Progressives- min bet or max lines?
So the machine HE, "overall" is still 18%?Quote: Exoter175This entire quote is just absolutely wrong. While jurisdictions "might" have a minimum % payback, that does not mean the machine has to be SET to have that minimum payback %. I've seen this information first hand, and I'm not entirely sure I'm allowed to, or that its legal for me to have seen them, but alas, I have. I've seen some pretty monstrous setups where the base payback % is 57%, the bonus% is 17%, and the progressives just 8%. In case you were wondering, that's an 82% machine. The thing is, and especially so in a lot of these cases, those payback %'s are based on the whole "assortment" of penny/nickel/quarter/dollar denoms in raw payback %, and further, towards the states that have a mandatory minimum % payback, will largely offset the payback % of all machines by including a slew of 98-99% payback video poker machines in hordes to average it all back out.
Okay, so you're saying it looks like someone will win $500 but lose $551 in the process. Well, let's take a look at where my math would be if I were to do this... $490 progressive, $4 meter rate... so 1,000 pennies * $4 = $4,000 in action. Assuming "15%" in HE, that means $600 to win $500, or a net loss of $100. Thus, I wouldn't play it... and in my opinion, it's because the meter rate is too high ($4 per penny). My break even to play on this game would be $492, which would result in 800 pennies and $3200 in action, assuming a 15% HE resulting in $480 to chase $500... and this is at "worse case scenario." So my math would agree with you that $490 is too soon to play. It sounds like we're still rather close to being on the same page?Quote: Exoter175...and attempting to factor in 10-15% as a method in which you're attempting to "take" a play is futile.
Take a Quick Strike China Shores machine as an example. Loooooooooong meter rate on those, generally around the $3.50-$4.50 mark. Lets say $4.00 for this example.
Most people will absolutely shit themselves to find a $490.00 quick strike just sitting there, and will immediately play it. However, with 1,000 pennies to go, at a $4 meter rate, that's $4,000 in action to guarantee the progressive. If its a base 61% payback, with 16% payback in the bonus, and 11% payback in the progressive, we effectively have an 88% payback machine. For the purpose of this argument, lets say that bonus comes up every 400 spins and you're betting .60/spin.
From 4,000 in action, we'll get ~6,667 spins at our .60 bet. If the bonus were to pop up every 400 spins on average, we'll yield 16.65 bonuses (we'll call it 17). In that time that you spin the machine 6,667 times with 61% payback, you'll have lost ~ $1,590. The bonuses which on average will yield about 24 spins per bonus and pay x2 in the bonus, will have an expected payout of 17x24x.60x2, or ~$490. Thus bringing you up to an $1100 loss before the major hits at $500, a total of $600 loss, minus the minor progressive payouts that could potentially have happened with an average of about $38 and 1.3ish hits, or around $551 in losses.
Now, that's a "perfect world" scenario, where both the base payback % is achieved, as well as the bonus payback % is achieved, and the difference in actual payback % and the listed % comes through the progressive, since we were on it for such a short window in the general scheme of things.
But what happens when you see 55% payback and suffer an additional ~$210 in losses? What happens if you lose half your bonus% and lose an additional $245?
If you follow your own logic to conclusion though it still puts the machine at ~85% payback/HE. Even if you have a 60% main game, with 15% to bonus rounds and 10% to progressives. Doing the math on them individually should still come out to be the 85% HE. You'll lose your ass on the 60% main game, but come out ahead on the 15% bonus rounds (w/ 2x pay) and 10% progressives, would you not?Quote: Exoter175...In essence, 10-15% HE shouldn't be calculated before you hop on a progressive, but instead, the likelihood of all events unfolding, but most conditionally being the base payback% of the game while you play it, and the bonus frequency. Those two will go a long way towards setting yourself up to win, rather than lose, while a standard 10-15% HE against the total possible wagered money will likely set you up for a pretty sizable loss.
Another example you gave is of the $10k progressive you started playing at 9950.xx. Let me try the "HE" math on that and see where we come out... though it will greatly depend on the meter rate, say it's at 9900 with a $4.50 meter rate. Okay, so I need 10,000 pennies at $4.50 each, resulting in $45,000 in action. If we take the "overall" HE to be 15%, then this would mean an expected loss of 6750 to win $10k (not factoring in taxes).
