Bob Dancer's new progressive games at the M

This was brought up on a different thread. It was suggested that another thread specifically about it should be started.

I read the article. It appears that Dancer and associates convinced the M to install some new VP machines with progressives that start at very low basic pay levels such as 6/5 bonus but the progressives build rapidly.

The point is that when the progressives are low these are bad games, but when the progressives are high you definitely want to play them BUT you will have to adjust your strategy to "push the royals" which is the phrase that Dancer has used before.

Here's what I took away from the article, IF I UNDERSTOOD IT. (Frankly I sometimes have trouble understanding these articles.) What is interesting is that the casino will make a killing off of these and here's why:

1. the basic pay tables are dirt, which means the casino will get rich.

2. when the progressives rise, the money is not coming out of the casino's pockets but rather from the players' own bets that contributed to the royal progressive jackpots.

3. Nice sales job by Dancer and company as Im sure they created the game and sold it to M for a fee and maybe even a piece of the action, similar to what IGT does with its various progressives.

Anyway, the bottom line is that you wouldnt be caught dead at these games while the progressives are low, but when and if they jump up to the high levels (remember, progressives can be hit at low levels too) then you want to hog your machine.

It's an interesting concept to add to all the different games' jackpots equally so the lower jackpot machines (getting less play) grow quicker than they would otherwise. If Dancer didn't already, He should patent that. Maybe someone else did and he's licensing it.

1> I don't think is all that meaningfull. The key is what is the average return on the machines. Since I don't know all the details, I can't really say.

2> The money paid out always comes out of the casino's pocket. The question is did the machine get enough play before the RF is hit to make up for it. This will vary on each RF but should work out the the advantage of the casino as long as lots of poor players play them.

3> ???

It's a great idea -at least somebody's trying something new on progressives instead of the same tired immovable meters-what is the Palms FPDW meter-about .001%?
Still, it is hard for me to see anyone out there taking a beating on games like 6-5! BP at $5 a spin to build up the progressive.
Who is going to be the sucker?
Not me. Not Frank or Bob. Not anybody I can see.
Are they up and running yet?

You'd be suprised at who might play what game. I worked for a couple for a number of years that traveled to Vegas quite often. They considered themselves to be savy gamblers. He played mostly tables and some VP. She played some tables , but mostly VP. WE had many LV conversations about anything from the economics of the town to gambling. After I switched from mostly BJ and mini-bac to craps and VP, she and I would talk VP from time to time. They always stayed on the strip and when pay tables really started to plunge there, I would ask her about this. The "savy gambler" that always seemed to use sound logic, told me that she basically ignored paytables and based her play on progressive amounts! She did hit a few good ones including a dollar pro for $9k. At that time though I really started noticing the trips where she didn't mention gambling results. Ensuing conversations with her husband and a close friend detailed what we all can figure out. If she hit a jackpot, she did ok. If she didn't, she lost her ass.

Good Luck!
Ric at Joes

I'm interested in seeing the pay tables for the various games. Without knowing those, there is no way to compute returns or strategies for the assorted games.

If I "remember" correctly, and I'm too lazy to check as I write this, using a "Go for the Royal" strategy would require about 20,200 hands. (In the long run)

Sooner or later, a strategies will be "developed" based on pay tables, to hopefully create a +EV situation. There should be a large number of "exceptions" in those strategies. And adaptations along the way based on the size of the progressive.

Should be interesting to observe.

But first, we need to know the pay tables for each game. Maybe someone local will take a picture of each and post. ::: HINT :::

16-13 Deuces Wild 96.765%
15-7 Kings or Better Joker Wild 96.744%
6-5 Bonus Poker 96.869%
8-5 Double Double Bonus Poker 96.786%
9-6-4 Double Bonus 96.375%
6-5 Super Double Bonus 96.871%
7-5 Jacks or Better 96.147%
7-5 Bonus Poker Deluxe 96.253%

From: https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/bob_dancer/2011/0510.cfm

I believe the best strategy for RFs reduces the hand count to about 23K hands, but that would be a bad strategy for any game that pays for something else in addition to RFs. I would guess the strategy here for when the games get positive would reduce the RF cycle down into the 30-35K range.

I happily accept the 23K number, as I'd said I was uncertain. And I tend to agree with what you've said, with some reservations.

Knowing the hold percentage is not enough to develop a "correct" precise strategy for each individual game, due to the many exceptions in plays and holds that would be based on the pay back.

I will say this much.... If about 23K deals is correct for the "Go for a Royal" strategy, than that would translate to about 115K units in at max coins.

Since the games are about 96%+, and another 4% is being moved (and sub divided) into the progressives, that means each machine is "giving back" about 92%. That is about 105,800 units of the 115K units in playing "GFTR" strategy. (JOB)

IF my rough math is correct, (and for some reason it does not seem right to me), than the individual game progressive would need to reach about 10K units for a +EV situation to begin, if using the 23k GFTR (go fo the royal) strategy.

Or, exceed about 19K units for "standard play" game strategy using about 40K deals for the expected royal to hit.

With the high volatility to be expected, I do not see myself playing that sort of game, except to maybe "take a shot" for a few hundred units based solely on the size of the progressive.

I don't think there are too many "advantage players" with a bankroll large enough to withstand the deviation.

I predict there will be long lines of players waiting to play when the JOB quarter progressive reaches $2K or more.

Roughly, I'm figuring it (JOB) needs to exceed $5K to offer any realistic hope of +EV. But again, I have no confidence in my math today, and you should not either.

But, I'm using rough math, too lazy to check, have little or no faith in most of what I've said in this message, and just hope that Arch will pick up the ball and run with it.

For the sake of simplicity, I have intentionally ignored cash back, points, etc.

LOL

Just to clarify, the progression rate of 4.0% mentioned in the article means that 4.0% of all coin-in is added directly to the royal progressive? And what is a normal rate for royal progressives? 1.0%? 0.5%? So the attraction of these games is that the royal progressive would build 4-8 times faster than a conventional progressive?

These are idle questions, since I don't really know how all this works...even though I play a lot of progressives.

Would seem that the important thing remains unchanged though. You need to know for whichever game you want to play how high the royal needs to be to make the game +EV (of course after considering cashback rates and other benefits), and only play when the royal is at that level or higher.

I guess the benefit of the accelerated royal is that the royals reach these levels a lot more often.