got a hit. I reeled in a nice rainbow trout. To my amazement, Mr. Gunnderson also had himself a nice trout, slightly larger than mine. Being a full blooded Viking from Iceland most of Gunnar was "slightly larger than mine" (taller, longer hair, bigger chest, etc...) Determined not to let him beat me in yet another category, I cast back in a before you could say, "Viking envy" I had a huge 10 pounder on the line. Arrgh, but so did Gunnar???

What on earth was going on? In the next ten min we both caught another 5 fish and still hadn't cracked a beer. Fishing, or so I had thought, was primarily about drinking and far less about catching fish. Somewhere along the forest path I must have missed the Twilight Zone sign clearly stating that we were now the gods of fishing. Egos were expanding.

Up walks a park ranger. He looks as if he's about to say something, but hasn't quite figured out what it is or how to say it. We are expecting a request for fishing licenses and begin digging them out. To our surprise the question he asks is:

"You boys eight years old?"

A little taken aback we shyly answer, "Uh no".

He says, "You know we just stocked this lake with FOUR THOUSAND STARVING TROUT for the junior fishing championship tomorrow morning?"

Apparently, the look on our faces must have told the whole story, because he did not even wait for a reply. He was sure we were guilty, but our crime was clearly ignorance, and I imagine he figured correctly that our embarrassment was punishment enough. He turned around and walked off quickly, a few moments later we heard laughter from behind the trees. Apparently he just couldn't hold it in any longer.

We put back the still living fish, packed up, and quite literally went home with our tails between our legs, egos deflated with the words "FOUR THOUSAND STARVING TROUT" ringing in our heads.

Well at least I think we would have given the eight year olds a run for their money, as long as it wasn't a drinking contest.

~FK

#19

Bob Bartop wrote:

If the meter were 20% on each of 8 meters, so that the average jackpot
was well into 5 or possibly 6 figures, would you say that they were
giving up too much or would you say that the additional play that
would encourage would help the casino's bottom line?

No, of course I would not say that. But it isn't 20%, it's 4%. I was fully aware of that when I made my comment about continued play.

So I still don't understand when you said they "must stop being profitable to the casino at some point". I don't get it.

The managers of 100s of other casinos believe that offering anything
significant to pros in the form of attractive progressives is not
optimal for them. They crop up occasionally, but they never last very
long. The managers of the M seem to want to prove the managers of
every other casino wrong. I don't think it will take them long to
realize that they can make more money by offering less meter
progression.

If a single line quarter machine has 7-5 Bonus Poker (98%) on it with a 1% meter rise, doesn't the casino continue to profit regardless of whether the jackpot is $2000, $4000, or even $10,000? It's essentially like a continuous 99% game for the casino. No?

Theoretically, yes. But it still isn't necessarily optimal for the
casino. There may be all kinds of room for improvement. What if
stopping the meter at $2000 didn't reduce play at all? That would
almost certainly mean that they should stop the meter at lower than
$2000. And there's always opportunity cost. What if a penny slot
machine would be more profitable than even the optimal progressive?

If I managed a casino, I'd hang a sign outside saying "pros welcome."
Then I'd fire all my consultants. Then I'd wait for the pros to show
up and as soon as they sat down, I'd change what they were playing
until they left.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:

#20

Bartop, you have been in the desert too long! Nothing beats a warm sunny day December Day in Florida. Fishing off a pier with your BFF!!
Catch and release only.

···

>

Frank, you know I respect you, I respect your intellect and your mathematical ability. But you are quite wrong about one thing.

Fishing SUCKS!