Bob Dancer's new progressive games at the M

If the payback percentage is 96% when the RF is 4,000 coins for max bet, than that will not change anything for the casino. The payback percentage will never change. They will always pay back 96% of the coin in.

When the RF jackpot is 10,000 or 20,000 coins, the EV will change for the player AP looking at the "long term" EV, and only playing the machines when the RF is large and there is a theoretical +EV, IF they hit the RF.

I still maintain that the RF is built from the 96%, and not from the >4% edge the casino has. The casino will always average their >4% edge in the long run.

However, until someone actually visits these machines and provides the actual pay tables, it is mere speculation and not possible to prove with math.

I have not read the LVA newsletter of AC's article. I have not seen the pay tables for the games.

It is apparent that there is misunderstanding and perhaps semantics causing this debate, and yet not one person has said they have visited, or proven what the pay tables are.

Show us the pay tables, not speculation or "guesses". When we know them, than the math will RULE.

I'm sure they will have guys with hand trucks standing by and every hour wheel out old machines and replace them with new machines with higher/lower pay tables to match the current jackpot. Casinos are smart that way.

7-5 Jacks or Better is 7-5 Jacks or Better, period. Same with the other games offered. For example, the only things that changes on Jacks or Better are the full house and the flush. Here is that paytable:
Royal Flush 800
Straight Flush 50
4 of a Kind 25
Full House 7
Flush 5
Straight 4
3 of a Kind 3
Two Pair 2
Jacks or Better 1

RoadTrip,

I originally thought as you do, that the casino retains their 3.5% no matter what happens, but then Anthony Curtis states otherwise and I'm forced to eat crow.

There is something else at work here though. In the LVA article, he lists what the progressive Royal Flush needs to reach for the game to become breakeven:

The following chart details the FranknBob schedules, the base return (at reset), and the approximate breakeven points for quarters and dollars on each, not considering club returns, mailers, or other perks.

6/5 BP 96.87% $2,350/$9,400
6/5 Super Dbl Bonus 96.87% $2,350/$9,450
8/5 Dbl Dbl Bonus 96.79% $2,400/$9,500
16-13 Deuces Wild 96.77% $2,600/$10,400
15-7 KoB JW 96.74% $2,700/$10,850
9/6/4 Dbl Bonus 96.38% $2,550/$10,100
7/5 BP Deluxe 96.25% $2,600/$10,350
7/5 Jacks or Better 96.15% $2,650/$10,500

kaypea, it is not necessary to bring in new machines to change a paytable. you just adjust the schedule in the program. I think they just have to swap a tip.

mrmarcus, snidely summed up my feelings nicely. good job snidely.

I think it is important that everyone understand how jackpot progressives are designed. ALL of the progressive pool above the minimum for the royal comes from the players. without a progressive, these paytables give the house their edge... and it was noted to be 3.5%.

since the progressives do not come from casino contributions, and only from the play of the casino patrons at a pay table with a 3.5% edge, the casino's edge will stay at 3.5% no matter how big the progressive jackpots become.

I am afraid this has been misunderstood by many of you.

However, if by some fluke these progressives are also funded by the casino, Dancer should state that. As I understand the gaming regulations in Nevada, the progressives are funded only by the players which is why the progressive jackpot must be hit and distributed back to the players.

Unfortunately, I do not have access to the AC article. I look forward to reading it. Unless someone posts it on this forum, or emails it to me, I'll have to wait until July to read it for free. (hint)

With that said, when I used my "rough math" in the very beginning of this thread, if my memory serves me correctly, I came up with rough numbers close to what you've listed for each game, and also used that 92% figure, although I also "figured" a slightly higher number needed for the RF to reach +EV on the game.

I do not know what AC wrote. It may just be a difference in semantics, terminology, or the method in which we write. I am not the most articulate writer around. ::: shrug :::

Until I do get to read the article and contemplate the content, I do not see any reason for me to change my way of thinking about these machines. Just because someone else says something different does not make their information correct or accurate.

It may just be your interpretation of what's been written. If 10 people read the same thing, each may have a different understanding, and explain the information differently to an impartial observer.

The pay table you show is 96.147%. Part of that 96.147% is used to fund the progressives. The house will earn 3.853% of the coin in. Regardless of what the progressive jackpot amount is. Than, 4% of the coin in is used to fund the RF jackpots for all the games. That leaves about 92% to be used to pay the other hands on the 7,5 JOB pay table used as an example.

If you have the ability (software) to compute the payback for that JOB 7-5 pay table, without including the royal flush, (The program I use can not do that. I already tried. ) I am reasonably certain, but still guessing, you will find the return on that pay table to be very close to 92% without the RF.

And all the "other" players on that bank of machines will be playing a game that returns about 92% with perfect play, unless they hit a RF. All those other player will be contributing their 3.853% coin in to the house, and receiving the same 96% return (minus 4% for the RF)

That is what I've been saying all along. The games, for any player who does not hit a RF, will only be returning about 92% of their coin in. And that is going to chew up a bankroll real quick.

Sorry, but I have "Tunnel Vision" on this issue at this particular time.

That's right-and there will be PLENTY of mistakes:
1. The games themselves have many difficult and counter-intuitive strategies.
2 Because few knowledgeable players will play these machines under 100% those who do will be overwhelmingly "bad" players.
3. When the (he, he) "pro's" start playing at 100%, they will use a Chase The Royal strategy which will lower the overall EV of the games. Slightly-but continuing as long as a meter stays over 100%

Add all those up and the M will make money on this game. Maybe not much, but half a percent of steady play is a hell of a lot more then 100% of nothing.

The return without the RF has nothing to do with the EV. Or under your analysis, the no-RF return on 9/6 Jacks or Better is 97.56, and the no-RF return on Full Pay Deuces is 98.9%. Meaningless numbers, right?

Now, compare your 97.56% with 92%.

Are those numbers still meaningless, or is the casino going to see a lot more losers?

Example: The paytable (you need to count the RF) is 96%. The casino puts 1% to the RF progressive. The casino takes in 3%. The casino's 3% is a constant.

As the progressive builds up, it has no affect on the casino's 3% even though the player's EV goes up. The money that is increasing the player's EV came from the players. If you were the only one playing, you would lose 3% (on average, in the long run) even when you hit the progressive as you're only getting back your own money.