I'll intercede for just a second ...
Relax. Min-cost RF strategy has been discussed here a few times before (and details are included in the group FAQ).
It applies to any play. Progressives represent a special case.
Generally speaking, application to a standard play doesn't result in largely significant strategy changes (or "appreciable" added expected win/RF -- I'll define "appreciable" as meaning little change to your overall ROR ... note: noti may likely differ in perception of what "little" represents).
The preceding tends to be true because you're likely playing a near 100% (say 99%+) game already. However, if (for example) you're playing a 98% game with 2% in added cash benefits, then the concept can again be quite relevant.
Strategy adoption with progressives presume a "monopoly" situation because if you're going to factor in the benefit of a 1% or 2% meter as an "absolute", you'd pretty much better have the ultimate win locked up. (I imagine you might augment the math to factor "probability of win", but I don't believe that's been discussed here.)
I'll turn the discussion back to whoever cares to add ;)
- H.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <bobbartop@...> wrote :
Wait a minute, my own question is confusing me. You included non-progressives too. My head hurts.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com mailto:vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <bobbartop@...> wrote :
Again, please dumb it down for me one more time. Is this scenario ONLY when you have the jackpot locked up, either as a team or with someone to trade off with you but not let any outsiders gain access? Thanks.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: harry.porter@verizon.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (33) |
