Bob Dancer's new progressive games at the M

Do you know who the casinos LOVE? They love people who play 102 percent VP and lose money but walk away saying "with that paytable I was ahead with every bet I made.". Those are the people who make the casinos the happiest. I think you are one of those mrmarcus.... You think that every bet you make at a pos expectation game makes you a winner while you are going broke.
Casinos don't love people who play 102% VP. They love Singerites.
People who can actually play at 102 get their comps taken away, and eventually get banned. "Bob Dancer" knows this and that's why he does the things he does.
Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Do you know who the casinos LOVE? They love people who play 102 percent VP and lose money but walk away saying "with that paytable I was ahead with every bet I made.". Those are the people who make the casinos the happiest. I think you are one of those mrmarcus.... You think that every bet you make at a pos expectation game makes you a winner while you are going broke.


Total nonsense. I thought you finally understood how the math works. I guess not.

What you said is the equivalent of ... Well, if you call heads every time and tails comes up then you're going to lose ... duh.

The fact is if a player always plays a 102% game then they won't lose every time, they won't go broke and your statement is simply false. What you did is called circular logic. You assume that which you wish to prove. And, that is why it is total nonsense.

Two points here. Number one:

Please explain: "The fact is if a player always plays a 102% game then they won't lose every time."

So, how many times do you have to lose before you do go broke? Will the winning sessions come at the correct interval to cancel out the losing sessions? How do you know when the winning sessions will come?

And Number Two: if you are going to criticize what I wrote, please criticize WHAT I wrote, and not some excerpt of what I wrote.

What I wrote is: "Do you know who the casinos LOVE? They love people who play 102 percent VP and lose money but walk away saying "with that paytable I was ahead with every bet I made."."
Oh I bet 'the casinos' show a lot more love to the folks who believe that they can beat a bad paytable than the ones who know they can beat a good one.
snidely, here's the "mistake" again. you wrote:

"If the pay table is 96% and the casino puts 1% to the progressive then the casino hold is 3%. That never changes."

The point is the pay table may be 96% but the casino never puts anything towards the progressive. the progressive money above the basic 4000 coins from the royal only comes from the players. if the pay table payback is 96% the casino's hold is always 4% on the "core game." the progressive amount above the core 4000 for the royal is separate and is not part of the casino's hold.

Sindely also wrote: "If the pay table is 96.5% and the casino puts 4% to the progressive then the casino hold is -0.05%. The game is a theoretical loser for the casino."

Again, the casino never loses, and can't lose. The casino puts ZERO towards the progressive. The progressive simply transfers money from a group of players to the lucky winner. The casino's money is not involved in the progressive amount above the first 4000 coins for the royal, and the first 4000 coins was already factored into the reduced pay tables.

Are you suggesting the casino might lose money on this? No way, never, zero. In fact, Im sure that the M will make so much money from this that Dancer is going to get a big fat check for his work. And frankly, good for him. He came up with a game that will lure in the gamblers with the idea of a big payday for a small bet.
Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Two points here. Number one:

Please explain: "The fact is if a player always plays a 102% game then they won't lose every time."

So, how many times do you have to lose before you do go broke? Will the winning sessions come at the correct interval to cancel out the losing sessions? How do you know when the winning sessions will come?


It's called simple statistics, money. While theoretically it's possible to lose every time the chances quickly drop to <1%. Any argument that is based on people losing EVERY TIME is pure nonsense.

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
And Number Two: if you are going to criticize what I wrote, please criticize WHAT I wrote, and not some excerpt of what I wrote.

What I wrote is: "Do you know who the casinos LOVE? They love people who play 102 percent VP and lose money but walk away saying "with that paytable I was ahead with every bet I made."."


I quoted your entire post. There is no 'excerpt'. I then referred to your implication as you just stated that people playing 102% VP "lose money" ... You tried to tell us casinos would "LOVE" these players which means the players must be overall losers. Pure nonsense.

Or, are you trying to tell us casinos "LOVE" players who win money from them consistently over time but might lose 70% of the sessions they play. That is even more ridiculous.

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
snidely, here's the "mistake" again. you wrote:

"If the pay table is 96% and the casino puts 1% to the progressive then the casino hold is 3%. That never changes."

The point is the pay table may be 96% but the casino never puts anything towards the progressive. the progressive money above the basic 4000 coins from the royal only comes from the players. if the pay table payback is 96% the casino's hold is always 4% on the "core game." the progressive amount above the core 4000 for the royal is separate and is not part of the casino's hold.


Snidely already accounted for the money coming from the players by reducing the hold from 4% to 3%. The money can't go to the casino AND go towards the progressive.

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Sindely also wrote: "If the pay table is 96.5% and the casino puts 4% to the progressive then the casino hold is -0.05%. The game is a theoretical loser for the casino."

Again, the casino never loses, and can't lose. The casino puts ZERO towards the progressive. The progressive simply transfers money from a group of players to the lucky winner. The casino's money is not involved in the progressive amount above the first 4000 coins for the royal, and the first 4000 coins was already factored into the reduced pay tables.


Money, this has already been explained to you several times. You are wrong. The amount above the 3.5% would be the casino hold if nothing else was going on. But, there is something going on ... 4% is going towards the progressive. So, the money (even though it comes from the player) is REDIRECTED into the progressive. The casino never sees the 3.5% and may have to add in another .5% if the player's didn't make any errors.

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Are you suggesting the casino might lose money on this? No way, never, zero. In fact, Im sure that the M will make so much money from this that Dancer is going to get a big fat check for his work. And frankly, good for him. He came up with a game that will lure in the gamblers with the idea of a big payday for a small bet.


Once again, the only money the casinos make is the amount of the player errors (-.5%). This is simple addition, money. Everyone else is NOT wrong ... you are.

If the game is "beatable", why would any "advantage player" not make it his/her regular job? At least 40 hrs per week. From what I have read, there is nothing stopping them, the sky is the limit. What is stopping you from making money so easily at doing what you love?
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
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now