Hello LVA

Yes, alanleroy, I rarely play the lottery.

ditto

Frank will answer when he feels like it. If you don't want others to respond then send Frank a PM. Otherwise this is known as a forum. You do know what that means, don't you?

And guess what, Money. There is nothing complex going on here. You just don't like the answer and you're hoping Frank will tell you something else. Sorry, it's not going to happen. He may phrase it nicer than I am, but that won't change a thing. Of course, I expect you to ignore what he says as well since it's not the answer you're looking for. Should be good for a huge belly laugh when you off on another tangent as he explains reality.

Let me give you something so easy a cave man could understand. If you have a team playing a 5 machine progressive and you have only 4 seats then you have an 80% chance of being the winner. If you have 3 seats you have 60%. Each seat represents a 20% chance of winning and requires putting 20% coin-in into the play (keeping it simple). If you only have 3 seats you are only spending 60% of the total. For an additional 20% chance of winning you would need to spend 20% more. Wow, that was tough. The return is exactly the same.

And, if you have all 5 seats all you do is have an additional 20% chance of winning over 4 seats and, OMG, you end up spending the additional 20%. Once again the return rate is exactly the same. Your probability of winning is proportional to the amount wagered.

The bottom line is ... the expected return has zippo to do with the fact that the base paytables are poor. It's the full paytable that counts. If any person or any team always plays when the progressive is high enough to make the game positive, then over time they should hit their proportion of the jackpots. Doesn't matter how many are playing at any particular time. The return over time is the same.

That would be an interesting situation. Since about 30 RFs would be hit every time you played a single hand it would pretty darn difficult to determine what the progressive value was. Without knowing, one should not play.

Ok...Ok..maybe not a million...but enought players so that it is highly unlikely that your team will actually hit the progressive first...

I've been thinking about this along with the St. Petersburg Paradox and there must be a certain point at which, even though the game is +EV, the probability to hitting the Royal is too low to justify play.

But, as Arc and Frank point out, with all those other people playing, the progressive gets built up much quicker and very little of the progressive is from your pocket.

You know Arc, its very funny that you offered this: "If you have a team playing a 5 machine progressive and you have only 4 seats then you have an 80% chance of being the winner." Because that team at Rincon had four out of the 5 seats and still managed to lose three in a row.

Why I am interested in hearing Frank's response is beause he is actually "in the business" of progressives. I'm asking the expert. But thank you for your contribution.

By the way, Arc, what are the odds that a team with 4 out of 5 seats would lose three progressives in a row to an independent player in the fifth seat?

snidely wrote: "But, as Arc and Frank point out, with all those other people playing, the progressive gets built up much quicker and very little of the progressive is from your pocket."

exactly what a lottery is. "ever wonder what a buck can do?"

The point is the EV can be positive but it's still not a good game to play. That is the paradox.

The progressive will build back up fast with lots of players. One just has to make sure they have the opportunity. If the progressive gets hit every 10 seconds then it's probably not worth the effort. If it hits every two hours then it makes more sense.

The lottery is a different issue. In that case a person has only a limited number of chances in their lifetime. The probability of winning is extremely low no matter what the return.