Figuring out when a progressive VP game is worth playing

Ok, so, say I find a progressive VP game. I can look at the base paytable, and go to the Wizard's site, and figure out what the base pay is. Then I can look at the probabilities of hitting the progressive hand(s) (also conveniently on the Wizard's pay charts) and figure out how much the additional money in the meter is worth (as a percent of total bet) and see if it adds up to at least 100%.

Everything up to this point is easy. I can do it in my head.

The problem is, if the base pay table of the game is bad (and the one that I'm looking at is), the game will only be playable when the progressive amount(s) is/are really high. This will mean that I won't be following the "basic" strategy any more, but, instead, making strategy variation(s) which will make those progressive payout(s) more likely. Doing this obviously adds to my EV (if it didn't, I wouldn't be making the strategy variations).

But, this means that my initial calculation of my EV is incorrect. It's an under-estimate, since it would be the EV if I was playing the "basic" strategy, with no variations. So, my question is... how much do these strategy variations generally raise your EV, and is it enough to be worth including in my calculations? One could argue that underestimating my EV might be a good thing, since it will be balanced out by any playing errors that I may make. And, if the extra EV from strategy variations was small, this would probably true. But, will the extra EV still be small if the meters are very high? For example, if you have a royal paying 3x its normal amount... would the strategy variations be worth enough that you would be underestimating your EV by too much if you didn't take them into account?

Also... is there a shortcut to figuring this out? I could definitely write a program to do a complete combinatorial analysis of the game with a specific paytable, and see what the EV is, but that is more work than I'm really willing to do.

They raise them enough in most cases where you would want to use the strategy changes.

If you have a smartphone, look at the progressive meter(s), go to the bathroom, use https://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/strategy/calculator/ and you should be good to go! I said bathroom since it's technically illegal to do in most states.

The wizard's calculator is a great thing to use if you don't have the software to look at the strategy changes.

As you progress the royal up, if you do not make the strategy changes, then your average incident of royal will remain in the 40K hands range for JOB. With the strategy changes you can drop the incidence of Royal down into the 33k or lower. An 8/5 JOB game with a 3X royal has an average incidence of royal in the 31K range.

There is so much available on the web for calculators now days that I am not sure it would be helpful to read a book by Kneeland "The Secret World of Video Poker Progressives", but it could be entertaining. I bought last year and enjoyed it.

I generally do not play slots. And I consider Video Poker a sub-set of slot machines, one with varying knowledge requirements and strategy employment options.

I know many casinos have these STARTS AT (some number) MUST HIT BY (some far higher number) Presently at ............. . I think these all related to Progressives so there is a bonus number that has a "must hit by" cap to it.

Are these progressive Video Poker slots or just ordinary progressive slots.?

Quote: tringlomane

They raise them enough in most cases where you would want to use the strategy changes.

If you have a smartphone, look at the progressive meter(s), go to the bathroom, use https://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/strategy/calculator/ and you should be good to go! I said bathroom since it's technically illegal to do in most states.

Hmm... the calculator seems to have some issues.

For example, if I analyze 8/5 DDB with no increase for progressives, it gives a probability of 0.000025 for a royal (which matches the stand-alone charts that the wizard has). But if I raise the royal to 2000 units (from 800) it gives the probability for a royal as 0.000032, even for the 2nd table (which is supposed to be the table for basic strategy only; no exceptions).

This doesn't make sense. If you don't make any strategy exceptions, the probability of a royal shouldn't change.

The basic strategy that is generated is the basic strategy for the game with a 10000 royal. It is not the normal 8/5 DDB basic strategy. The exceptions at the bottom are for this basic strategy. Note that the incidence of royal changed to 31661 playing this basic strategy.

I am not sure this is what you are hunting for. Here is a website that might have some relevance on playing a wrong strategy to a progressive. http://www.videopokerhelp.net/progressive_strat.htm

Quote: FleaStiff

I generally do not play slots. And I consider Video Poker a sub-set of slot machines, one with varying knowledge requirements and strategy employment options.

I know many casinos have these STARTS AT (some number) MUST HIT BY (some far higher number) Presently at ............. . I think these all related to Progressives so there is a bonus number that has a "must hit by" cap to it.

Are these progressive Video Poker slots or just ordinary progressive slots.?

Can't be sure, but usually slots and never video Poker which I know. Usually they're guaranteed pieces of crap mainly because the meters are so slow almost to the point of not moving at all. People play them all day and they seem to only go up about $5. If it wasn't for this, I would think they were all right.

I will admit that these "Can hit anytime but must hit by SoManyDollars" signs do distract me and lure me to having improper thoughts such as playing slot machines, particuarly when its gets relatively "close".

