It is rare that we can quantify the cost of being kicked out because we rarely if even have any idea just what events trigger the casino to boot people. Furthermore, if you are playing at an advantage, you could easily get booted playing a max no royal strategy. Only if the casino is using large jackpots as a trigger while ignoring overall win could it make any sense to go with max no royal.
There is another point to consider as well...
When you get booted, this frees up time for other plays. Sacrificing a half a percent to MAYBE get booted slower will probably wind up with a lower or similar overall win but one that takes a lot longer to play.
Unless your edge is pushing above 2% with max-ev, the sacrifice of half a percent is simply too great.
And in today's environment, 2% plays are rare, especially ones where one can play high volume, such as dollar single line (or equivalent) or higher.
If getting 2 royals in a fairly short time is seen as a danger, boosting the cycle by 20K hands or so doesn't do all that much to help avoid 2 royals in a short time. The "luck" needed to hit 2 royals within 10K hands at max ev would be the same as the "luck" needed to hit 2 royals within 15K hands if you boost the cycle by appx 20K hands. So all this effort to avoid royals and getting them in bunches does not really do a whole lot to interfere with the likelihood of getting 2 royals within a short time.
The bottom line is that the circumstances required to justify playing a max no royal strategy are not likely to exist. More importantly it is almost impossible to know all the relevant parameters regarding how casinos react to winners, so there is really no way to know when the proper conditions do exist.
QZ
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: James Morgan <what7do7you7want@yahoo.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (15) |
