I am NOT thinking EV. I am NOT talking long term, months, years.
I am thinking if you want to lose $20, or $100, as most are doing at these progressives. May as well spend it at a game where it will be life changing, rather than a few thousand dollars.
Your money will last about the same amount of time, IF you don't hit the jackpot. (A variance of up to 300 vs. Jacks or Better at 19.)
I must admit I am guilty of Royal chasing. But how long are you gonna play before you hit something? How many thousands are you willing to dump into the machine to hit it?
With a 100% around $2750 for this machine, that means (without cashback and club benefits) you are willing to lose a over $2700 to hit that quarter Royal to make $50.
That is if everything goes as planned. And you get that Royal within the 30 to 50 thousand hands as statistics shows. If you are unlucky and it goes beyond that, as this progressive has already done, then you lose even when you hit it.
The progressive goes up about 1/2 of one cent every time someone plays. So it has risen over $1500. Or if my shaky math is correct been played, 300,000 times. Of course not everyone is playing that game of course. Some are playing more familiar ones, but even if it is being played only 1/8 the time, (8 games on the machine) it is still "overdue" for that elusive Royal.
Most of us are not playing for days on end to hit that Royal, but taking pot shots at it. Someone will sit down with $5 and hit it.
Like the lottery, someone has to win.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Cohen <brucedcohen2002@...> wrote:
>
> This kind of thinking/mathematics makes zero sense to me.
> Â
> If you take out the jackpots/royals/4 dueces from ANY
> game the paytable worsens.
> Â
> The casino WILL be paying them off and they ARE
> part of your EV for sure.
> Â
> Saying that playing an over 100% game with less than 5%
> of your Ev being the big jackpots is like Megabucks, an
> under 50% game with more than 5% of your Ev being
> on the jackpots doesn't make sense.
> Â
> Am I missing something, or does Miss Realtor just
> not like Frank and Bob?
>
> --- On Mon, 5/30/11, the7thwarrior <Judy@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: the7thwarrior <Judy@...>
> Subject: [vpFREE] Re: The New Progressives At The M
> To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, May 30, 2011, 10:13 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> As I said at the beginning, these games are for suckers.
> Royal chasing suckers!
>
> No matter what strategy you use, the paytables are set so low, if play for any length of time, and you don't hit the Royal, you lose. PERIOD!
>
> Great Money maker for M. Great publicity creator for M. All bad for the average player.
>
> The progressives are doing their job. Getting people to talk about and revisit the place. Most will not just walk in and walk out, but drop a few bucks along the way in OTHER machines. THe billboard is an outright lie. Even at 16,000 coins you don't reach 102%.But the UP TO is in front of that number. Maybe they are "set to hit" at that mark. Will be interesting to see. Why don't they just say, up to 200% payback? Royal up to one million coins? It could get there. Theorectically that is if no one hits for a very long time and people keep playing it. Not likely, but it could happen.
>
> May as well play megabucks. At least then when you hit it, you win something worthwhile.
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rob.singer1111" <rob.singer1111@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure lots of opinions and comments have been made about these interestingly different machines. I've sat and played at the 25c SDBP ($1650 RF) version for 45 minutes as a test (quitting with a meaningless profit when four J's were hit), I've gone over all the numbers, and I have my own view of what these new machines mean to the casino and the player.
> >
> > As has been said, anyone who plays the lousy paytables when the royals are small is at a serious disadvantage, and some WILL play them at low royal levels. But since every credit bet on SDBP (or whatever game) contributes the exact same .5% to all 8 royals, the theory is the "experts" will only play the >100% games when they go that high, and in doing so, in conjunction with the unskilled players going at the lesser valued royals, they'll raise the royals on the other 7 or so games to "playable levels", thereby always having something positive to go after.
> >
> > BTW the signs around the casino aren't true. "Up to 102.5%", if the machines are fair, is wrong. If the royals aren't hit by the time the games reach a theoretical 102.5%, obviously it goes higher. Unless I'm missing something. Am I?
> >
> > It is very clear these machines will be just another money-maker for the casino and are a bad deal for the player. The optimal royal flush strategies for progressives of this type are a constantly moving target, and no expert, including yours truly, is capable of learning and then applying absolute expert strategy on so many different games on an as-required basis. As a result, even the best of players will continue to play at a sub 100% level no matter how high the royals go.
> >
> > At the end of the day these machines simply become nothing more than a pot shot for players seeking the thrill of hitting large 25c/50c/$1 royals. I was surprised that when I was playing them last Saturday night around 9pm, there was only one other person playing. You can tell the meters run much faster than anything we've seen in years. But when people stopped by to look the games over they didn't really care what the royals were. All they commented on were the poor pay tables.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