The thing that I suppose confuses me the most is your breakdown of the bonus rounds and progressive amounts. These payouts are separate from the main game yes, but they are realized when you actually hit the progressive. You're not playing a 60% game when you hit the progressive, which when doing this math you're deciding to play until you hit it... so you will be getting that extra 10-15% for the "progressive." To that note, the bonus rounds should balance out over time. Like I said previously you may get 0 this time and 10 next time, but over time they'll average out as well. This means when you're playing the game you're going to get an "average" number of bonus rounds per play, also meaning you're not playing a 60% game. That last part might be worded a bit funny, but I hope you get my view that you can't count the game as 60%... as the player will get bonus rounds (that will average out over time) and they will get the progressive. Even by your own math adding all of them together you ended up in the 80% HE range, which by us taking an average of "15%" is about on par with your numbers.
When would you have hopped on this machine had the guy before you not been playing it? You don't have to give all of your math secrets, just a number of when you would find it viable to hop on this machine. My point is I'm betting overall we have fairly similar entry points.
Quote: IbeatyouracesAnyone can say they are... doesn't mean a hill of beans.
True ones aren't bragging.
If you think the true ones aren't bragging, I doubt you know any "true" ones. In our circle it is quite common. Have you ever actually spoken to another machine AP? Do you even know what to look for? I pick these guys out from a mile away and always introduce myself to them, and it startles every single time, and then we carry on a discussion about what we do, and I absolutely fleece these guys for all the information they'll give me because they love to share stories about all the money they have won.
Quote: rdw4potusCould you please name a jurisdiction where the minimum payback percentage requirement can be achieved based on a weighted average of all machines? Just one...any one will do...
And, your example shows a machine set to 82%. That'd satisfy the requirements in a jurisdiction with an 80% minimum payback (like AZ, or KS, or WV)
In Kansas, in a casino not operated by a tribe, I've specifically seen that 82.xx% machine, where the law dictates that they be no less than 87%.
In Montana on the reservations, there is absolutely no minimum payback%.
I've seen the specs, par sheets, etc. with my own eyes, I've also watched gaming commissions rotate these low% machines out of the casino within a year so that they do not qualify for their states regulation for that year, while the progressive values of that machine are stored to be put on another machine later. If you don't think there are ways to fudge the numbers and loophole the system, you're sadly mistaken.
Also, that little sign up front that says 89.47% payback, what do you think those numbers represent?
Quote: RomesExoter, I appreciate the informative response. My response is to understand, not argue, but in doing so I'm going to challenge some of your points to see if I understand them correctly.
So the machine HE, "overall" is still 18%?
Okay, so you're saying it looks like someone will win $500 but lose $551 in the process. Well, let's take a look at where my math would be if I were to do this... $490 progressive, $4 meter rate... so 1,000 pennies * $4 = $4,000 in action. Assuming "15%" in HE, that means $600 to win $500, or a net loss of $100. Thus, I wouldn't play it... and in my opinion, it's because the meter rate is too high ($4 per penny). My break even to play on this game would be $492, which would result in 800 pennies and $3200 in action, assuming a 15% HE resulting in $480 to chase $500... and this is at "worse case scenario." So my math would agree with you that $490 is too soon to play. It sounds like we're still rather close to being on the same page?
If you follow your own logic to conclusion though it still puts the machine at ~85% payback/HE. Even if you have a 60% main game, with 15% to bonus rounds and 10% to progressives. Doing the math on them individually should still come out to be the 85% HE. You'll lose your ass on the 60% main game, but come out ahead on the 15% bonus rounds (w/ 2x pay) and 10% progressives, would you not?
Another example you gave is of the $10k progressive you started playing at 9950.xx. Let me try the "HE" math on that and see where we come out... though it will greatly depend on the meter rate, say it's at 9900 with a $4.50 meter rate. Okay, so I need 10,000 pennies at $4.50 each, resulting in $45,000 in action. If we take the "overall" HE to be 15%, then this would mean an expected loss of 6750 to win $10k (not factoring in taxes).
The thing that I suppose confuses me the most is your breakdown of the bonus rounds and progressive amounts. These payouts are separate from the main game yes, but they are realized when you actually hit the progressive. You're not playing a 60% game when you hit the progressive, which when doing this math you're deciding to play until you hit it... so you will be getting that extra 10-15% for the "progressive." To that note, the bonus rounds should balance out over time. Like I said previously you may get 0 this time and 10 next time, but over time they'll average out as well. This means when you're playing the game you're going to get an "average" number of bonus rounds per play, also meaning you're not playing a 60% game. That last part might be worded a bit funny, but I hope you get my view that you can't count the game as 60%... as the player will get bonus rounds (that will average out over time) and they will get the progressive. Even by your own math adding all of them together you ended up in the 80% HE range, which by us taking an average of "15%" is about on par with your numbers.
