A lot of members on this board live in crud-VP areas where the only
positive plays that ever stick their heads out of the muck are the
occasional positive-EV progressives. The temptation is strong to zoom
down to the (for instance) 9/6 DB bank with the $2200 royal, grab a
seat, and start pounding away.
This is faulty strategy. When a linked progressive hits this kind of
level, the bank is usually jammed with like thinkers. But let's say I
get a seat on a ten-machine progressive 8/5 JOB, and the royal is
$2200. Now, what's that worth to me? Common sense would say, I have a
1/10th stake in the "extra" royal money (given that I play about as
many hands per hour as anyone else). Now, the royal should take about
40 player-hours to hit (somewhat less, if players are altering their
strategy; and bad players in particular overcompensate for the royal).
So by the time I've spent four hours in this chair, SOMEBODY figures
to hit. What does this mean for me?
I have to play 8/5 JOB, a 97% game; and I need to make strategy
adjustments that, while increasing my chances of hitting the royal,
decrease my EV in the event that I don't hit a royal by another .6% or
so. So I'm operating at a healthy -3.5% base disadvantage. (This is
modified by the royal's inflated return, perhaps up to a theoretical
positive EV.) Let's say I play a relatively speedy 800 hands an hour.
At $1000 coin-in/hr I would expect to lose $30/hr at reset ($1000
prog). This would be INCLUSIVE of the royals I hit. If I were lacking
in royals I would be bleeding at an additional 2% (roughly) while I
was waiting. So UNLESS I'M THE ONE WHO HITS, I get to play 94.5% video
poker, and nine times out of ten I watch someone else hit the royal
and walk away big a big shit-eating grin on their face. In the
meantime I'm stuck $55/hour. One time out of ten I snarf up the royal
(assuming I put in at least four hours of play on a full bank) and
walk away happy. SO---can you stand the sort of VP sessions whose
results read like this:
-220
-220
-220
-220
-220
-220
-220
-220
-220
+2200 (we hope!)
It's this sort of volatility that KILLS VP players. For every happy
camper who has hit two or three biggies in short order, there's
several other players who are hitting the Zanax because they CAN'T HIT
THE *%&#$@ ROYAL.
Progressives: aka deathtraps
Hi rock....
The trick here is to wait untill the prog is closer to $3000. Not
very often even in Vegas. Used to be more common. AC even has some
9/6 JOB progressives. They don't travel too high. In my case if I'm
in Vegas and a Progresssive $1 8/5 JOB is over 10G I'll plsy it. If
there are only 4 games on prog or 40 games on prog I look at it as a
one in 40,000 shot (rounded off) at royal every time I play. It's
been a long time since I have been in Mirage. At the Mirage I would
look for progressive $1 to hit aroung 10G and find a seat. IN a 5
night stay at Mirage many times the jackpot never made it over $6000
in 2 or 3 hits. You are right. You have to have a big enough
bankroll to play these games. As far as someone else hitting royal,
it the ususl case. Every so often the the vp Gods smile on everyone.
Cheers....Jeeps..
.
\. vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:
A lot of members on this board live in crud-VP areas where the only
positive plays that ever stick their heads out of the muck are the
occasional positive-EV progressives. The temptation is strong to
zoom
down to the (for instance) 9/6 DB bank with the $2200 royal, grab a
seat, and start pounding away.
This is faulty strategy. When a linked progressive hits this kind of
level, the bank is usually jammed with like thinkers. But let's say
I
get a seat on a ten-machine progressive 8/5 JOB, and the royal is
$2200. Now, what's that worth to me? Common sense would say, I have
a
1/10th stake in the "extra" royal money (given that I play about as
many hands per hour as anyone else). Now, the royal should take
about
40 player-hours to hit (somewhat less, if players are altering their
strategy; and bad players in particular overcompensate for the
royal).
So by the time I've spent four hours in this chair, SOMEBODY figures
to hit. What does this mean for me?
I have to play 8/5 JOB, a 97% game; and I need to make strategy
adjustments that, while increasing my chances of hitting the royal,
decrease my EV in the event that I don't hit a royal by another .6%
or
so. So I'm operating at a healthy -3.5% base disadvantage. (This is
modified by the royal's inflated return, perhaps up to a theoretical
positive EV.) Let's say I play a relatively speedy 800 hands an
hour.
At $1000 coin-in/hr I would expect to lose $30/hr at reset ($1000
prog). This would be INCLUSIVE of the royals I hit. If I were
lacking
in royals I would be bleeding at an additional 2% (roughly) while I
was waiting. So UNLESS I'M THE ONE WHO HITS, I get to play 94.5%
video
poker, and nine times out of ten I watch someone else hit the royal
and walk away big a big shit-eating grin on their face. In the
meantime I'm stuck $55/hour. One time out of ten I snarf up the
royal
(assuming I put in at least four hours of play on a full bank) and
walk away happy. SO---can you stand the sort of VP sessions whose
results read like this:
-220
-220
-220
-220
-220
-220
-220
-220
-220
+2200 (we hope!)
