Im still lost on this. Even when the royals were in the mid $3000 range I only saw one seat taken on the dollar and none on the quarter. I must be really missing the time of day these people play. With the 4% meter rise and the pros running 40k a day each in action. Theyre making the meter themselves not from the countless ploppies packing the seats.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> 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.
>
