While that's certainly a possible scenario, because you are creating a fictional casino management team, you can make them think in whatever way supports your point of view. Someone who wants to defend maxEV over MCR could easily say casino management thinks the following:
Wow, this lady had a real royal drought before finally getting her royal, and somehow she still made a profit?! She must be a REALLY good player, because everyone else that goes that long without hitting a royal gets crushed. We definitely should stick with our one royal and you are out of here policy, because when she starts hitting royals at a normal rate she'll destroy us.
And with that story, the maxEV defender will say, "We both got kicked out after one royal. Sure she made more from that one royal than I did, but while she was playing all those hands to get that first royal, I was making money off of other plays elsewhere."
Both stories are equally plausible and equally fictional. Hopefully no reader thinks either story is "proof" of why one is better than the other. They point out possible things to consider when deciding which strategy is best for you, but no one should place too much weight in how either story ends.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote :
Say a new casino opens and is looking to take over all the business and wipe out the competition, so they put in 9-6 Jacks and you get a 2.06% promotional package with it. Pretty sweet, right? But, there's a catch, they will only allow you one royal, at which point you are 86'd from video poker for life and the afterlife as well, the casino is thinking if you can hit a royal, you must know how to play the game, and they don't want your business ever again. Doesn't make total sense, but a common line of reasoning in modern casinos.
A sharp walks in, and he always plays maxEV, so maxEV it is, perfectly of course, never making a single mistake, and for the highest denomination, of course. The casino knows the sharp will get the best of them, but they are cool with letting him have one royal, perhaps his presense will bring in more players with weaker skills that the casino can exploit. So, for Mr. maxEV, the average cost of one royal is 976 bets. That kinda sucks considering a royal only pays 800 bets. So, already he's 176 in the hole. But wait, there's that 2.06% promotion, which gets him an additional 40,391 x 2.06% = 832 bets, so he nets 656 bets or about 80% of a royal on average. Not bad.
Another player walks in, and she's not buying all the maxEV hype and maxEV classes and zombie robot stuff like that. Instead, it's MCR. Why not? I mean, it's a freeroll to the whole royal. It takes a while, but she finally gets her royal, and she gets to keep it all, netting 800 bets or 100% of the royal on average. But wait, it took her so long to hit a royal the casino reconsiders, she must not be that great of a player really, right? I mean the hot players can snap off royals just like that, right? The casino gives her a second chance to try again, she stubbornly sticks to MCR, hey why change horses in midstream?, and she gets to eventually net a second royal, also rake free. Does the casino wish to "laissez les bons temps rouler"? Might actually make business sense, here's a player that is winning, but they are not being a pig at it and grinding the casino's nose into it by scoring massive numbers of royals?
Which player would you rather be?
A sharp walks in, and he always plays maxEV, so maxEV it is, perfectly of course, never making a single mistake, and for the highest denomination, of course. The casino knows the sharp will get the best of them, but they are cool with letting him have one royal, perhaps his presense will bring in more players with weaker skills that the casino can exploit. So, for Mr. maxEV, the average cost of one royal is 976 bets. That kinda sucks considering a royal only pays 800 bets. So, already he's 176 in the hole. But wait, there's that 2.06% promotion, which gets him an additional 40,391 x 2.06% = 832 bets, so he nets 656 bets or about 80% of a royal on average. Not bad.
Another player walks in, and she's not buying all the maxEV hype and maxEV classes and zombie robot stuff like that. Instead, it's MCR. Why not? I mean, it's a freeroll to the whole royal. It takes a while, but she finally gets her royal, and she gets to keep it all, netting 800 bets or 100% of the royal on average. But wait, it took her so long to hit a royal the casino reconsiders, she must not be that great of a player really, right? I mean the hot players can snap off royals just like that, right? The casino gives her a second chance to try again, she stubbornly sticks to MCR, hey why change horses in midstream?, and she gets to eventually net a second royal, also rake free. Does the casino wish to "laissez les bons temps rouler"? Might actually make business sense, here's a player that is winning, but they are not being a pig at it and grinding the casino's nose into it by scoring massive numbers of royals?
Which player would you rather be?
__._,_.___
Posted by: seedub49@yahoo.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (35) |
.
__,_._,___
