vpFREE2 Forums

Progressive VP math

#1

I was playing around with progressive numbers. My results make me question
the advantage of changing strategy as the progressive increases.

Playing a full pay 25c DW progressive at reset ($1000) (100.76% EV) you give
up 1.77% if you do not catch a RF using perfect strategy.
Playing a full pay 25c DW progressive at ($1659.75) (102% EV) you give up
3.29% if you do not catch a RF using perfect strategy.
If you use the $1000 strategy playing the $1659.75 progressive your EV only
drops from 102% to 101.93%.

Is the small EV increase with a RF from using perfect strategy worth the
large loss of EV without a RF? I know that using the proper strategy is an
advantage if I play to infinity. I do not believe that changing from $1000
RF strategy is an advantage unless millions of hands are going to be played.
I am hoping that someone with better math skills than mine can answer this.
SE

#2

I was playing around with progressive numbers. My results make me question
the advantage of changing strategy as the progressive increases.

Playing a full pay 25c DW progressive at reset ($1000) (100.76% EV) you

give

up 1.77% if you do not catch a RF using perfect strategy.
Playing a full pay 25c DW progressive at ($1659.75) (102% EV) you give up
3.29% if you do not catch a RF using perfect strategy.
If you use the $1000 strategy playing the $1659.75 progressive your EV

only

drops from 102% to 101.93%.

Is the small EV increase with a RF from using perfect strategy worth the
large loss of EV without a RF? I know that using the proper strategy is an
advantage if I play to infinity. I do not believe that changing from $1000
RF strategy is an advantage unless millions of hands are going to be

played.

I am hoping that someone with better math skills than mine can answer

this.

I find this method of analyses confusing. I think that you should compare
the
non-RF EV of the two different strategies rather than comparing what EV
is lost from the maximum achievable by following the optimal strategy.

WARNING: I'm going to use fabricated numbers!

For instance if you play standard strategy on FPDW, you will get back 99%
of your action (when you don't hit a RF). Assuming you don't get a RF, if
you
play standard strategy on a FPDW with a RF of $1659.75 , you will get
back 99% of your action.

Isn't that amazing? By changing your perspective the problem disappears!

Gamb00ler

#3

<<<
Is the small EV increase with a RF from using perfect strategy worth the
large loss of EV without a RF?

  Yes, the strategy changes are correct. Look in the archives.
I discussed this topic in great detail. Sorry, I don't recall the
name of the thread.

<<<
I know that using the proper strategy is an
advantage if I play to infinity. I do not believe that changing from $1000
RF strategy is an advantage unless millions of hands are going to be played.

  The correct play is not dependent upon the number of hands
you are going to play. This follows directly from the fact that the
results are independent.

  QZ

vpFREE Home Page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE

vpFREE Links:
http://www.lvcm.com/tomesims/VP/Links.html

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

#4

<<<
WARNING: I'm going to use fabricated numbers!

For instance if you play standard strategy on FPDW, you will get back 99%
of your action (when you don't hit a RF). Assuming you don't get a RF, if
you
play standard strategy on a FPDW with a RF of $1659.75 , you will get
back 99% of your action.

Isn't that amazing? By changing your perspective the problem disappears!

  I don't follow this at all.

    QZ

#5

By changing strategy you increase the need for a larger immediate bankroll.
For example, on a standard Bonus Poker progressive, proper strategy
indicates that you keep three to Royal over high pair at relatively low
progressive amount. This can get costly. A "purist" will keep changing
strategy as the progressive increases.

IF I had my own machine that I could play forever until the progressive is
hit I would change strategy as the amount went up. However to me, the risk
to my immediate, liquid bankroll is more important than the slightly higher
potential to hitting the Royal. If someone else hits the progressive I have
reduced my bankroll with no likely gain. If money is unlimited my thoughts
would be different.

#6

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

I was playing around with progressive numbers. My results make me

question

the advantage of changing strategy as the progressive increases.

Playing a full pay 25c DW progressive at reset ($1000) (100.76% EV)

you give

up 1.77% if you do not catch a RF using perfect strategy.
Playing a full pay 25c DW progressive at ($1659.75) (102% EV) you

give up

3.29% if you do not catch a RF using perfect strategy.

The 1.77% vs. 3.29% is confusing you because you are comparing them
against a different baseline. For example, at reset, your overall
return if you do not catch a royal is 100.76%-1.77%=98.99% (or a
1.01% disadvantage). At $1659.75, your return is 102%-3.29%=98.71%
(or a 1.29% disadvantage).

If you use the $1000 strategy playing the $1659.75 progressive your

EV only

drops from 102% to 101.93%.

Is the small EV increase with a RF from using perfect strategy

worth the

large loss of EV without a RF?

This is being compensated by the fact that the probability of you
playing 1000 hands without hitting a royal goes down as you start to
modify your strategy.

It is true, however that these modifications increase variance. If
you are already playing on an underfunded bankroll, the strategy
variations may make your risk of ruin too high. If your lifetime
bankroll is only about $3000, you may want to ignore strategy
variations.

The last thing to keep in mind is the true value of a jackpot over
$1200. If, in your situation, you anticipate that you would end up
paying taxes on a $1500 jackpot, but no taxes on a $1000 jackpot,
subtract 28% (or your federal + state marginal tax rate) from the
progressive total.

#7

There are many reasons not to play for the maximum EV for the current
hand, i.e chase the jackpot. The only time it is best to chase the
jackpot to the max is when your time is limited and your bankroll is
not. You should be more conservative if

you have very little or no competition
you have lots of time and few comparable opportunities to pursue
you are concerned about getting tapped out

Strategy modifications are most valuable when you have a large bank
of machines and a short jackpot cycle - Atlantic city Joker wild 5K
progressives come to mind as a prime example.

AJ