vpFREE2 Forums

New Progressive Video Poker information available

#41

OK now I understood and agreed with all that perfectly. Moreover, if a single team monopolizes a progressive, getting all the seats, they can play a conservative break-even strategy and maximize their win, reducing the casinos hold.

Competition helps the casino, and the lack thereof hurts it. You'll get no argument from me here. I say in my book that a truly intelligent casino with signs that say, "No Team Play" would change them to, "No Team Allowed, Teams Welcome."

~War is a word men use to clothe the nakedness of their killing.

FK

···

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

Frank wrote:
> If everything in this email is general consensus, then it diverges
> greatly from how the teams and other progressive pros I know think
> of hold. I'm not in anyway disagreeing with this email. Just
> letting you know there is a large (albeit quiet) slice of the
> community out there that uses this term differently.

I'll attempt to clarify my use of the term "hold". My assertion is that concentrated play by pro teams of a progressive bank weakens casino "hold" ... i.e., the profit a casino expects to retain over a given period. (Casino "win" may be a preferred term here.)

Fill a bank with ploppies and you expect the casino will win more than when a team of pros monopolizes it.

Again, I'll assert that so long as there's no contention for seats, pro participation isn't an issue. But that tends to be the exception at high meters.

I'm using the term loosely and if some other term better suits than "hold", that's fine. It's the argument itself that's key.

- H.

#42

Hi Frank, I'm a little slow so a belated "welcome". We've chased a few progressives over the years and will no doubt get your book. Glad to see you here.

Mac
www.CasinoCamper.com

···

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

This is my first post on vpFREE...
~Frank Kneeland, former manager of the largest Vegas slot team and
Author of The Secret World of Video Poker Progressives--A History and
How-To of Video Poker Slot Teams in Las Vegas...

#43

I have no problem agreeing with the statement that being part of a well run team is a guaranteed way to make money.

The problem is that most of the people on this forum are not members of a vp team.
A large portion of the membership are frequent visitors to casinos, but still don't have the opportunity to be on a team.

Strangely enough a number of us like to play VP and just want to have the opportunity to play, make a few bucks and have a free vacation.

I for one resent teams playing on machines that I want to play. They tie up many if not all of the seats that are available and don't contribute to the creation of the juicy jackpots.

If I wanted to become a pro I'd certainly want to be on your team, but as it stands now I just wish you success on your book and am happy that your team isn't at any of the casinos where I play.

Regards

A.P.

···

--- On Mon, 9/6/10, Frank <frank@progressivevp.com> wrote:

From: Frank <frank@progressivevp.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: New Progressive Video Poker information available
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, September 6, 2010, 11:17 PM

Good reply to the question BTW. Everything you said was spot on.

Let me chime in with just a little more info, learned the hard way. As an independent playing flattops, getting free-play, and sucking down the occasional promotion, I lose most days. I only make any real money once or twice a week when I hit an RF or luck out and beat the drop.

When I ran the team with 88 players, we never had a losing week, and made money about 5 out of 6 times we left our houses. It was not uncommon to turn a profit 28 out of the 31 days in a month. Think...printing money.

If you are used to team-play there is no substitute. Risk, fluctuation and stress fall to the wayside, like sparrows in the path of a 747.

Even when I was a quasi-independent with only a couple of partners, I only logged 3 losing months in 9 years...Playing high progressives exclusively.

The problem most people seem to have is they equate playing VP with sitting down at a machine and actually playing a machine. When I think of VP, I think of about a week of driving around in my car (listening to RUSH and Jethro Tull) punctuated by a brutal long play-session ending in media worthy triumph.

I have gone as long as a week and a half without putting a coin in a machine, played only once in that month, and still cleared 5 figures for that same month.

It is a totally different business model and lifestyle. We called being a progressive player being "at the mercy of the meters" and playing non-progressives as being, "back on the chain gang".

FK

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

bobbartop wrote:
> I'm still confused about the need for anyone to put together a
> team. Seems to me a team is not any more important for progressives
> than it would be for any other typical good promotion.

