On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:57:24 -0000, Bob Bartop wrote:
>--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>
>No, I don't realize it. Seriously. And maybe that's why my head hurts.
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? Keep in mind
that as soon as a play attracts pros, the quality of play increases.
I believe casino managers have often made the mistake of assuming that
error rate is unaffected by theoretical value, such as if the actual
return is 96% on a machine that theoretically pays 99%, they conclude
that they can put in a machine that pays 101% theoretically, have it
actually return 98% and, with more than twice as much play, increase
their profits.
>What if the meter rise were 3% instead of 4? Help me out here, this part is confusing to me.
I don't know the numbers, but I assume there's a tradeoff between
meter progression and volume of play. The optimal solution for the
casino is a balance between too much meter progression and too little
play. I'm hoping, pessimistically, that the M can prove that 4% meter
progression or more is optimal.