It's this sort of volatility that KILLS VP players. For every happy
camper who has hit two or three biggies in short order, there's
several other players who are hitting the Zanax because they CAN'T
HIT
···
THE *%&#$@ ROYAL.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:
SO---can you stand the sort of VP sessions whose
results read like this:
-220
-220
-220
-220
-220
-220
-220
-220
-220
+2200 (we hope!)
It's this sort of volatility that KILLS VP players. For every happy
camper who has hit two or three biggies in short order, there's
several other players who are hitting the Zanax because they CAN'T
HIT
THE *%&#$@ ROYAL.
Rock, you make a good and often overlooked point about royal chasing,
that it is highly volatile. In fact, if you'll look at the variance
index number you'll see that it doesn't take much of an increase in
the value of the royal to give these games a higher index than some
of the real go-go games like Super Aces or Double Deuces. A Double
Bonus game with a $2200 royal would have a Variance in the
neighborhood of 160. (I've mentioned before that I think the
mechanics of the variance calculation cause it to exaggerate the
increase in prog volatility, but I don't deny that progs are highly
volatile.)
Nonetheless, playing progressive games with a strongly positive EV is
a profitable activity in the long run. I think the money example Rock
gave was too pessimistic. Here is what a $2000 royal 9/7 DB game
should look like (99.11% base game return):
Expected return 101.3%
Portion from royal 4.8% (33,260 hand cycle at perfect play)
Portion from secondary jackpot 3.5% (4 aces - 4,567 hand cycle)
Expected drain with neither jackpot 7.0%
Expected results for 10 sessions of 3326 hands each:
# hands session cumul
3326 (291) (291)
6652 (91) (382)
9978 (91) (473)
13304 (291) (764)
16630 (91) (855)
19956 (91) (946)
23282 (91) (1,037)
26608 (291) (1,328)
29934 (91) (1,419)
33260 (91) (1,510)
33260 2,000 490
The $200 swings between sessions reflect hitting or not hitting 4
aces in that session.
Total coin-in is 1.25 * 33260 = 41,575
Profit shown of $490 is 1.18% of coin-in (this differs from the 1.3%
expected because we had about one-fourth expected 4 aces built up at
the end - $56 worth, to be exact).
This example, I think, is more realistic but still makes Rock's
point - look at that $1500 loss after session 9, just before you hit
the royal. Can you stomach that? What if you happen to hit a 100K
hand royals drought, something not at all unusual - then you'd have a
$4500 loss. Can you handle that?
Here's a chart I use to analyze progressives and the issue of drain:
Double Bonus 9/7 Progressives
royal Game ER Var Roy ER Remain 2nd JP S-L RER Strat Drain
800 99.11% 28.55 1.666% 97.445% 3.503% 1.666% 0.000% 6.059%
1040 99.69% 45.07 2.873% 96.817% 3.519% 2.165% 0.708% 6.701%
1120 99.90% 50.31 3.135% 96.765% 3.526% 2.332% 0.804% 6.762%
1200 100.14% 56.67 3.460% 96.680% 3.508% 2.498% 0.961% 6.828%
1280 100.37% 63.28 3.763% 96.607% 3.491% 2.665% 1.098% 6.884%
1360 100.60% 70.08 4.040% 96.560% 3.501% 2.831% 1.209% 6.941%
1440 100.84% 76.99 4.296% 96.544% 3.502% 2.998% 1.298% 6.958%
1520 101.08% 84.55 4.568% 96.512% 3.504% 3.164% 1.403% 6.992%
1600 101.32% 92.08 4.810% 96.510% 3.504% 3.331% 1.479% 6.995%
2000 102.54% 137.04 6.097% 96.443% 3.514% 4.164% 1.933% 7.071%
2400 103.76% 192.93 7.410% 96.350% 3.540% 4.997% 2.414% 7.191%
3200 106.26% 336.50 10.045% 96.215% 3.570% 6.662% 3.383% 7.356%
4000 108.80% 529.58 12.865% 95.935% 3.600% 8.328% 4.538% 7.665%
Notes:
royal = expressed in terms of betting units, so 1600 = $2000 on
quarter machine
2nd JP = secondary jackpot
S-L RER = straight line royal flush expected return - in other words,
this is how much the royal would contribute to overall ER if no
strategy changes were made. This contrasts with the figure shown in
the column "Roy ER", which assumes perfect strategy changes (I got
these numbers from Cindy Liu's online VP Analyzer).
