Quote
Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Arc and others, I think the confusion here is about the terms being used here such as "edge" and payback and money won by the casino.
What I am talking about are separate things. Maybe this approach will clear this up.
1. the casino has a reduced paytable that allows a portion of the players' bets to go into the progressive jackpot pool. at the same time, what is considered a "full bet" by the players is not reduced (obviously).
2. as the progressive royal rises, the payback or edge increases for the players. If you want to say that decreases the edge for the house, well go ahead and say it. because in terms of dollars and cents it doesnt matter to the casino at all. "edge" is a meaningless term to the casino. the casino wants $$$.
3. the casino doesnt care if the progressive gets hit or not because its just the players money being returned to the players. and the casino is still making its pre determined profit using the reduced paytable. the reduced paytable already accounts for the base amount of the royal. anything above the base amount of the royal came from the players who suffered their loss using the reduced paytable.
that's my point. the casino doesnt care about the progressive being hit for huge amounts of money.
what would hurt the casino? what would hurt the casino is if some player walks up to a machine and hits the royal, then hits it again, and again and again without the progressive increasing at all. because the royal isnt supposed to hit more than 1 out of 42,000 times (or whatever).
the casino actually wants the progressive to build to huge amounts because as it does two things are happening:
1. more players are playing a game with a reduced paytable that will give the casino more $$$ profits
2. the progressive will rise in $$ value luring even more players to play the poor paytable that gives the casino more $$$ profits.
In the case of Bonus Poker there is a 6/5 paytable for this progressive. it is that 6/5 paytable which allows the players contribution to fund the progressive and for the casino to still make a boatload of profit. if it were a standard 8/5 paytable the casino could not allow the progressive to increase so quickly because it would hurt the casino's profits.
does this clear it up?
Let me give you another "make believe game" to illustrate what I am talking about.
I give you one die to roll. there are six sides to the die. it costs you $6 to roll this six-sided die. if you roll a "6" I will pay you the progressive. the progressive starts at $5 which is also the payout for any other number.
now, if you roll any other number besides the 6, I will pay you $5. and with each roll the "progressive on the 6" will increase by 50-cents.
the casino always will make a profit on every roll. at some point the progressive might be huge but the casino still made its profit. and this is because the progressive jackpot was funded by the reduced paytable for rolling the dice (bet 6 to win 5).
this is, in effect, what the casino is doing with this video poker game.
Now, you can attach whatever "edges" you want to this, but the bottom line is that the casino makes money. and thats my point. because even if the progressive gets to be a huge amount, the money came from the players.
and getting back to Nevada gaming regulations: this is why "progressives" must be hit. because it is determined that the progressive is based on contributions by players who played a reduced pay table. this is why the Majestic Lions machine at the MGM is now at about 2.2-million and why there is a single Red White And Blue slot at Caesars with a jackpot of about a half million. These are the last of the progressives that must be hit because its the players' money which was contributed to the jackpot pool as part of a reduced pay table.
Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Arc and others, I think the confusion here is about the terms being used here such as "edge" and payback and money won by the casino.
What I am talking about are separate things. Maybe this approach will clear this up.
1. the casino has a reduced paytable that allows a portion of the players' bets to go into the progressive jackpot pool. at the same time, what is considered a "full bet" by the players is not reduced (obviously).
2. as the progressive royal rises, the payback or edge increases for the players. If you want to say that decreases the edge for the house, well go ahead and say it. because in terms of dollars and cents it doesnt matter to the casino at all. "edge" is a meaningless term to the casino. the casino wants $$$.
3. the casino doesnt care if the progressive gets hit or not because its just the players money being returned to the players. and the casino is still making its pre determined profit using the reduced paytable. the reduced paytable already accounts for the base amount of the royal. anything above the base amount of the royal came from the players who suffered their loss using the reduced paytable.
that's my point. the casino doesnt care about the progressive being hit for huge amounts of money.
what would hurt the casino? what would hurt the casino is if some player walks up to a machine and hits the royal, then hits it again, and again and again without the progressive increasing at all. because the royal isnt supposed to hit more than 1 out of 42,000 times (or whatever).
the casino actually wants the progressive to build to huge amounts because as it does two things are happening:
1. more players are playing a game with a reduced paytable that will give the casino more $$$ profits
2. the progressive will rise in $$ value luring even more players to play the poor paytable that gives the casino more $$$ profits.
In the case of Bonus Poker there is a 6/5 paytable for this progressive. it is that 6/5 paytable which allows the players contribution to fund the progressive and for the casino to still make a boatload of profit. if it were a standard 8/5 paytable the casino could not allow the progressive to increase so quickly because it would hurt the casino's profits.
does this clear it up?
Let me give you another "make believe game" to illustrate what I am talking about.
I give you one die to roll. there are six sides to the die. it costs you $6 to roll this six-sided die. if you roll a "6" I will pay you the progressive. the progressive starts at $5 which is also the payout for any other number.
now, if you roll any other number besides the 6, I will pay you $5. and with each roll the "progressive on the 6" will increase by 50-cents.
the casino always will make a profit on every roll. at some point the progressive might be huge but the casino still made its profit. and this is because the progressive jackpot was funded by the reduced paytable for rolling the dice (bet 6 to win 5).
this is, in effect, what the casino is doing with this video poker game.
Now, you can attach whatever "edges" you want to this, but the bottom line is that the casino makes money. and thats my point. because even if the progressive gets to be a huge amount, the money came from the players.
and getting back to Nevada gaming regulations: this is why "progressives" must be hit. because it is determined that the progressive is based on contributions by players who played a reduced pay table. this is why the Majestic Lions machine at the MGM is now at about 2.2-million and why there is a single Red White And Blue slot at Caesars with a jackpot of about a half million. These are the last of the progressives that must be hit because its the players' money which was contributed to the jackpot pool as part of a reduced pay table.
Very good parallel, Money, but perhaps this will clear things up (I really, really doubt it), what happens if you increase the progressive not by 50 cents, but by one dollar and 50 cents each time. This is what those video games would do.
