Thanks for the push ... as you note, the calcs for a few examples are readily worked out.
My "gut sense" failed me on this one. Yes, a strategy based on a RF value that yields an ER = (100% - meter advance rate) optimizes the net payback.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <007@...> wrote :
Keep in mind that playing less aggressively increases the meter
movement per royal. It's easy to check out. Playing at a royal that
makes the payback 99% increases the cost, but increases the jackpot by
even more.
Harry wrote:
> I don't believe 007's assertion here is correct ...
>
>Playing a game with a RF value targeted to a 100% EV achieves a min-cost RF strategy. In other words, you maximize the profit of the endeavor by minimizing the expected cost between royals.
>
>The meter advance has no impact on that cost, therefore is irrelevant to that strategy.
>
>- H.
>
>---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com mailto:vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <007@...> wrote :
>
> >According to Frank Kneeland, the best strategy when a team has a bank locked up is based on a 100% game. For 9/6 Jacks that would be a 4880 coin royal. It drops the royal frequency down in the 36,000's. The effect is you are milking the meter for all it's worth.
>
> I believe Frank understands that meter movement should also be
> incorporated, so that the optimal strategy for such a team, with many
> idealistic assumptions, is to play at 100%, including meter movement,
> so that, with a 1% meter, they'd play as if the royal made the overall
> payback 99%.
>
>
>
>[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 (26) |
