On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:15:51 -0000, Bob Bartop wrote:
>--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> LOL indeed! You must be expressing a player's perspective. That's
>> the worst idea I've heard from my point of view, also, but if you
>> owned the M, would you regard it as a lousy idea? Barley's didn't
>> tolerate this arrangement for long. I can't imagine often having
>> $4500 quarter royals being optimal for them.
>>
>
>
>Thinking about this makes my head hurt. But isn't it GOOD for the casino too? I mean, the higher the jackpot, the more play they get. If we just figure the jackpot is whatever percentage off the top being set aside, then that is money they're never going to have. But subsequent action is still making money for the casino because the BASE game is so negative. And if players are breaking high pairs for 3-card royals, then it's even more profit in the casino's pocket. To me it seems like a win-win when the jackpot is very high and people are lined up to get a seat. Am I wrong on the math? Ooh, my head hurts already.
I'm sure you realize that "the higher the jackpot, the more play they
get" must stop being profitable for the casino at some point. The
arrangement they have may be profitable for them and more profitable
than the machines that were removed to make room for them, but what if
they can get 98% of the play they get by reducing the meter movement
and add further to their profits? I admire Frank for how he likes
challenges, but organizing the institution of machines that pros like
while advising casino management how he believes is best for them is a
tall order.