Progressives typically concentrate much more return in infrequent jackpots than most other plays/promotions.

Team play w/ shared bankroll spreads that added risk. Further, to the extent a team monopolizes a bank, the risk of coming away without a successful jackpot hit is reduced. Lastly, as with any play, shared bankroll play can open access to some high denom progressives that are otherwise "playable" only with well-padded bankrolls.

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

#44

I can find no fault in this logic. You are absolutely correct about the quality of play. I mention this in my book, but forgot to bring it up in forum. Thanks for spotting this highly important omission on my part.

FK

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Albert Pearson <ehpee@...> wrote:

I assert that casinos do not do as well with a pro team playing than without.

In my experience when A progressive gets good it gets busy with players.
It seems obvious to me that if those playing are not experts the casino will make more money than if experts are playing. The non experts will probably lose more money trying to win the progressive than the experts will lose in the same pursuit.
I base this on the assumption that good play will lose less money than poor play.
I have seen enough players banging away on multi game progressives playing the worst game available rather than a better game on the machine to feel very cofident in my assertion that casinos do not do as well with pro teams playing as they do with the regular casino customers.

Regards

A.P.

--- On Mon, 9/6/10, Frank <frank@...> wrote:

From: Frank <frank@...>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: New Progressive Video Poker information available
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, September 6, 2010, 4:57 AM

First let me say, I'm not disagreeing with what you said. Your points were valid. It's very hard to say for sure how teams affect casino drop, because there is no way to do controlled studies. It's like attributing the improvement in your headache to taking an aspirin. You can't go back in time and not take the aspirin, to see if the headache would have gone away on its own.

The way we always thought of it was this:

A casino's regular patrons have X number of dollars to lose playing. Depending on what they play, they will lose it quickly or slowly. The station resorts discovered this when they raised the average return of their games by 2% and discovered, much to their surprise, almost no change in their bottom line, but a huge increase in the head count in their casinos. Rather than losing less, the customers just took longer to lose the same.

A team, or progressive pros bring in outside cash the casino would not have gotten otherwise, and add to the total drop. It's extra action. Extra action = extra money.

Also, if you're are talking about the team I ran, our players were well dressed, well behaved, polite and unobtrusive. This was not the case with most of the other teams. I can certainly understand some of the heat they got, as it was well deserved.

The best way for casinos to avoid their regular players from not being able to get seats is have large linked banks of progressives, too large for any team to lock up.

One thing I believe is true, of all they ways people can get an edge in a casino, simply playing when a progressive gets high, is the only method that does not take money directly out of the casinos pocket.

You could make an argument that if it discourages non-professional play, it could have some indirect effect. But it would be just that, an argument. You could also make an argument that seeing pros win, encourages play. I don't think there's anyway to be sure of either.

I'm going to think we, or at least I, helped casinos. I certainly turned in enough over-payers over the years to have offset my winnings and then some. They didn't call me "The Error Corrector" for nothing.

FK

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

#45

No, I have read your book. Actually, I am reading it. It's not an easy read. But I do appreciate very well what is involved in scouting. I have had blisters on my feet from doing just a fraction of what needs to be done. I also have a very good feeling for how big Vegas is. It's VERY big!

I'm just saying, once you get beyond the scouting problem, I don't see an absolute need for a team. Five guys, theoretically, could cover enough of the town to capture enough information, imo. But in no way did I imply that one could scout it alone. Been there done that, and I know it's a big town. And I travel at night, with no traffic. It's much worse for someone who plays in the daytime.

···

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

Well I'm guessing you haven't read my book, or you would know that playing progressives in anything but a team, is far less profitable. It is possible to play solo, but you lose about 80% of the value. I offer all the math to explain this assumption.

