Table Game Progressive Jackpots
Over the past few months I have been playing Pai Gow poker at the Sun Coast in Las Vegas as the progressive is up over $200K. The cut of the dollar going toward the jackpot had been $.28. I am sure shuffle master gets a cut, the house takes a cut etc...
But yesterday I sat down and noticed that the cut going towards the jackpot is now just $.02!!! Two freak'n cents? The boss said that they are taking the extra to fund a higher starting jackpot after this one is hit.
Are there any regulations regarding this kind of highway robbery?
but the players are not victims, they are conspirators.
If no one plays that bonus bet, the casino will remove it in a few days
Would you have preferred they reduce the current jackpot instead?
You can't make everyone happy all the time. If they let the main jackpot grow to $30,000, 40,000 or $50,000 then reset it at $5,000 people will complain and there will be less play on it. It's a good move at some point if the reset amount is not strong to start sending more money to it.
ZCore13
To those that don't see an issue with this, what if the casino took it one step further? What if, instead of taking your $0.28 to fund a future pai gow progressive, they used it to fund the Caribbean Stud progressive? Is there really a difference? You cannot win the progressive amount being funded by your bet either way.
Quote: cardsharkI think what the casino is doing is wrong. Taking a part of the bet to fund a future progressive jackpot that you have no chance of winning at the time you made your bet seems wrong.
To those that don't see an issue with this, what if the casino took it one step further? What if, instead of taking your $0.28 to fund a future pai gow progressive, they used it to fund the Caribbean Stud progressive? Is there really a difference? You cannot win the progressive amount being funded by your bet either way.
Theoretically you can win the jackpot you're betting on. Player 1 gets a 7 card straight flush in spades, and wins $200k; player 2 gets a 7 card straight flush in clubs on the same hand and wins the reserve jackpot.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI don't care how much goes into the pot but rather just how much the pot is. If its positive EV, I may bet it or I may not but if its negative EV, I certainly will not play it.
Breakeven is about $268,000.
I wonder if Sun Coast posts a maximum value on their progressive. Stations posts a $150,000 max, after which additional play funds the reserve jackpot.
Quote: rdw4potusTheoretically you can win the jackpot you're betting on. Player 1 gets a 7 card straight flush in spades, and wins $200k; player 2 gets a 7 card straight flush in clubs on the same hand and wins the reserve jackpot.
Ok, ok, ok. VERY theoretically. What your are describing is incredibly unlikely! I think my point still stands.
Quote: cardsharkOk, ok, ok. VERY theoretically. What your are describing is incredibly unlikely! I think my point still stands.
Yes, your point still stands. But, winning the jackpot once is also incredibly unlikely:-)
Personally, I don't have a problem with this method of funding reserve jackpots.
Quote: cardsharkYou cannot win the progressive amount being funded by your bet either way.
AU CONTRAIRE!
the casino's position is obviously the assumption that you will continue to play after you win the jackpot,
and therefore, you most definitely can take part in the next and all future jackpots.
they view all players as potential lifers.
Quote: cardsharkI think what the casino is doing is wrong. Taking a part of the bet to fund a future progressive jackpot that you have no chance of winning at the time you made your bet seems wrong.
I think the key here is that there is some "seed money" in the jackpot that you are betting on and can win. Where did that money come from? The answer is part of the bets made before the previous jackpot was won. The option of not using any of the previous bets for the future beginning value of the progressive is to start it at zero after it is hit.....who is going to play that progressive?
Now I get the fact that if they up the seed amount for the next jackpot vs. the seed money for the current jackpot but the bottom line is that every bet you are making is an attempt to win what is on the meter at the time the bet is made. If you don't like that proposition, don't make the bet. I can't imagine that anyone is really making a progressive bet saying "Well if I don't win this hand the meter goes up by X cents and I have a chance of winning that much more on the next hand".
Progressives are what they are.....a dollar and a prayer and until they meter getst to a positive EV or at least one that is <3% HE, what are you complaining about.
$x to the casino/owners. Seed money paid from here with a risk that the casino could take a loss in the short run
$y to pay for the non-jackpot portion of the paytable
$0.28 to the jackpot meter
Total = $1
I agree that this isn't the worst thing a casino has ever done. It's more in the "grey area" of wrong for me. But I still feel it is wrong to change the allocation of the amount of your bet dedicated to the jackpot to a future jackpot simply because the current jackpot is too high. It seems wrong to me to take $0.28 of my dollar that should have went to the jackpot that I am currently playing for and give to another jackpot that I cannot win with this bet.
I get that either way, in the end, the players (considered as a whole) will get the money, regardless of how they allocate the jackpot portion of the bet.
I also agree that if the bet is +EV, I will play it, regardless of how they allocate the bet to future jackpots.
Quote: cardsharkFor what it's worth Paradigm, it was my understanding that the $0.28 (in this example) always goes to the jackpot and not the seed. The seed is paid for by the casino. The casino is compensated for having to pay a seed by the house edge on the bet. I figure the allocation of the bet would be like this:
$x to the casino/owners. Seed money paid from here with a risk that the casino could take a loss in the short run
$y to pay for the non-jackpot portion of the paytable
$0.28 to the jackpot meter
Total = $1
I agree that this isn't the worst thing a casino has ever done. It's more in the "grey area" of wrong for me. But I still feel it is wrong to change the allocation of the amount of your bet dedicated to the jackpot to a future jackpot simply because the current jackpot is too high. It seems wrong to me to take $0.28 of my dollar that should have went to the jackpot that I am currently playing for and give to another jackpot that I cannot win with this bet.
