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

Bob Dancer's new progressive games at the M

arcimedes

May 31, 2011
9:24pm

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
thanks. one more question, and then this wraps it up for me:

the chart from the casino says that the Double Bonus game will be almost at 100% (exact figure is 99.942%) when the royal reaches 10-thousand on the $1 game. Am I correct that each hand played at the $1 group of games will raise the progressive on the Double Bonus game by two and one-half cents (2.5-cents)?

Since I have trouble adding two plus two, how many hands must be played before this game becomes positive with the royal at $10,000 ?? Is it 240-thousand hands?? Is that correct?? And if that is true it seems to me this game will never have a chance to reach a positive payback since a royal should come along every 40-thou hands or so.

set me straight please.

edited to add: I just consulted with someone who does know the math. and yes, after 240,000 all of the games should be at about 100% payback unless a royal is hit earlier. And in 240,000 hands, we should see about six royals with those games resetting back to 4,000 coins.

I think its going to be a reach to find any of these games reaching the advertised big paybacks? sure it could happen, but what are the chances according to you math guys??

It seems to me that most if not all of these games will always be negative games for the players. again, set me straight, please.

Yes, that you are correct as far as you gone. However, what you forgot is each hand played of the other games also raises the Double Bonus progressive by 2.5 cents. And, that occurs for zero hands of Double Bonus. So, if you assume all the games are played equally, then the jackpot goes up 8*2.5 cents or 20 cents for every hand of Double Bonus that is played.

Interestingly, this means the more popular games will probably be hit before they become positive and the less popular games will become very strong and eventually attract the APers.

MoneyLA

Jun 1, 2011
6:05am

Block User

Thanks Arc. So it seems some of these popular games might never reach "positive payback" as they will be played too often. On the other hand, if a game doesnt reach positive payback it might never be played at all when there are better playing games just steps away. This has already been pointed out on the Internet-- that the M is loaded with full pay and better paying machines just steps away.

Im starting to think that these progressives at the M will be treated like the Megabucks machines. The jackpots on the megabucks look nice but they are arent played as often because the players get a better play for their money elsewhere in the casino.

As we all agree, there is no sense playing these progressives at the M until the pay tables turn positive. That could be a long wait, and in some cases, never come.

KayPea

Jun 1, 2011
8:13am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
On the other hand, if a game doesnt reach positive payback it might never be played at all when there are better playing games just steps away.

Greta will play them.

moredeals

Jun 2, 2011
2:32pm

Block User

Here are photos and that infamous casino chart of the royals that make them positive. link

arcimedes

Jun 2, 2011
10:56pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: moredeals
Here are photos and that infamous casino chart of the royals that make them positive. link

It appears whoever wrote that article for alanbestbuys is also incompetent at math. They repeat the claim that 96.5+4 < 100. Is simple addition really that hard?

mrmarcus12LVA

Jun 2, 2011
11:49pm

Block User

I thought the article was exceptional. The part where it points out that people who make royals are better off than people who don't, that was life changing for me. Like a huge weight of ignorance had been lifted from my shoulders. Give me more!!!

MoneyLA

Jun 3, 2011
4:05am

Block User

Arc please explain to me how these games are 96.5 + 4 ?? The way I understand it, these games are 96.5 + one-eighth of 4.

why are you adding the entire 4% to one game, when the 4% is distributed among all eight games?

the ONLY way you could add 4% to ALL of the games is IF all eight machines were being played simultaneously at the same number of hands per hour -- at exactly the same number of hands per hour.

one of the photos shows different jackpots for the royals, this could indicate royals being hit at low levels when the payback is not positive. as we discussed before why would you play any of these games if the payback were not positive?

edited to add: according to the picture and the payback chart, NONE of these games is positive. So would you play them? Would the APers play them at these levels? Im going to guess "no" based on your previous comments.

This leaves Greta of Green Valley plenty of available seats.

arcimedes

Jun 3, 2011
10:09am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Arc please explain to me how these games are 96.5 + 4 ?? The way I understand it, these games are 96.5 + one-eighth of 4.

why are you adding the entire 4% to one game, when the 4% is distributed among all eight games?

I'm not adding it to one game. The casino returns an average of about 96.5% for the standard paytables AS WELL AS adding in 4% of each bet to the 8 progressives. That is money the casino pays to players. The total is 100.5% of each and every bet. How many ways do I need to explain this simple math?

Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA
the ONLY way you could add 4% to ALL of the games is IF all eight machines were being played simultaneously at the same number of hands per hour -- at exactly the same number of hands per hour.

Nope, it will average out this way over time . But, the simplest way to look at is what I stated above.

Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA
one of the photos shows different jackpots for the royals, this could indicate royals being hit at low levels when the payback is not positive. as we discussed before why would you play any of these games if the payback were not positive?

edited to add: according to the picture and the payback chart, NONE of these games is positive. So would you play them? Would the APers play them at these levels? Im going to guess "no" based on your previous comments.

This leaves Greta of Green Valley plenty of available seats.

They will eventually become positive. It is just going to take a little while.

MoneyLA

Jun 3, 2011
10:53am

Block User

Arc, this quote of yours tells all: "They will eventually become positive. It is just going to take a little while."

But the fact is, when you look at the picture NONE of the games is positive, in fact most of the games are about $5,500 away from being positive.

So playing any of these games would be playing a negative game. And trying to tell anyone they were playing a positive game BEFORE they actually turn positive is misleading. In fact, in my previous career, I put people in jail for scams that like... telling people what kind of "return" they were getting when it was false.

Until the game is positive, its not.

arcimedes

Jun 3, 2011
12:04pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Arc, this quote of yours tells all: "They will eventually become positive. It is just going to take a little while."

But the fact is, when you look at the picture NONE of the games is positive, in fact most of the games are about $5,500 away from being positive.

For all we know the picture was taken the same week the machines were put on the floor.

Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA
So playing any of these games would be playing a negative game. And trying to tell anyone they were playing a positive game BEFORE they actually turn positive is misleading. In fact, in my previous career, I put people in jail for scams that like... telling people what kind of "return" they were getting when it was false.

Until the game is positive, its not.

True. That's why it pays to always know ones paytables. However, the sign say "up to" 102.5% so it does not state the games are "positive game BEFORE they actually turn positive".

«‹24 ›»

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