6a. The What If I played Progressives Game
What If I only Played Progressives???
While it is obvious that a higher payscale for a given game is better than a lower payscale, no matter which of the hands contributes to the higher payscale, there are a couple of problems -- in practice, not in theory.
(1) Finding "good" progressives. Using 9/6 JoB as my example, in many casinos it's hard enough to find 9/6 JoB straight up, let alone as a progressive jackpot. That said, if there are two banks of machines, one with non-progressive 9/6 JoB and one with progressive 9/6 JoB, I'll play the progressive every time, even if it was just hit and only pays a few cents extra -- that's still better than the non-progressive game. Notice that I am willing to play a negative game (see further down) in either case, but that I still prefer the least negative game in the absence of a positive one.
(2) The cost of waiting for the jackpot. I think I read long ago that if you play about 800 hands an hour of $0.25 9/6 (non-progressive) JoB, you can expect to lose around $35 an hour while waiting to hit the Royal. That cost does not go up if you are playing 9/6 JoB with a progressive Royal, but it sure does go up when you are play a progressive 8/5 JoB, even if the progressive Royal is high enough to justify the play compared to 9/6 JoB non-progressive -- and this (a lower underlying payscale) is the more common scenario for progressives -- a price to pay in the "common" hits to offset the less common progressive Royal.
#2, of course, translates into volatility, and if you need to accept a lower non-royal payscale to get a better game, you will pay the price in volatility.
Now, if your bankroll is sufficiently high, and you can get by problem #1, problem #2 is just a matter of risk tolerance in exchange for net reward improvement.
But if your bankroll is limited, your "usual" denomination may be beyond your bankroll in a more volatile progressive game, and #2 becomes a real problem -- and dropping down in denomination may result in #1 kicking in again, as in most (not all!) casinos, the lower denominations are the ones with the poor payscales, making it less likely to find a positive game (eg, what does the Royal have to be on a nickel 7/5 JoB game??!! to make it positive).
Of course, the more games you know how to play, the more often you'll find good plays, including good progressive plays.
All this discussion is theoretical for me; I play ONLY JoB (used to play DBB when it was 10/7, but with the reduced payscale found today, it's too volatile for me - and I'm too lazy and don't play often enough to get into learning another game or three), and only play 9/6 unless I have some other reason for playing that has nothing to do with winning money, which on rare occasion is the case, when I might throw a very small amount of money away on an 8/5 game for a short time, e.g., only game available and I'm waiting on a live poker seat, and am too bored to just sit and wait patiently doing nothing. But again, if the choice is there, I'll pick the 9/6 progressive over the 9/6 non-progressive every time.
I know that I'm usually playing with a 0.5% house edge, and worse in the rare situations described above when I play a worse game -- and I do it strictly to get Diamond status each year, usually spending the whole year to do it, and to get an occasional small comp without using points. I understand that I'm one of the recreational players who keep these games going for the pro's, although I don't consider myself to be a complete fool who will throw money into worse games than the 9/6 JoB on a regular basis. In other words, I'm willing to spend some money for recreation, but look for ways, within my limited skill set, to keep my "spending" to a theoretically low amount (not always the case in practice, as is the case for everyone).
I am primarily an average / recreational live poker player these days, although the occ. royal from VP does bail me out from an occ. run of bad cards or mediocre playing skill or a run-in with tough opponents -- but in the long run, I don't expect the VP "bail-out" to happen often enough to be a suitable justification for playing slightly negative games. I just like to play, as long as the cost is not too excessive.
--BG
···
====================