Vegas Free-for-All - Bob Dancer's new progressive games at the M

Bob Dancer's new progressive games at the M

alanleroy

May 25, 2011
11:38am

Quote

Originally posted by: a2a3dseddie

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Quote
Originally posted by: a2a3dseddie
What's happening is this. Of that $1000 of coin in, the casino holds $35 (on average) and $40 is spread out among the 8 different progressives. That means if you never hit the royal flush, you are essentially playing a less than 92.5% average payback machine.

The only problem with that concept is that the paytables are a known commodity. The only way they could take the jackpot contribution before the hand and pay on the shorted bet is to not pay according to the published paytables, but start making fractional payments based on 96% of your bet...which they couldn't really do. So it's not like a bad beat contribution, it's more like pulling the jackpot money from the rake.

I don't see why they couldn't do exactly that. The theoretical payback % supposedly occurs over "the long term". They do not have to adjust the paytable to give you 5.5 coins etc. on any 1 hand of VP. Let's say you do not hit a royal flush after putting $1000 through the machine. In theory, I say the casino makes $35 or so, the 8 progressives each grow by $5 and you have approximately $925 left in your bankroll. All the conditions have been satisfied.

Oh ok...I thought you were saying the jackpot contribution comes off the top from the players poket like a bad beat poker jackpot....when it's really coming from the house edge. What you're saying is if you don't get a royal you're probably not going to have a very good payback percentage.

RoadTrip

May 25, 2011
11:38am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Very nice, road trip. Now, let's get back to the question at hand. If you have two coin flips of tails are you likely to see a heads on the next flip? If you have two roulette spins of black are you likely to see red on the next spin? if you have gone through 48,000 hands of VP without a royal are you likely to see a royal on the next play?

Here's another question: If MoneyLA weren't saying these things would you still challenge them?

Easy enough questions to answer.

On the next flip, no. On the next two flips, YES.
On the next spin, no. On the next two spins, YES.
If having played without a royal for 48K hands, am I likely to get on on the next hand, No. Am I likely to get one during the next 48K hands, YES.

If MoneyLA weren't saying these things, would I still challenge them? If MoneyLA were not saying these things, it is "likely" I would not challenge them, as, and it is "unlikely" although possible that I'm incorrect here, I do not believe anyone else would say those things in the same context, if at all.

::: shrug :::

KayPea

May 26, 2011
3:33am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
snidely wrote: "The math will tell you that you are likely to get a heads after two coin flips."

Really, Snidely??

I'll give you 2 to 1 odds on hitting a heads after 10 coin flips if you want to put some real money on it.

snidely333

May 26, 2011
4:05am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333

Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA
snidely wrote: "The math will tell you that you are likely to get a heads after two coin flips."

Really, Snidely??

So tell me Snidely, are you one of those players who walks up to a roulette wheel, and sees on the board that the last two spins were black, and then bets on red?

Yes, really. If you spin the wheel twice you are likely to get at least one black. The probability on any one spin is still 50% (assuming no stinking green).

After two coin flips you will see at least one head 75% of the time on average. You can decide for yourself if 75 out of 100 is a likely event.

arcimedes

May 26, 2011
4:18am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: a2a3dseddie

Quote
Originally posted by: arcimedes
"likely"

If people are going to discuss mathematical concepts then they should stick with mathematical definitions. Using terms such as "likely" does not have a mathematical definition. If one wants to use this term they need to define it precisely. For example, if you define likely as >80% then you now have something mathematical to talk about. Without that definition any attempt at a mathematical statement is useless.

"What's happening is this. Of that $1000 of coin in, the casino holds $35 (on average) and $40 is spread out among the 8 different progressives. That means if you never hit the royal flush, you are essentially playing a less than 92.5% average payback machine."

No, without a RF the return is 94.5%. A progressive does not change the base ER (ER of non-RF hands) of any game other than small amounts due to strategy changes.

arcimedes,

I don't know the exact % a RF contributes to any specific VP machine, but aren't you forgetting the additional 4% being taken out for the progressive? In theory, yes all of that additional 4% is paid back to the players, but if you do not hit the progressive, that money is gone. It's high risk high reward for sure.

Here's an example. Let's say someone devised a lottery that paid $1 billion dollars if you hit it. Tickets are only $1 each. The odds of you hitting it are only 500 million to 1. This has positive EV, but the chances of you ever hitting it are miniscule, and you are more likely to go broke than to win the $1 billion. That's what I think these machines are. Dancer stated himself, if you don't hit the royal, you'll lose a lot of money trying.