Part of the problem is scouting. It takes roughly 90 man hours a week to properly scout all the progressives in and around town. If you were doing this for yourself, you wouldn't have any time to play. If you did pay the 90 hours of labor a week to a scout or scouts, you'd have to have enough people on staff to play the found progressives to offset the scouting costs. Each player nets you the fraction of the the value of the play divided by the number of seats. On a bank on 10 machines you'd need 5 players to capture half of the total value of the found progressive.

You'd need a minimum of about 6 players just to break-even on scouting.

I offer several solutions to this and the other problems associated with progressive play in the book.

#46

I can accept risk and fluctuation, and do so without "stress". I don't stress, because I have faith in math. I also know that the best I can do by myself is about 1-1/2 million hands a year. I know what to expect in that time, and if I don't get near theoretical expectation, then there's always next year. One thing's for sure, I know I'm not going to cheat (hold out on) myself. Maybe you have met more honest people than I have.

···

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

When I ran the team with 88 players, we never had a losing week, and made money about 5 out of 6 times we left our houses. It was not uncommon to turn a profit 28 out of the 31 days in a month. Think...printing money.

If you are used to team-play there is no substitute. Risk, fluctuation and stress fall to the wayside, like sparrows in the path of a 747.

#47

This is reference to when they improved the pay schedule of nearly all their machines, shortly after The Bingo Palace became the Palace Station. A friend in their accounting department told me about the effect it had on their drop. Neither statements were conjecture or hearsay. If I post opinion, I'll make sure to state it as such.

Sorry for pulling out such a piece of history from the web filled closet of my mind, without mentioning that it was ancient history.

Oh, and good job on questioning my sources.

The truth is out there, but you will rarely find it standing in the light.

~Frank Kneeland

···

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

And you know Station raised their returns 2% how? 2% or 200 basis points by the way - their video poker has shown no improvement

#48

Since you bring up the math, an issue with progressives, depending on your selection criterion, is that variances can run in the 100's, which can push N0 into the millions of hands, and as you probably already know, N0 is just the beginning. If your goal is to get within at least 10% of the average result at least 68% of the time, that requires 100 times N0, or potentially 100's of millions of hands. At 1-1/2 million hands per year, that could take a while.

http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Bank_NO.htm

···

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

I can accept risk and fluctuation, and do so without "stress". I don't stress, because I have faith in math. I also know that the best I can do by myself is about 1-1/2 million hands a year. I know what to expect in that time, and if I don't get near theoretical expectation, then there's always next year. One thing's for sure, I know I'm not going to cheat (hold out on) myself. Maybe you have met more honest people than I have.

#49

It is true variance increases on progressives, if you play progressives at the same return numbers as non-progressives. Typically you play them at much higher returns--because you can.

During the worst Royal Flush drought I ever had, I went eight Royal Cycles without a Royal...causing me make a meager $8,800 during that period. OK, so I was playing 8-10% edges at the time. Even a 7% negative swing wasn't enough to make me loser.

Also, if you always play until you hit the progressive the meter-rise greatly reduces the fluctuation.

I did not disagree with this post, I only wanted to add a little extra info.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bobbartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
> I can accept risk and fluctuation, and do so without "stress". I don't stress, because I have faith in math. I also know that the best I can do by myself is about 1-1/2 million hands a year. I know what to expect in that time, and if I don't get near theoretical expectation, then there's always next year. One thing's for sure, I know I'm not going to cheat (hold out on) myself. Maybe you have met more honest people than I have.

Since you bring up the math, an issue with progressives, depending on your selection criterion, is that variances can run in the 100's, which can push N0 into the millions of hands, and as you probably already know, N0 is just the beginning. If your goal is to get within at least 10% of the average result at least 68% of the time, that requires 100 times N0, or potentially 100's of millions of hands. At 1-1/2 million hands per year, that could take a while.

http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Bank_NO.htm

#50

That's funny, because when I turned 21 in 03', the first place we went was Lake Tahoe, and I happened to hit the royal at that bar..only playing 2 quarters! (I can't remember how high the progressive was, but I know when I hit the Royal, the bartender nearly jumped out of his skin)
I was young and stupid then...

