What I wrote was somewhat simplistic. With a team involved, the
players get paid for their time, they make mistakes, etc. I can't
remember how to prove it theoretically, but the way to maximize the
value of a progressive that one has all to oneself is to play as if
the meter is at the point at which the play, including meter
progression (and all other complicating factors such as I just
mentioned) breaks even. With a 5% meter, we should have been playing
as if the meter were fixed at the point at which the machine paid back
95%, no matter how much over 100% it actually was. To be one player
among many minimizes this feature of "pretending" the meter is lower
than it is. It's essentially a matter of estimating how much the
meter resetting costs you. If a casino supervisor came up to you and
offered to pay you to reset the meter, how much would you want? If
you hit the jackpot, you may gain the entire jackpot in cash, but
you've lost the meter to play for, which reduces the value of hitting
the jackpot. Many factors are relevant, such as the value of your
time, how much longer you were intending to play, what competition
might show up, what other progressives there are, etc., so that
there's no such thing as "perfect" progressive play, which, to me, has
a discouraging effect in learning strategy. The fact that you're
playing and would leave if anyone hit it means that this cost exists,
but as the number of competitors increases, this cost decreases. It's
usually not a very important factor. Not making basic mistakes such
as keeping a high card over a pair is far more important than
adjusting for it. Without doing so in a very calculating way, I also
"fudge" and wait even higher before I draw to the royal because it
usually involves more fluctuation. Right at the breaking number,
where the expected value is the same, it usually takes a bigger
bankroll to draw to the royal, but I believe this is similar to the
"cost of hitting a jackpot" factor in that letting it be a distraction
so that it increases the probability of making basic mistakes or
slowing down play can make it more trouble than it's worth.
Chris wrote:
>Tom,
>
>Could you explain how the optimal strategy is calculated in your example below? How about an example that is likely to be encountered in 2012. I play progressives without the benefit of a team. How does that alter the strategy?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Chris
>
>> >Hi Tom!
>> >
>> >Hay if you think about it, I bet people would love to hear how much of a difference playing the break-even strategy makes to total potential earn. I'd tell them myself, but with you posting here I'm sure people would rather hear it from you. After all, you taught me...
>> >
>> >Happy New Year BTW...
>> >
>> >~FK
>>
>> It can be kind of amazing. Sometimes I cringe when professionals draw
>> to a progressive royal, no matter how slim the margin is over the
>> theoretical break point, as if there were no cost to them of the meter
>> resetting or the greater fluctuation. Especially if a team is
>> involved, the difference in optimal strategy can be very significant.
>> I was involved with a team that locked up a bank of tens or better $1
>> machines. The break even royal was $18,400 and the meter was 5%,
>> which meant that the optimal strategy was to play as if the royal was
>> something like $10,000, no matter what the meter, which sometimes went
>> to over $40,000, was.
>>
>