I think Mission analyzed these "must hit by" slots in another thread. But this has nothing to do with progressive VP, so maybe the discussion should be split off? Equating slots to VP is like equating casino war to blackjack; they are not at all similar, despite using similar equipment.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Ok, so, say I find a progressive VP game. I can look at the base paytable, and go to the Wizard's site, and figure out what the base pay is. Then I can look at the probabilities of hitting the progressive hand(s) (also conveniently on the Wizard's pay charts) and figure out how much the additional money in the meter is worth (as a percent of total bet) and see if it adds up to at least 100%.

Everything up to this point is easy. I can do it in my head.

The problem is, if the base pay table of the game is bad (and the one that I'm looking at is), the game will only be playable when the progressive amount(s) is/are really high. This will mean that I won't be following the "basic" strategy any more, but, instead, making strategy variation(s) which will make those progressive payout(s) more likely. Doing this obviously adds to my EV (if it didn't, I wouldn't be making the strategy variations).

But, this means that my initial calculation of my EV is incorrect. It's an under-estimate, since it would be the EV if I was playing the "basic" strategy, with no variations. So, my question is... how much do these strategy variations generally raise your EV, and is it enough to be worth including in my calculations? One could argue that underestimating my EV might be a good thing, since it will be balanced out by any playing errors that I may make. And, if the extra EV from strategy variations was small, this would probably true. But, will the extra EV still be small if the meters are very high? For example, if you have a royal paying 3x its normal amount... would the strategy variations be worth enough that you would be underestimating your EV by too much if you didn't take them into account?

Also... is there a shortcut to figuring this out? I could definitely write a program to do a complete combinatorial analysis of the game with a specific paytable, and see what the EV is, but that is more work than I'm really willing to do.

Depending on what you are playing You should not worry about this as much as some think. I'm not saying you should go all willy-nilly and careless.(you don't seem to be that kind of person, since you took the time to ask) Proceed with cation, but proceed. If the percentage is good enough the mistakes you would be probably making would not tun your play into a negative EV proposition, unless you were being totally foolish.

Since you seem to be referring to A RF progressive.
The changes will be somewhat obvious. And this should not effect the calculations to horribly. If you are working with a thin edge then I have nothing for you on that other then don't play thin edges.

As far as the calculations go on the game and meter amounts, why not get a simple program on your phone, head to the bathroom and run it?

Buy Frank Kneeland's Book Video Poker Progressives. Make a copy of the OPN (optimum play number) page. Check for your game and you know when you should have an edge. Dan Paymar also touches on it briefly in his book.

My video poker progressive experience is mostly with 9/6 Jacks. I played them in the Cal-Neva and El Dorado in Reno, and the Wendover Nuggett. I'll explain to you the different strategies I know for these progressives, and the numbers I crunched to get an idea of what I was up against. But first, there is no substitute for having video poker software to help you analyze and strategize these games. These are the analyzers I know of:

1. Video Poker Strategy Master by Tom Ski
2. Win Poker by Dean Zamzow
3. Frugal Video Poker by Jim Wolf
4. Wolf Video Poker by Jim Wolf
5. Optimum Video Poker by Dan Paymar
6. Video Poker For Winners by Action Gaming

I used Strategy Master strategies before I was computerized that were given to me by other pros. The program may be outdated today as I don't think it covers as many games as the more modern software.

Win Poker is very fast for calculating the paybacks of various games, including progressives, but doesn't have a strategy generating component.

Frugal and Wolf were both designed by Jim Wolf. They are also very user friendly for calculating the paybacks of various games, including progressives, and they both have a strategy generating component. Wolf Video Poker is an updated version of Frugal that has more functions, and more games than any other software I've seen. Frugal Video Poker can be downloaded for free at wolfvideopoker.com.

From what I've been told by other pros, Optimum Video Poker doesn't cover near as many games as Frugal or Wolfe but has a strategy generating component.

The knock on Video Poker For Winners is you can't punch in an arbitrary number when analyzing progressives. You can't punch in a number like a 5456 coin royal and analyze to get the payback percentage. The numbers have to be rounded off to 4000, 6000, etc.

I use Win Poker, Frugal Video Poker, and Wolf Video Poker.

I'll move on to strategizing 9/6 Jacks progressives in the next post. The effects of the meter rise in the other Jacks or Better games are all similar to 9/6 Jacks.

