It's exactly right. The strategy which maximizes the value of the
play, assuming there's no competition, assumes that the royal is at
break even, including meter rise. For a 2% meter, play assuming the
machine is fixed at a 98% payout.
vpplayer88 wrote:
>I think I see the logic of it now, thanks.
>
>One thing that is still bugging me is that meter rise isn't considered. It seems intuitive that of you have two separate machines with the same current jackpot but different meter rise, then you should play to hit royals less often on the one with the higher meter rise.
>
>Drawing to a royal is like an option to end the game. For the machine with the higher meter rise, the value of continuing the game is greater, so the option to end the game should be taken less often. Why is that wrong?
>
>--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <007@...> wrote:
>>
>> Playing as if the jackpot is below break even raises the cost to hit
>> the jackpot by increasing the cycle more than what it reduces the cost
>> per hand.
>>
>> vpplayer88 wrote:
>>
>> >I don't understand why you choose the break even royal as the strategy to stick with if you own the machine. Why not the base royal strategy? Ie why a 4800 royal instead of 4000?
>> >
>> >I was wondering about this before I knew other people had similar ideas and my informal thought process said the 4000 was the right choice. I would love to hear some more formal logic for why not.
>>
>