I get that either way, in the end, the players (considered as a whole) will get the money, regardless of how they allocate the jackpot portion of the bet.
I also agree that if the bet is +EV, I will play it, regardless of how they allocate the bet to future jackpots.
As the jackpot gets higher, the house edge goes down. Do you think that it's fair that the house's portion of the seed money should be constant while $x is shrinking as the jackpot rises? I think the house is basically arguing that $x + (let's call the $.28=$z) =constant; and as the jackpot rises, the house's contribution is replaced by the players' contribution to the next jackpot's seed.
Your "understanding" is based upon a bad assumption.Quote: cardsharkFor what it's worth Paradigm, it was my understanding that the $0.28 (in this example) always goes to the jackpot and not the seed. The seed is paid for by the casino. The casino is compensated for having to pay a seed by the house edge on the bet.
The seed money for a progressive comes from the players.
When a new progressive is introduced, yeah, the casino will put up some nice amount of cash to make it attractive. But the portion of the bet that goest towards increasing the meter is greatly reduced until the seed money is paid back.
Once it's paid back, the meter speed increases, until a backup seed amount is on hand for after it hits. Then it increases to the maximum contribution.
What is happening here is the casino decided up increase the seed value, and since the current jackput is very high, is setting up that reserve ahead of time.
There's nothing fishy going on here. It is what it is.
Quote: cardshark
I also agree that if the bet is +EV, I will play it, regardless of how they allocate the bet to future jackpots.
I would guess the bet rarely ever gets to a real + EV, if you consider Uncle Sam's cut. But I agree with the concept. You are betting $1. You know the odds of hitting each possible payout. You know what the jackpot is when you are betting your $1. What the casino does with that dollar is irrelevant to you deciding to make that bet or not.
Quote: DJTeddyBearYour "understanding" is based upon a bad assumption.
Ouch, what did I ever do to you, DJ?!
Quote: DJTeddyBear
The seed money for a progressive comes from the players.
When a new progressive is introduced, yeah, the casino will put up some nice amount of cash to make it attractive. But the portion of the bet that goest towards increasing the meter is greatly reduced until the seed money is paid back.
Once it's paid back, the meter speed increases, until a backup seed amount is on hand for after it hits. Then it increases to the maximum contribution.
What is happening here is the casino decided up increase the seed value, and since the current jackput is very high, is setting up that reserve ahead of time.
There's nothing fishy going on here. It is what it is.
Ok, I stand corrected. That's why I stated it was my understanding, and not a fact. If this is the case, I still have an issue in the fact that the jackpot that I could win is smaller than it should be. The money for the next seed should be coming from the bets being made during that jackpot round.
Also, what happens when a jackpot is hit before the casino can fully recoup the seed money?
I didn't mean to offend. Sorry if you took it that way.Quote: cardsharkOuch, what did I ever do to you, DJ?!
On the assumption that the original math was correct and it's just an anomoly that it hit in succession, then the slow meter I described runs longer than usual until all the casino's seed money is paid back.Quote: cardsharkwhat happens when a jackpot is hit before the casino can fully recoup the seed money?
If someone sharpens their pencil and discovers the original math was wrong, then it's a whole 'nother matter. The seed could be reduced, the meter increment could be increased, or the game can be pulled.
Here's an interesting bit of info about progressives (and this includes poker Bad Beat Jackpots): Once they are established, that money MUST be returned to the players. The progressive can't simply be "pulled."
There was a thread about this scenario a while back. Some casino (Western downtown?) had closed, but there was an unpaid progressive. Eventually, the ruling was to create a jackpot situation at the slot parlor next door to pay it down. Seems the slot parlor was owned by the same person, and/or they were operating under the same license, etc...
Yesterday they had adjusted it up to $.10 per $1 going toward the jackpot.
One of the dealers I know and trust said that their intention was to make the jackpot increase by $100 per day. The day they switched it to $.02 it increased by only $40. It had been averaging about a $1,000 increase per day or 3,571 +/- progressive bets made per day. The decrease to $.02 with an increase of only $40 tells me they only had about 2,000 progressive bets made that day. Very rarely have I seen players there not bet the progressive. So, I wonder how much that accounting change effected their overall action.
Someone asked if they cap it like they do at Stations... don't give them any ideas! Ha! I don't know the answer to that as they do not have anything published regarding any of the progressive rules.
To those of you who agree with the casino, how do you trust that the money is truly going to the next jackpot? There is obviously no transparency in this situation. Changing the 'rules' during the game just doesn't sit well with me. My main concern is that there seems to be no regulations when it comes to these types of progressives.
I know it is their house and their rules and I don't have to go there. I just find the situation interesting, and I appreciate everybody's input.
Does anyone know when Gaughan is going to open the poker room at Rampart?
Quote: Scooby
To those of you who agree with the casino, how do you trust that the money is truly going to the next jackpot?
The accounting and rules that must be followed to keep a gaming license are pretty intense. If you don't believe the money is going to the next jackpot my question would be: how do you truly know you'd get the $200k+ if you hit this jackpot? The same forces that compel them to pay the current jackpot are regulating how the money is dealt with.
Quote: ScoobyThere is obviously no transparency in this situation.
Perhaps not to the players, but I bet the gaming commission has a good view.
Quote: ScoobyChanging the 'rules' during the game just doesn't sit well with me. My main concern is that there seems to be no regulations when it comes to these types of progressives.
It could well be that the way they're handling it has been policy for a long time, but players aren't necessarily privy to the policy. Or, it could be a recent change, but even in that case I can't imagine they could do it without the approval of gaming.
