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.