Strat = the difference between "Roy ER" and "S-L RER" or, in other
words, how much the change in strategy has increased the value of the
royal. (Another relevant strat number would be this one minus the
change in the "Remain" column, the expected return for all hands
other than the royal, which shows how much you're giving up elsewhere
for that extra return from the royal.)
Incidentally, on a minor side point, note that the "Strat" gain is
pretty significant from the first to second line in the table,
representing the first 30% increase in the value of the royal. The
value of the royal goes up 0.71% more than the straight-line
increase, while the value of other hands falls by 0.63%. This is
because in normal DB, you give up many 2-card-royals to hold an extra
card or two, due to the high values for flushes and straights. As the
royal value rises through these initial stages, the odds begin to
favor holding just the 2-card royals. I've heard it said that DB is
not a good game to chase royals because of the 48,000 hand royal
cycle. However, the strategy shifts bring the cycle down to only
36,000 hands for royal values of 130%, which is not far behind JOB's
35,000 hand cycle at that same level.
Elsewhere it's discussed that there's no economic difference between
playing a stand alone progressive and a bank. Take that one to heart.
Why does the progressive chase experience often feel like a deathtrap?
Because frequently the base paytable involves a substantial negative
drain ... paytables such as those you cite as examples: 9/6 DB, 8/5 JB.
Because of the loss exposure between royals, these games involve MUCH
more risk then their full pay counterparts ... even when the current
royal meter represents a strong positive return.
Contrary to some published reports, the vp player doesn't live or die
by ER alone. But if you do your homework in advance and prepare
yourself for the inherent volatility (read that as likely/potential
loss between royals), then you'll be armed for the best opportunities
when they arise.
- Harry
This has been an interesting discussion that I
have been following quite closely since I am hitting
the double Royals promotion at the Nevada Palace next
Sunday (my birthday) At least I do not have to worry
about someone else hitting the Royal:-)
···
> SO---can you stand the sort of VP sessions whose
> results read like this:
> -220
> -220
> -220
> -220
> -220
> -220
> -220
> -220
> -220
> +2200 (we hope!)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
As a player who seeks out progressives as opposed to "positive"
machines, I can assure you that I would NOT prefer a stand alone
machine but would greatly prefer a bank with 10-20 machines on it.
The faster it hits, the more you have won or the less you have lost.
Royal cycles are in the 34,000 range and at that, at 700 hands an hour
is close to 50 hours. 10 machines reduces that to 5 hours each, etc.
If you want to play until it hits, that is feasible, but with a small
bank, close to impossible.
···
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:05:26 -0000, you wrote:
Elsewhere it's discussed that there's no economic difference between
playing a stand alone progressive and a bank. Take that one to heart.Why does the progressive chase experience often feel like a deathtrap?
Because frequently the base paytable involves a substantial negative
drain ... paytables such as those you cite as examples: 9/6 DB, 8/5 JB.Because of the loss exposure between royals, these games involve MUCH
more risk then their full pay counterparts ... even when the current
royal meter represents a strong positive return.Contrary to some published reports, the vp player doesn't live or die
by ER alone. But if you do your homework in advance and prepare
yourself for the inherent volatility (read that as likely/potential
loss between royals), then you'll be armed for the best opportunities
when they arise.- Harry
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
Elliott Shapiro wrote:
The faster it hits, the more you have won or the less you have lost.
That depends on how many hands you're likely to have played on this
shot and prior unsuccessful shots, no?
- H.
Elliott Shapiro wrote:
As a player who seeks out progressives as opposed to "positive"
machines, I can assure you that I would NOT prefer a stand alone
machine but would greatly prefer a bank with 10-20 machines on it.
The faster it hits, the more you have won or the less you have lost.
Royal cycles are in the 34,000 range and at that, at 700 hands an hour
is close to 50 hours. 10 machines reduces that to 5 hours each, etc.
If you want to play until it hits, that is feasible, but with a small
bank, close to impossible.>Elsewhere it's discussed that there's no economic difference between
>playing a stand alone progressive and a bank. Take that one to heart.
snip
Elliot and Harry (and Steve Jacobs, if you're following this thread), I invite you to please take a look at my post in that 'other' thread. I believe circumstances can make one choice better than the other, but perhaps you can spot something I've missed.
Cheers.
Bill Velek
Cheers.
Bill
···
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:05:26 -0000, you (Harry Porter) wrote:
Assuming that it takes 35,000 hands to hit the royal, if I only play
100, I'll have to come back 350 times, etc.
BUT, my losses would be miniscule each of those times.
If I hit quickly, the win would be greater.
To repeat, I have had 15 royals so far this year and only 2 that were
not progressive.
···
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:13:57 -0000, you wrote:
Elliott Shapiro wrote:
The faster it hits, the more you have won or the less you have lost.
That depends on how many hands you're likely to have played on this
shot and prior unsuccessful shots, no?- H.
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links