Frank wrote:
>--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <007@...> wrote:
>> That this team employed this strategy comes as news to me. Maybe if
>> it had a bank locked up, but that was hardly always the case. It
>> often only had one machine out of many, in which case I hope it didn't
>> use that strategy.
>
>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.
