Hello LVA

Oh, and by the way, who's really obsessed with Singer? Did I go back and edit my post to say that? No, you did. Did Singer tell you to do that. Your credibility is ruined, give it up.


-Mule

Let's not turn this into a $ bashing thread.

I thought you might be different from the other AP'ers, but I see you maintain the same condescending tone.

Not unlike Singer's special plays. Very hypocritical.
Now go ahead and make some ridiculous quote about simple math.

Now that's a question I can answer very easily.

Super duper happy with current situation. The big teams are dead! I suggest we leave them that way.

I guess you haven't read my book. The logistic, management, training, scouting, accounting, etc...etc...etc...requirements to run a large team make it a real hair puller and not worth the life disruption. When I was 23 I had the energy, there's no way in hell you could get me to do that again now. Most profitable year of my life and you know what, it didn't matter (because I lost that year of my life). I did nothing but sleep and work for 364 days in a row. Half killed me at 23. Now it would kill me.

When I designed the M progressive I intentional set it up so it wasn't a progressive that ever needed to be locked up and played by a single team (if hypothetically one even existed). Going in and playing at one's convenience and leaving when you get tired works just fine and that's the only method we intend to adopt.

I noticed a question about a hypothetical situation where you have 10 players, but there are two identical banks at equal value each with ten seats. As the expectancy is equal sending all of your players to one bank or splitting them up, the question becomes logistic in nature. The best play is to split up the team and take 5 seats on each progressive.

1. It is extremely likely due to randomness that one will hit before the other.
2. If this happens then you can send 5 players home for a quick rest.
3. Then, if the other progressive is still up, you can send the rested players in to relieve the other 5.
4. This helps to plan for the possibility of a runner and maximizes your potential play time.

It's counter intuitive I know, but I can assure you it is mathematically correct and exactly what I did when this not so hypothetical situation actual cropped up. It might also interest you to know that the other teams run by different mangers all did the same thing. Divide and concur maximizes your man power if you are understaffed.

LESS TIME - MORE MONEY is still a desirable goal, but it is an unattainable one. There IS competition and very little one do about it. If there was NO COMPETITION the progressive would never progress.

There is a dynamic we have not discussed yet: Any progressive's profit potential when you get to play it is counter balanced by its chance to reach your play number without getting hit. Therefore, if you wait for higher numbers, the extra money you will make (when playing) is offset by the fact that you will play less often.

Therefore the second variable is always stuck at SAME MONEY.

We have already established that competition reduces your potential play time and that competition is unavoidable in today's market. It would be nice if we could get MORE TIME (MAKING) SAME MONEY, but it simply isn't possible these days.

If you can somehow figure out how to convince people that they should play really fast when the meter is low and then leave, I promise to give you a nice commission. Na, I take that back, I would not want anyone to lie.

Well not if you include the absurdly high Royal in the pay-table. As far as I know what makes a paytable poor or really good is the sum of ALL the things one can hit and their relative frequencies. Otherwise we are playing the "if game". If you never hit deuces while playing FPDW it's only 97% return. If you only got 5 times your bet for the Full House while playing 9/6 JoB it would be 95% return. These are pointless conjectures because one does not get 5 times their bet hitting a Full House on 9/6 JoB, they get 9 times their bet, that's what makes it 9/6 JoB.

I understand what you are saying, "not including the Royal these games suck!"

I can't contest that.

Here's the thing, you really can't "not include the Royal", anymore than you could not include any hand on the pay table. The pay table by definition includes ALL the hands one can make.

Playing the "if game" is double pointless when the "if" in question is impossible. There is no way to play video poker and ensure that one of the possible paying hands can't be hit. Even if you were determined not to get a Royal and tossed away every card that could give you one, you could still be dealt it or catch it on the redraw.

Does that make any sense? Or did I just miss your point?

Yeah, I was teasing Money. No one got poor old Snidely's joke.

Mule explained it to you. The team could hit a losing streak with all seats taken and even though they eventually hit a royal they don't make up for the losses. But, with someone else in the other seat that person could hit the progressive early and send the team home with a smaller loss. It takes some effort to think through all the possibilities with random events. That is why statistics is applied. Once you apply statistics you have a business plan. Follow the math.

That's also why Singer is wrong when he claims no one can win at VP and when he claims his special plays will help a person win. Yes, he has said that ... he just may not have said that to you. Both are outright lies.