--- 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.