···

For the record, I really was a cocktail server at Harvey's in lake Tahoe to facilitate playing the Mountain Bar, a 4.5% progressive. The uniform was a tux.

#51

That's why I always finish my vegetables.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

Since you bring up the math, an issue with progressives, depending on your selection criterion, is that variances can run in the 100's, which can push N0 into the millions of hands, and as you probably already know, N0 is just the beginning. If your goal is to get within at least 10% of the average result at least 68% of the time, that requires 100 times N0, or potentially 100's of millions of hands. At 1-1/2 million hands per year, that could take a while.

#52

Sounds like the bartender might have been Gary or Mark Bartholomew. I was long gone from Tahoe when you were there.

I had a stock joke/IQ test I sprung on guests. When friends visited me at the lake I would tell them:

"Tahoe" is a Washoe Indian word. In the native tongue it means...(long pause)..."Tahoe".

The smart ones got the joke.

Oh and don't let me catch you short-coining, or I'll call you Hugo. Sorry, inside joke.

FK

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "TIMSPEED" <corvetteracing87@...> wrote:

That's funny, because when I turned 21 in 03', the first place we went was Lake Tahoe, and I happened to hit the royal at that bar..only playing 2 quarters! (I can't remember how high the progressive was, but I know when I hit the Royal, the bartender nearly jumped out of his skin)
I was young and stupid then...

> For the record, I really was a cocktail server at Harvey's in lake Tahoe to facilitate playing the Mountain Bar, a 4.5% progressive. The uniform was a tux.

#53

You cost him his tip! Don't do that again!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "TIMSPEED" <corvetteracing87@...> wrote:

That's funny, because when I turned 21 in 03', the first place we >went was Lake Tahoe, and I happened to hit the royal at that bar..only >playing 2 quarters! (I can't remember how high the progressive was, >but I know when I hit the Royal, the bartender nearly jumped out of >his skin)

#54

Well, maybe the suits aren't so dumb. If you had their perspectives who would you like to see hit those big progressive royals? "The teams" or the "suckers?"

With the team the money is going out the door to pay rent (mortgage), buy groceries, cars, tv's, whatever. With the sucker the money gets played back in negative situations (positive for the house).

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE Administrator" <vpfreeadmin@> wrote:
>
> I don't believe casinos are, or should be, very concerned
> about the size of video poker progressives since the casino's
> hold is determined by the paytables at reset values. And,
> most progressives have a negative ER at reset and are
> thereby immune from burnout play by pros.
>

Babbartop wrote:

Casino "suits" are not always rational. And I'm being polite.

#55

That's why teams hire players that look like suckers, or tweakers, or at least have nice cleavage, or chain smoke cheap cigars. Some suits run their own teams. Something to think about.

···

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

> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE Administrator" <vpfreeadmin@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't believe casinos are, or should be, very concerned
> > about the size of video poker progressives since the casino's
> > hold is determined by the paytables at reset values. And,
> > most progressives have a negative ER at reset and are
> > thereby immune from burnout play by pros.
> >
>
> Babbartop wrote:
>
> Casino "suits" are not always rational. And I'm being polite.
>
>
Well, maybe the suits aren't so dumb. If you had their perspectives who would you like to see hit those big progressive royals? "The teams" or the "suckers?"

With the team the money is going out the door to pay rent (mortgage), buy groceries, cars, tv's, whatever. With the sucker the money gets played back in negative situations (positive for the house).

#56

Good point, Mickey, as usual!

Hey Frank! I don't know if you know Mickey or not, but this guy has the greatest stories, trust me. Look for some of his past exploits and they are a great read. You won't be able to stop reading them. Mickey needs to write a book!!!

···

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

Well, maybe the suits aren't so dumb. If you had their perspectives who would you like to see hit those big progressive royals? "The teams" or the "suckers?"

With the team the money is going out the door to pay rent (mortgage), buy groceries, cars, tv's, whatever. With the sucker the money gets played back in negative situations (positive for the house).