When would you have hopped on this machine had the guy before you not been playing it? You don't have to give all of your math secrets, just a number of when you would find it viable to hop on this machine. My point is I'm betting overall we have fairly similar entry points.
For the most part, I think we are agreeing to many core attributes of the discussion, but what I've been emphasizing so far, that perhaps is getting a little undervalued and maybe not as blatantly made obvious as it should, is that it isn't safe to ASSUME a 15%HE. It isn't safe to ASSUME any HE%.
What I'm saying here is that in your eyes, assuming 15%HE is "safe" in a worst case scenario, and I'm saying that if we assume 15%HE, we're using that as the "best case" scenario, not the worst. The worst case scenario is almost always twice the %HE you factor in, and though we might always realize the same %HE, one should never ASSUME a specific %HE before making the decision to play it.
I've sat on a WMS progressive where my assumption was a $270 loss before a capped $500 win, and I was $650 in it before things got back on track and I ended up losing a grand total of $430. Conversely, I've sat on the same machine and made $1,000 before it hit its $500 cap from nearly the identical starting point. I bring this up because not all games are alike, and thus not all HE%'s should be factored the same. There are games like the Quick Strikes that specifically run at a specific meter rate, and therefore it is safe to assume a very common %HE, but then there are games like the WMS progressives (Robin Hood, Unicorns, Lions, Laredo, Bierhaus, etc.) that run on a completely different model, where the value of each win determines the rate at which the meter moves. Though the figure is static at $1.66 per .01, if the game is in a position to return only 45% base payback from point A to point B, you won't fare very well compared to the game when its paying back at 55% base payback, and since we cannot identify these areas of payback % ever, it is not safe to assume ANY payback % from the game, and thus HE% should never be a factor in determining your point at which you decide to pursue. Most of these games I've seen the PAR sheets on, or their accounting data, and I "know" what the safe assumption is to make, and through enough experience everyone should be able to make that determination, but what I'm stating is that 15%HE is NOT the worst case scenario to be factoring when making your decision to play. Especially so if you're playing a game like the "Keepin it hot 7's" where the progressives can hit multiple times before they cap out and reset.
Over the long run, we might experience the "True" HE%, but the long run is often longer than what we truly ever get a chance to play for, so I find that to be a very unwise factor to use in your decision making to take a machine, and I tend to settle more on the lines of the information I know about the machine based on its PAR sheets and accounting info, as well as a little lenience towards negative variance.
As far as my number for that specific machine I took, I wasn't going to breathe on it unless it crossed $9,950, and even I felt that was risky, but the reward on a multiplier day being at a place and really "playing" for only the third time, far outweighed the potential risk for taking it "so low".
Quote: Exoter175
Also, that little sign up front that says 89.47% payback, what do you think those numbers represent?
riiiiiight...89.47% is the average of all machines. In a casino where the required minimum is...85%? 87%? 80%? 75%? That's a nice way to show that they're handily beating the minimum on average. But they also must beat it on every machine in order to comply with the regulation. The two points have virtually nothing to do with each other. I'd have thought an expert would know that. But you don't. So now I'm wondering if you accurately understood what you claim to have seen re: par sheets, paybacks, etc.
The Ohio lottery publishes very explicit allowed payback rangers on approved machines. You'll see that there are no approved machines/payback settings lower than 85%.
Example:
https://www.ohiolottery.com/assets/vlt/Technology-Providers/Game-Theme-Resolution-March-2014-revised
Quote: rdw4potusriiiiiight...89.47% is the average of all machines. In a casino where the required minimum is...85%? 87%? 80%? 75%? That's a nice way to show that they're handily beating the minimum on average. But they also must beat it on every machine in order to comply with the regulation. The two points have virtually nothing to do with each other. I'd have thought an expert would know that. But you don't. So now I'm wondering if you accurately understood what you claim to have seen re: par sheets, paybacks, etc.
