Harry wrote:
>Min-cost strategy is advantageous in one of two scenarios:
>
>The first involves a case where you (at least temporarily) largely have a progressive opportunity all to yourself -- say, because no one else is playing it aggressively, or perhaps because you're part of a team that has a strong presence on the bank.
>
>In this case, the probability is low that during your play someone else will hit the jackpot. As such, there's no need to rush to the jackpot and the math of the play yields the result that your expected loss incurred between now and your hit is minimized if you play a strategy that equates to a paytable with a RF value that takes the game ER to 100% with optimal strategy at that meter. (For example, for a 9/6 JB progressive, this would be a RF payout of something around 4800 credits)
The strategy which maximizes value per jackpot, assuming there's no
competition, also takes meter progression into account. If a
progressive has a 1% meter, the strategy which maximizes value per
jackpot assumes the meter is frozen at a point at which it pays back
99%. But then, that's not "min-cost." It costs less per hand than
min-cost, but more per jackpot.
