I hope I won't be excessive in adding on to Tom's sensible reply ...
Generally speaking, the more aggressively you play for a RF hit, the greater your expected loss per hand between royals (at the extreme, you're tossing paying pairs, e.g.) But the fact that you shorten the royal cycle at the same time serves to soften that cost.
The $64 question is at what point do you optimize the tradeoff between these two effects? I take it on faith that (ignoring meter advance) a strategy based on a meter that yields a 100% ER minimizes loss between royals.
I imagine it takes a bit of calculus to demonstrate this (I also expect an inductive proof ... one in which you assume an opposite assumption and then demonstrate that it yields a contradiction with known fact, would also crack the problem). The point is, unlike much in vp, a little applied algebra isn't going to do the job.
In these discussions, I try hard to not miss the "forest for the trees". It's easy to get lost in the myriad minor considerations. For that reason, I personally would prefer to steer clear of Tom's refinement (setting strategy at 100% - prog adv rate ... which is spot on in maximizing expected profit). Please bear in mind that in most cases, we're typically talking of a distinction that tallies to less than a penny or two an hour.)
- H.
--- 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.
>