If I see a PAR% or PAR score% on two machines side by side that read 82.54% and 82.63%, where the Base+Bonus+Progressive values all add up to that PAR %, I don't think I'm reading them wrong, though it could certainly be a case. Often I see them at 91% or 93%. I'm not saying its common, I'm just saying I've seen it. In this very specific case, both machines were being setup for play, so perhaps the % payback by law doesn't account for the game in its very base state as the progressive values were all at their reset values. Perhaps the game as it is played further, will yield a higher PAR% as the values themselves build up, and I'd imagine that might be the case, as I imagine the progressive% value increases as the numbers build up.
My point was simply that if you know the base % of a game's payback without bonus and progressive, you have a more accurate "worst case scenario" to calculate your numbers. This information is very valuable to a person such as myself, so I make it a point to look at these numbers when the gaming commission is going around checking them.
Further, calculating an HE% above that of the base required by law (assuming all of them meet that standard, and I suspect that isn't absolutely always the case) leaves quite a bit of room for error.
Lets say we live in a perfect world where every machine by law is required to hit a minimum %, and that no errors ever happen, and commission never have to fine companies for allowing these occurrences to happen. If there are 5 machines on a bank, the minimum % by law is 80%, and three of them are set to 85%, one is set to 93%, and the other is set to 80.50%, wouldn't it be more advantageous to KNOW which machine pays what, before you "assume" to factor in a number you "think" to be accurate?
Quote: sabreI'm feeling the same way rdw4potus is.
The Ohio lottery publishes very explicit allowed payback rangers on approved machines. You'll see that there are no approved machines/payback settings lower than 85%.
Example:
https://www.ohiolottery.com/assets/vlt/Technology-Providers/Game-Theme-Resolution-March-2014-revised
And? Do you know the exact rules and regulations internally as well? Example, if the progressive % adjusts as it goes up, could they not place credits towards the machine to achieve its minimum %, to bring it "above" what it is currently at? Does that still change the fact that what I saw was less than what was allowed?
I think this is where we disagree. Knowing more information, such as the base pay, certainly does help... but my lord you can not base your play off 60% "base game" if the overall (with bonus and progressive) is 85%. You're playing the game to HIT the progressive, so you will always get that added in to the overall. At a minimum you should use Base Game + Progressive. The only variable here is the bonus rounds as if you don't get them your variance will be dreadfull. However, on the flip side, if you get numerous bonus rounds you'll be through the roof profitable. This leads me to believe that they will average out over time to their natural "EV" and thus you should "on average" account for their percentage too.Quote: Exoter175...My point was simply that if you know the base % of a game's payback without bonus and progressive, you have a more accurate "worst case scenario" to calculate your numbers. This information is very valuable to a person such as myself, so I make it a point to look at these numbers when the gaming commission is going around checking them.
Not only that, you can pick a denomination that gives you X spins to try to ensure you get a bonus round. Say you could play a penny machine at max bet $5/pull, but instead you played at $3/pull just to get more spins to try to decrease that variance by getting a bonus round with your more spins. Sure, instead of 500 spins to hit the progressive now you have 1000, but you're dampening your variance by getting more hands and doubling your opportunity to hit a bonus round. Basically, just like blackjack, the more hands the more towards EV, which is what we all want... EV and less variance.
I don't think anyone would disagree that it's more advantageous to know which machine pays what before playing... but without sitting there and watching the reel for hours you won't know. So I'd assume the worst and not waste my very valuable time. If I happen to play a machine better than the worse, then it's all up hill from there. Unless you have a better/easier way of identifying the actual percentages per machine???Quote: Exoter175...Lets say we live in a perfect world where every machine by law is required to hit a minimum %, and that no errors ever happen, and commission never have to fine companies for allowing these occurrences to happen. If there are 5 machines on a bank, the minimum % by law is 80%, and three of them are set to 85%, one is set to 93%, and the other is set to 80.50%, wouldn't it be more advantageous to KNOW which machine pays what, before you "assume" to factor in a number you "think" to be accurate?
In all jurisdictions I'm aware of, it's not a machine issue, it's a bet issue. You can't offer a game that has any wager with less than 85% theoretical return (if 85% is the minimum; NV is 75%, etc.) So if you're in PA and you have a GameKing (multi-game terminal) with lots of 96-97% VP games on it, that doesn't mean you can also configure a keno game with 80% RTP and have it all balance out. That keno game isn't approved in that jurisdiction regardless of what else is on the machine.Quote: sabreYeah. Same here. I know PA requires each machine to have a greater than 85% theoretical return. Of course you have to include the reset amount and meter rise in your calculations, but I've never seen that drop a game below 80%, though I'm sure some exist. And I thought it was common knowledge that bonus rounds account for a large portion of the theoretical return.