One strategy for progressives is called Minimum Risk. This simply means you don't make any strategy adjustments as the meter rises. FOR QUARTERS you use the optimum strategy for a $1000 royal (4000 coins) no matter how high the progressive meter is. These are the numbers I look at. If you bring up 9/6 Jacks on WVP and look at the game statistics you will see that the payback is 99.5439%, the royal odds are 40,391, the royal represents 1.98% of the payback. The variance is 19.5.

So what is the average cost to produce a royal? Subtracting 1.98% from 99.5439% leaves a payback of 97.5639%. Subtracting 97.5639% from 100% means you get dropped for 2.4361% between royals. So the equation is:

40,391 X $1.25 X 2.4361% = $1230

When playing Minimum Risk it is easy to calculate the payback percentage of the progressive. Say the royal is at $1600. You take the extra $600, convert it into bets, then divide it by 40,391.

600/1.25 = 480
480/40,391 = 1.1188%
99.5439% + 1.1188% = 100.6627%

The average profit (does not include meter rise) is $1600 minus $1230 = $370.

With modern video poker equipment most pros have a cruising speed of 1000 HPH. So 40,391/1000 = 40.391 average hours of play per royal. The hourly rate on this play would be 370/40.391 = $9.16.

Calculating the hourly for the meter speed is tricky. Say it's a 1% meter. At 1000 HPH the meter speed would add $12.50 an hour to the play. But can you claim all of the meter speed? If this were a stand alone progressive and you and someone else agreed to do 8 hour shifts until one of you hits the royal and split the profits, then yes you could claim all of the meter speed. But if it's a linked bank and you are in competition against others you might not be able to claim all of the meter speed. As progressives go up more and more people will jump on the bank. If you start at a lower number than everyone else, with only a couple of other players on the bank, and you guys push the meter up, then the bank fills up with players until the royal goes, then you can't claim all of the meter speed in your hourly. Only a fraction of it.

Welcome back, and thanks for the posts Mickey. Your expertise is always appreciated.

Another progressive strategy is called Max E.V. This is when you start holding royal cards, as their E.V. rises, over other hands, some of them paying hands, in pursuit of the royal. Situations frequently developed on the progressives at the Cal-Neva in Reno in the early 2000's. There were three different sets of quarter progressives. The bartops in the Virginian were multi-game progressives, all on the same meter. The best game was 9/6 Jacks and the meter ran at 1.5%. The Keno Lounge bartops had the same setup with the best game being 9/6 Jacks, also a 1.5% meter. The Skywalk bartops also had the same setup, best game was 9/6 Jacks, but the meter ran at 2%.

The key number was $2300. On the 1.5% meter games the ploppies had to miss the royal about 69,000 games to put it on our playable number. With the 2% meter game the ploppies had to miss the royal 52,000 games to put it on our playable number.

At $2300 everyone went into action. The team, headed by Winston, would come in. But he knew better than to take all the machines. To many of us would complain. There were 10 to 12 machines in these banks. Winston's team would take half of them. Independent agents like myself would take the rest. AND THE ROYAL RACE WAS ON!!. I loved playing it like this. You got 10 or 12 guys pounding away at 1000 HPH, all using an aggressive royal strategy that produces a royal about every 33,000 games. Except for rare exceptions the royal always went pretty fast. Then we all went our separate ways.

If you run a 9/6 Jacks $2300 royal on WVP and look at the game statistics you will see that the payback is 102.5980%, the royal odds are 32,589 with optimum strategy, and the royal represents 5.65% of the payback. The variance is a very high 107.5. But the average cost to produce a royal is virtually the same as Minimum Risk strategy.

102.5980% minus 5.65% = 96.948%
100% minus 96.948% = 3.052%--This is what you get dropped for between royals.
32,589 X $1.25 X 3.052% = a cost of $1243

The most dramatic effect on royal odds is playing the RF3's over the high pairs. Just this move alone reduces the royal odds from 40,391 to 33,690. The RF 3's are not created equal. The strongest, expectationwise, is KQJ, QJT, followed by AKQ, AKJ, AQJ, followed by KQT, KJT, followed by AKT, AQT, AJT. The breakpoints for playing these hands over high pairs are all in the low $1000's. The weakest RF 3 you can be dealt contains an Ace, a Ten, and a flush penalty. Like this:

AS-KS-TS-7S-AD

The breakpoint for playing the RF3 here is $1402. The breakpoints for playing the other RF3's are even lower. If you run a $1402 royal on the software you will see that the royal odds with optimum strategy are 33,690. That's a difference of 6,701 games from optimum strategy based on a $1000 royal....and only $402 has gone into the meter. The optimum strategy for a $2300 royal has royal odds of32,589. Even though the meter has gone up another $900 the royal odds have improved only 1101 games from a strategy predicated on a $1402 royal. So the RF3's over the high pairs has the most dramatic effect on royal odds.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Welcome back, and thanks for the posts Mickey. Your expertise is always appreciated.

