I think the FrankNBobs are a great idea. It will be unfortunate if they don't work out. And I do appreciate the effort Frank and Bob and the M have put into them to at least give them a try. Like most things in gambling, there will always be critics, what counts is what happens on the casino floor.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Sai Sai" <gofastnismo@...> wrote:
>
> Frank wants to hear ideas that will be good for the M and good for the pros currently hitting that play every day so a reduction in the meter rise is not going to work. If the actual pros stop playing the bank it would be a lot more profitable for the M and it wouldn't need a change. Out of curiosity Frank you keep mentioning that it was a big request from VPfree posters to have this type of progressive. The only person riding the FrankNBobs kool-aid seems to be BartopBob. How many actual VPree members play this bank that made this request?
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:49:55 -0000, Bob Bartop wrote:
> >
> > >--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, jaycee5353@ wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Here is another thought on the meter movement consept.
> > >> You could reduce the meter when the games go positive.
> > >> For example at $1800 the meter reduces by 80% for the
> > >> balance of time until hit.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >On these games it is more like $2700, not $1800.
> > >
> > >Anyway, I don't want to sound rude, but this is a lousy idea. Nothing personal. lol
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