And yes, the RTP is the sum of all possible money the player can win on a wager, including progressive seed/meter amounts. The breakdown between base game, bonuses, free spins, progressives, other features, etc. is interesting from a game design standpoint but is irrelevant from a regulatory standpoint, except insofar as the regulators also specify restrictions on progressives or other odds details. For example, I think I read a reg once (somewhere) that required any game with a greater than N-to-1 jackpot to have a full-time surveillance camera aimed at the machine. So that's an example where the breakdown would matter, but otherwise 85% is 85% and it doesn't matter whether the game is heavy on the base game or bonus features.
These have lower variance than some other nasty 10K progressives.
Recommended bankroll: $400,000 (for $1). Also exist in $0.25, $5, $10 denoms.
Theoretically, you could lose $10K & only move the major +15.00 (e.g. 9,980-9,995).
My worst was losing -$10K & moving the major +23.00.
--> Machine got hot afterwards, and nabbed the major for free.
Some have dropped the $10K major on the first spin.
Majors have dropped at $9,001 & $9,999+.
Saw someone drop a major on his 5th bet of $1.
Bonuses can be quite nice. Largest I've heard was $30,000+.
Seen someone bet $13,000 with no bonuses.
My worst has been $6,000-7,000 with no bonuses.
Friend got one left at 9,982.
Heard about one abandoned at 9,987.
Holds on these machines vary almost 4X (possibly more), so it's hard to know when to play unless you do research.
They can be playable as low as 9,300-9,400 (+/- $60,000). Try higher numbers first...
Good luck if you try them.
Quote: RomesI think this is where we disagree. Knowing more information, such as the base pay, certainly does help... but my lord you can not base your play off 60% "base game" if the overall (with bonus and progressive) is 85%. You're playing the game to HIT the progressive, so you will always get that added in to the overall. At a minimum you should use Base Game + Progressive. The only variable here is the bonus rounds as if you don't get them your variance will be dreadfull. However, on the flip side, if you get numerous bonus rounds you'll be through the roof profitable. This leads me to believe that they will average out over time to their natural "EV" and thus you should "on average" account for their percentage too.
Not only that, you can pick a denomination that gives you X spins to try to ensure you get a bonus round. Say you could play a penny machine at max bet $5/pull, but instead you played at $3/pull just to get more spins to try to decrease that variance by getting a bonus round with your more spins. Sure, instead of 500 spins to hit the progressive now you have 1000, but you're dampening your variance by getting more hands and doubling your opportunity to hit a bonus round. Basically, just like blackjack, the more hands the more towards EV, which is what we all want... EV and less variance.
I don't think anyone would disagree that it's more advantageous to know which machine pays what before playing... but without sitting there and watching the reel for hours you won't know. So I'd assume the worst and not waste my very valuable time. If I happen to play a machine better than the worse, then it's all up hill from there. Unless you have a better/easier way of identifying the actual percentages per machine???
Again, we're talking about that qualifier you keep using there "worst case", it simply is not the worst case. The worst case is what could potentially happen if the machine never hits a bonus, never hits its progressive until the very last cent on a pay-by progressive.
If 15% is your worst case factor here, you're going to lose your behind in the long run, because that 15% might actually be the statistically best possible case, rather than the worst.
Quote: mamatFirst saw these $10K progressives late 2011 - early 2012 (Major $6.67 meter, Minor $2.50 meter).
These have lower variance than some other nasty 10K progressives.
Recommended bankroll: $400,000 (for $1). Also exist in $0.25, $5, $10 denoms.
Theoretically, you could lose $10K & only move the major +15.00 (e.g. 9,980-9,995).
My worst was losing -$10K & moving the major +23.00.
--> Machine got hot afterwards, and nabbed the major for free.
Some have dropped the $10K major on the first spin.
Majors have dropped at $9,001 & $9,999+.
Saw someone drop a major on his 5th bet of $1.
Bonuses can be quite nice. Largest I've heard was $30,000+.
Seen someone bet $13,000 with no bonuses.
My worst has been $6,000-7,000 with no bonuses.
Friend got one left at 9,982.
Heard about one abandoned at 9,987.
Holds on these machines vary almost 4X (possibly more), so it's hard to know when to play unless you do research.
They can be playable as low as 9,300-9,400 (+/- $60,000). Try higher numbers first...
Good luck if you try them.
Nothing gets more irritating than when someone other than yourself nabs that major for free :/
