Frank:
What are the variances on the M progressives (or are they a moving target) and what type of bankroll would one need to safely play the 25c and $1.00 progressives.
I know each game will be different, but I'm just trying to get a feel of how big a bankroll would be reasonable say at only 5% chance to go bust or say a 2% chance to go bust or less.
I'm a little rusty on my terminolgy so if I haven't used the correct terminolgy in my questions, sorry.
ST
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:
>
> Replies in-line
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, patricia swenson <jackessiebabe@> wrote: May I presume that "something in the works" does NOT include The M's former FPDW and FPKBJW machines?
>
> FK reply: No I believe NSUD and similar games are in consideration.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> I also presume that you are not referring to the above two games when you mention "low return non-progressive". If you do, in fact, include those games in your definition, I would certainly be interested in reading about the basis for your reasoning.
>
> FK Reply: Yes I am. I have always considered FPDW and FPKBJW to be Low return and I have never played them throughout my 23 year career. I typically don't play anything under a 2% edge unless there are extenuating circumstances. Just my own criteria, not advice.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Although "Sai Sai" was the OP who asked about the games that M offered when they first opened, I completely agree with him. I also don't much care playing on bankroll busting, sub-par paytables, in order to try popping a long shot high EV prog. I don't accept the notion that feeling as I do, means that I am gambling for any other reason than to win.
>
> FK Reply: The Royal is part of the pay-table, there is nothing sub-par about machines where you are frequently getting over 12,000 coin Royals. I'm not sure I understand peoples point of view on this. 95% of my lifetime play has been done on high progressives. To me non-progressives are far more risky. The low return eats you away slowly if you run even slightly bad. I know independent pros that did nothing but play $ FPDW back in the day and booked losing years. As a progressive player my only worry was losing months.
>
> In 1996 I ran 2.5% under expectancy and still made good money for the year. Try doing that playing LOW-RETURN non-progressives.
>
> In my opinion you all have this backwards. High progressives are safer than low-return non-progressives. Either that or myself and all the people I know having just been running good for the last two decades.
>
> Of course none of what I just said takes into consideration the recreational aspect of VP. For some, they may not be willing to lose 6 days a week and hit a GIGANTIC Jackpot only once a week. It doesn't fit with their model for a good time.
>
> I do understand this. However, if tying to profit from VP is your primary (or only) goal, progressives are far better and safer than conventional AP...IN MY EXPERIENCE.
>
> Bigger edge = more profit. It's simple math.
> ____________________________________
>
> IMO, our position requires less explanation than does yours. I'd appreciate your comments.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> ~Babe
>
> FK: I hope I answered them. My POV is very different. Sometimes I have a hard time with answering things because I can't understand the questions. I hope that didn't happen this time.
>