The typical % for a RF is around 2%. That is what I used above.

The money for the progressive is not "taken out" of the base ER. That would be illegal. The base game has nothing to do with the progressive no money is taken out of what you gamble. The casino makes money based on strategy errors.

If you play only when the games are positive where the RF contribution is now 5.5% or greater you will lose money if you don't hit the RF. The math is simple ... your expectation may be 100% but if you never hit the RF you will see 100-5.5% or exactly what I stated above ... 94.5%.

a2a3dseddie

May 26, 2011
7:27am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: arcimedes

Quote
Originally posted by: a2a3dseddie
Quote
Originally posted by: arcimedes
"likely"

If people are going to discuss mathematical concepts then they should stick with mathematical definitions. Using terms such as "likely" does not have a mathematical definition. If one wants to use this term they need to define it precisely. For example, if you define likely as >80% then you now have something mathematical to talk about. Without that definition any attempt at a mathematical statement is useless.

"What's happening is this. Of that $1000 of coin in, the casino holds $35 (on average) and $40 is spread out among the 8 different progressives. That means if you never hit the royal flush, you are essentially playing a less than 92.5% average payback machine."

No, without a RF the return is 94.5%. A progressive does not change the base ER (ER of non-RF hands) of any game other than small amounts due to strategy changes.

arcimedes,

I don't know the exact % a RF contributes to any specific VP machine, but aren't you forgetting the additional 4% being taken out for the progressive? In theory, yes all of that additional 4% is paid back to the players, but if you do not hit the progressive, that money is gone. It's high risk high reward for sure.

Here's an example. Let's say someone devised a lottery that paid $1 billion dollars if you hit it. Tickets are only $1 each. The odds of you hitting it are only 500 million to 1. This has positive EV, but the chances of you ever hitting it are miniscule, and you are more likely to go broke than to win the $1 billion. That's what I think these machines are. Dancer stated himself, if you don't hit the royal, you'll lose a lot of money trying.

Arcimedes,
We're both just speculating at this point. Someone should contact Bob Dancer to get the truth. He says in his column that after $1000 coin in, 4% is taken out to feed the 8 progressives. I believe that would be in addition to the 3.5% hold the casino retains. I certainly do not believe the M Casino is relying only on strategy errors to make money.

I don't understand how you can say no money is taken out of what you gamble on these progressives. Hasn't Dancer made clear that 4% of coin in is put towards the progressives?

It's confusing in a way. I agree the progressive does not affect the payback %, because the entire amount is eventually paid back to 8 lucky players. But once again, I maintain that after playing these machines, for $1000 coin in and not hitting a RF, on average the casino will collect their 5.5% (as you say) 4% goes towards the progressives that someone will hit, and you will have about $905 left over.

KayPea

May 26, 2011
9:27am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: a2a3dseddie
He says in his column that after $1000 coin in, 4% is taken out to feed the 8 progressives. I believe that would be in addition to the 3.5% hold the casino retains.

That would mean that the casino hold changes from 3.5% to 7.5% which can only be done by changing the pay table. Instead it sound like they earn their hold initially from the 3.5% of $1000 and then from any strategy errors after $1000, as you can't change the pay table from one hand to the next.

MoneyLA

May 26, 2011
9:38am

Block User

I dont think the "casino hold" changes at all, because all the added money in the progressive must be paid to the players. I think the "casino hold" remains the same no matter what the progressive amount is. What changes is the payback for the player who wins the progressive as the progressive jackpot increases.

Am I wrong about this??

a2a3dseddie

May 26, 2011
9:45am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: KayPea

Quote
Originally posted by: a2a3dseddie
He says in his column that after $1000 coin in, 4% is taken out to feed the 8 progressives. I believe that would be in addition to the 3.5% hold the casino retains.

No, since 100% of that 4% is paid back to the players in the form of the progressive, they can still claim that the machine is only holding 3.5% for the casino. They don't need to change any of the pay tables.

a2a3dseddie

May 26, 2011
9:54am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
I dont think the "casino hold" changes at all, because all the added money in the progressive must be paid to the players. I think the "casino hold" remains the same no matter what the progressive amount is. What changes is the payback for the player who wins the progressive as the progressive jackpot increases.

Am I wrong about this??

I agree with you here MoneyLa. If anyone thinks these machines are great, let's see a team of professional players monopolize them from the starting reset point when all 8 machines are at a 4000 coin RF. The truth is, they aren't positive EV and won't be until several losing players have fed the progressives to a high level.

«‹13 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now