Thanks.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Welcome back, and thanks for the posts Mickey. Your expertise is always appreciated.

Here's the really cool thing; I understood every word he said. That's a first for me re: VP vulturing. Thanks, mickey, and welcome back!

There is a progressive strategy deployed by teams when they can lock up every machine on the bank. The strategy is designed to create more work and make more of a profit, although the hourly rate drops off a little. Let's say our team is on a DOLLAR 9/6 Jacks progressive with a $9200 royal and a 2% meter. The math would be the same as a $2300 royal for quarters. We are going to figure out the average profit on this play. First we need to know the average cost to produce the royal. If you bring up 9/6 Jacks on the software and look at the game statistics for a $9200 royal you will see that the payback is 102.5980%, the royal odds are 32,589, and the royal represents 5.65% of the payback.

102.5980% minus 5.65% = 96.948%
100% minus 96.948% = 3.052% This is the drop between royals
32,589 X $5 X 3.052% = an average cost of $4973 to produce the royal

Now we have to calculate the contribution the meter rise adds to the play.

32,589 X $5 X 2% = $3259
$9200 + $3259 = $12,459
12,459 minus $4973 = $7486. This is the average profit on the play

With all the players cranking out 1000 HPH they would average producing a royal every 32.589 manhours.

$7486/32.589 = an hourly rate of $230 per player

But we are not going to use the Max E.V. strategy on this play. We are going to use a strategy based on a game that returns exactly 100%, not 102.5980%. If you bring up 9/6 Jacks on the software, punch in a 4880 coin royal and hit the analyze tab, it will show a payback of exactly 100%, the royal odds are 35,939, and the royal represents 2.7157% of the payback. So we are getting dropped for 2.7157% between royals.

35,939 X $5 X 2.7157% = a cost of $4880 per royal.

What does the meter contribute to the play?

35,939 X $5 X 2% = $3594
$9200 + $3594 = $12,794
$12,794 minus the cost of $4880 shows an average profit of $7914 per royal.

At 1000 HPH per player the hourly rate is 7914/35.939 = $220 per player, a little lower than the Max E.V strategy. But the average profit using this strategy is $428 higher than using the Max E.V. strategy. Basically this strategy is designed to milk the meter for all it's worth. The effect of this strategy is not so dramatic with a 2% meter. But it is very dramatic when you are dealing with stronger meters. The biggest meter I have ever seen on a video poker progressive was on a Tens of Better game at Harvey's/Lake Tahoe. It had a 10% meter.

Whatever casino district I was hanging out in, whether it was Laughlin, Las Vegas, Reno/Carson/Tahoe, Wendover, I would go around to all the progressives and do my up front work. I would check out what games were offered, what the payscale was, and clock the meter speed. A good progressive is a combination of payscale and meter speed.

Clocking the meter speed is not to hard to do. You have to catch the bank when no one is playing. Quarter progressives usually run in pennies. Like $1243.61, $1243.62, $1243.63, etc. You bet one quarter at a time until the meter flips one penny. Then you keep betting one quarter at a time counting down how many bets you made. If two coins of bet flips the meter one cent, then it's a 2% meter (one cent divided by 50 cents). If four bets flips the meter one penny then its a 1% meter (one cent divided by $1). If it takes 8 bets to flip the meter one penny its a 0.5% meter. 16 bets and its a .25% meter, etc.

Once I establish the meter speed then I compare it to the payscale. Take a quarter 8/5 jacks progressive for example. If the meter speed is only 1% then this is a bank that I'm not going to pay much attention too. Most pros won't play a quarter 8/5 jacks progressive for less than $3,000. And even then its no cakewalk. You're getting dropped for 7.5% between royals. But, with a 1% meter, how many games do the ploppies have to miss the royal to put it on that number? You take the extra $2,000 in the meter, multiply it by 100, then convert it into bets.

2000 X 100 = 200,000
200,000/1.25 = 160,000

The ploppies have to miss the royal 160,000 games to put it on the playable number. I don't know the exact odds of this happening, but I know its a longshot. I might get a play about once every blue moon. So I'm just not going to pay much attention to this bank.

But if its a 2% meter the ploppies only have to miss the royal for about 80,000 games to put it on the playable number. In this situation I'm figuring to get some plays.

For JoB roughly ~ (39999/40000)^160,000 = 1.83%. Short-coiners will increase this a bit though, but also more aggressive royal chasers will also lower it.

