Bob Bartop wrote:
>--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> If the meter were 20% on each of 8 meters, so that the average jackpot
>> was well into 5 or possibly 6 figures, would you say that they were
>> giving up too much or would you say that the additional play that
>> would encourage would help the casino's bottom line?
>
>
>No, of course I would not say that. But it isn't 20%, it's 4%. I was fully aware of that when I made my comment about continued play.
>
>So I still don't understand when you said they "must stop being profitable to the casino at some point". I don't get it.
The managers of 100s of other casinos believe that offering anything
significant to pros in the form of attractive progressives is not
optimal for them. They crop up occasionally, but they never last very
long. The managers of the M seem to want to prove the managers of
every other casino wrong. I don't think it will take them long to
realize that they can make more money by offering less meter
progression.
>If a single line quarter machine has 7-5 Bonus Poker (98%) on it with a 1% meter rise, doesn't the casino continue to profit regardless of whether the jackpot is $2000, $4000, or even $10,000? It's essentially like a continuous 99% game for the casino. No?
Theoretically, yes. But it still isn't necessarily optimal for the
casino. There may be all kinds of room for improvement. What if
stopping the meter at $2000 didn't reduce play at all? That would
almost certainly mean that they should stop the meter at lower than
$2000. And there's always opportunity cost. What if a penny slot
machine would be more profitable than even the optimal progressive?
If I managed a casino, I'd hang a sign outside saying "pros welcome."
Then I'd fire all my consultants. Then I'd wait for the pros to show
up and as soon as they sat down, I'd change what they were playing
until they left.