And a 10% meter on Tens or better?? Wow. Do you remember the base payout and/or paytable?

Quote: tringlomane

And a 10% meter on Tens or better?? Wow. Do you remember the base payout and/or paytable?

It was a Two Pair pays even money game, with the Full House paying 9 for one, and the flush paying 6 for one. It was a 90.8% base game with a 10% meter. There was also a dollar Big Bertha Tens or Better game with the same payscale and 10% meter. Tuna Lund and his crew would lock it up when they caught a playable number.

Quote: mickeycrimm

It was a quarter Two Pair pays even money game, with the Full House paying 9 for one, and the flush paying 6 for one. It was a 90.8% base game with a 10% meter. There was also a dollar Big Bertha Tens or Better game with the same payscale and 10% meter. Tuna Lund and his crew would lock it up when they caught a playable number.

P.S. The quarter Tens or Better bank also got locked up by a team when they caught a playable number.

Quote: tringlomane

For JoB roughly ~ (39999/40000)^160,000 = 1.83%. Short-coiners will increase this a bit though, but also more aggressive royal chasers will also lower it.?

Thanks for the math lesson. I always wondered how it was done.

Wow at the 10% meter. They probably had similar setups on slots also.

Mickey, did you often play multi-way progressives? (I hope that's the correct terminology.) I like games with good meter movement on the straight flush because it's an attainable goal, and players don't notice the straight flush progressive, so they're less likely to swarm the game when it goes positive.

Quote: gpac1377

Wow at the 10% meter. Mickey, did you often play multi-way progressives? (I hope that's the correct terminology.) I like games with good meter movement on the straight flush because it's an attainable goal, and players don't notice the straight flush progressive, so they're less likely to swarm the game when it goes positive.

Oh, yes. A classic example was the 7/5 Bonus Poker game on the backside of the bar, down at the Western, on 9th and Fremont in downtown Las Vegas. Five meters running on the royal, straight flush, 4 Aces, small quads, and the generic quads. All running at 0.5%. I keyed off any meter. There were so many short coiner's in that joint, buying rolls of quarters and short coining to get the free beer, that I could literally key off of any meter that put the game in a positive situation.

I quit going to the Western because it was like extracting myself out of a war zone. Even though I was a street tramp at one time down there it wound up that I was the class gambler. Try to get up the street with the money. It just don't happen. The Western was thug central. It got to where the only way I could leave the joint was in a cab. Try to call a cab from the Western. You might be sitting there for four hours. The Las Vegas cabs never liked picking someone up at the Western. They didn't figure you for much. They'd rather have an airport ride.

One time after hitting a progressive royal I had all these thugs on my ass, waiting to see if I would walk up the street. I told the cab company that the first driver down there would get a $100 tip, and I told the phony ass security guard that he would also get a $100 tip. That's what it took for me to extricate myself out of that place.

Quote: mickeycrimm

Oh, yes. A classic example was the 7/5 Bonus Poker game on the backside of the bar, down at the Western, on 9th and Fremont in downtown Las Vegas. Five meters running on the royal, straight flush, 4 Aces, small quads, and the generic quads. All running at 0.5%. I keyed off any meter. There were so many short coiner's in that joint, buying rolls of quarters and short coining to get the free beer, that I could literally key off of any meter that put the game in a positive situation.

I quit going to the Western because it was like extracting myself out of a war zone. Even though I was a street tramp at one time down there it wound up that I was the class gambler. Try to get up the street with the money. It just don't happen. The Western was thug central. It got to where the only way I could leave the joint was in a cab. Try to call a cab from the Western. You might be sitting there for four hours. The Las Vegas cabs never liked picking someone up at the Western. They didn't figure you for much. They'd rather have an airport ride.

One time after hitting a progressive royal I had all these thugs on my ass, waiting to see if I would walk up the street. I told the cab company that the first driver down there would get a $100 tip, and I told the phony ass security guard that he would also get a $100 tip. That's what it took for me to extricate myself out of that place.

Never been to the Western but people say that about El Cortez today, and EC ain't that bad. I can imagine how bad the Western was if you are telling this story.

Quote: djatc

I can imagine how bad the Western was if you are telling this story.

It was in the middle of the night. The daytime wasn't so bad.

I don't know if it was always this way at the Western, but at the end all cashouts were handpays. You would see people cashing out 25 cents and having to wait for an attendant.

I only dared visit the Western during the day. This is from a few months before the conclusion:



It wasn't as horrible as I expected, although I didn't overstay my welcome. I thought the lack of carpet was an interesting strategy. I suspect other properties would be somewhat less stinky without an absorbent surface.

Here's how I imagined the casino at night: