In real life, if something happens again and again, we assume it's going to keep happening, and almost always we're right. The sun came up in the morning two days ago, yesterday and today. We can be all but certain it will come up tomorrow.
In gambling, that's often not the case. In blackjack, we can hit 16 against the dealer's 10 and bust, and do it again and bust, and do it again and bust. Yet the right play, for a non-card counter, is to do it every time. In the long run, the player will come out very slightly ahead by always hitting the 16.
Why can't we learn from the experience of hitting the 16 and busting again and again? Basically because gambling is governed by the mathematics of random events, not by the laws of nature.
The first thing we must understand is the meaning of "random." Many people seem to think that random means scattered all over the place, without any pattern. Not necessarily. Random outcomes can include significant streaks or bunching of results.
So even though hitting the 16 will produce enough positive results to make it worthwhile, it can -- and will -- result in the player busting two, threee, four and more times consecutively. It seems to be stupid to continue such a futile move, but the mathematics of gambling asserts itself over thousands and thousands of trials, not over half a dozen hands of blackjack.
As a result of not understanding this principle, gamblers often try to get a different result by making changes that cannot affect the outcome of the game or can affect it only negatively.
An acqaintance of mine, a video poker player, does this by pulling or inserting her player's card when things are going bad, by swtiching games and/or denomination played, and by changing the number of coins she bets. (One time I saw her hit a royal on a less-than-full-coin bet, which cost her a lot of money and some embarrassment.)
Here's why these things don't work: The part of the machine that deals the cards doesn't know if a player's card is inserted or not. By not using your player's card every time you play on a machine, you're just denying yourself comps and other casino marketing benefits. Switching games or denominations isn't going to alter your long-term results. You should always play what for you is the best game available at the denomination that best fits your bankroll. Given the promotions available on a particular day, there is usually only one game and one denomination that will give a particular player the best long-term results. And, there is almost never a good reason to bet less than the maximum on video poker, because of the huge penalty on a royal hit with less than maximum coin. And again, the part of the machine that deals the cards has no idea how many coins have been bet.
Another way in which gambling differs from most other aspects of life is the relationship between effort and result. In gambling, practice and study do pay off, but only in a long run measured in months or years. An expert video poker player can lose session after session while a ploppie sitting next to him keeps hitting winning hands.
It's not hard to accept that gambling is subject to ups and downs in the short run, but the losing streaks can be lengthy and brutal. And there isn't a lot you can do about it, except to let time and the mathematics take their course.
If you've ever played golf, you might have experienced a similar level of futility.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Yet another example of apparent casino management stupidity
As each year draws to a close, I look through my American Casino Guide and Las Vegas Advisor coupon books for offers I want to use. Most of the coupons in these books expire near the end of December. I try to take advantage of them throughout the year but, inevitably, there are a few that I must make a special effort to use in December.
One such coupon was a 'blackjack pays double" at Terrible's, which during the year changed ownership and is now the Silver Sevens (it's at Flamingo and Paradise, about a mile east of the Las Vegas Strip).
It has always been my experience with these coupons that when a casino changes ownership, the new regime accepts the coupon. Not this time.
I could understand this management decision if the coupon had been a free bet or even a match play, which doesn't require the customer to play more than one hand. But this coupon required the customer to buy in, sit down and play until a blackjack would appear, an average of about 15 minutes. I cannot see any way the casino could lose money on players on the whole using this coupon.
The coupon did accomplish one goal -- it got me into the casino, which had undergone some minor upgrading since the ownership change. But the way management handled the situation left a negative impression that wasn't overcome by anything else I saw. I doubt I'll set foot in the place again, unless and until the new ownership makes me an offer I can't refuse.
One such coupon was a 'blackjack pays double" at Terrible's, which during the year changed ownership and is now the Silver Sevens (it's at Flamingo and Paradise, about a mile east of the Las Vegas Strip).
It has always been my experience with these coupons that when a casino changes ownership, the new regime accepts the coupon. Not this time.
I could understand this management decision if the coupon had been a free bet or even a match play, which doesn't require the customer to play more than one hand. But this coupon required the customer to buy in, sit down and play until a blackjack would appear, an average of about 15 minutes. I cannot see any way the casino could lose money on players on the whole using this coupon.
The coupon did accomplish one goal -- it got me into the casino, which had undergone some minor upgrading since the ownership change. But the way management handled the situation left a negative impression that wasn't overcome by anything else I saw. I doubt I'll set foot in the place again, unless and until the new ownership makes me an offer I can't refuse.
A (minor) coupon catastrophe
Every month Station Casinos sends me four free bets or two free bets and two match plays for use on table games. A free bet coupon can be used just like a chip, but in this case for one bet only. Win or lose, the dealer takes the coupon. A match play works the same way, but can be used only with chips equal to or greater than the amount of the coupon.
On Thursday I took my $15 free bet to a Stations property with the intent of playing only one hand of blackjack. I rarely do this, figuring that the free bets and match plays will dry up if I don't give the casino a reasonable amount of play. With Stations, about 50 minutes once a week has been enough to keep these coupons coming for years.
But I was headed out of town the next morning and had a long list of offers to take advantage of Thursday. So I walked up to a $10 double-deck table and put down my free bet. The dealer flips over a 6, one of the best cards for the players. I'm dealt an 8 and a 2, creating an ripe double-down opportunity. So I reach into my wallet and throw three $5 bills onto the table. The dealer turns over a five and then, as sure as night follows day, deals himself a "monkey" (face card) for 21. The only card that could have helped me was an ace, and I didn't get it. So my "free" bet wound up costing me $15.
The unexpected, both good and bad, happens often in gambling, but in the long run, any mathematical advantage you can get will play out. Free bets and match plays are definitely worth using, even though you will often lose with them and -- on rare occasions -- they can actually cost you money.
On Thursday I took my $15 free bet to a Stations property with the intent of playing only one hand of blackjack. I rarely do this, figuring that the free bets and match plays will dry up if I don't give the casino a reasonable amount of play. With Stations, about 50 minutes once a week has been enough to keep these coupons coming for years.
But I was headed out of town the next morning and had a long list of offers to take advantage of Thursday. So I walked up to a $10 double-deck table and put down my free bet. The dealer flips over a 6, one of the best cards for the players. I'm dealt an 8 and a 2, creating an ripe double-down opportunity. So I reach into my wallet and throw three $5 bills onto the table. The dealer turns over a five and then, as sure as night follows day, deals himself a "monkey" (face card) for 21. The only card that could have helped me was an ace, and I didn't get it. So my "free" bet wound up costing me $15.
The unexpected, both good and bad, happens often in gambling, but in the long run, any mathematical advantage you can get will play out. Free bets and match plays are definitely worth using, even though you will often lose with them and -- on rare occasions -- they can actually cost you money.
"Beware of cheap imitations"
If you're around my age -- I just turned 60 this month -- you probably remember an old advertising slogan, "beware of cheap imitations." I was reminded of it recently by this sign in the Fiesta Henderson's parking garage:
The Fiesta buffet costs $8.99 for dinner with a player's card, about as cheap as a buffet can get. It's hard to imagine a lower-priced imitation. You may be wondering what you get for your money. I've eaten there several times recently, mostly for convenience, but it isn't bad. You could spend more and get a lot less for your money at a fast-food outlet.
Another funny thing about this sign is the exclamation, "Open 7 days a week!" I can't think of a single casino buffet in the Las Vegas area that isn't open seven days a week.
Now that my daughter has taught me how to post pictures of signs on this blog, I'm sure I'll find more funny (at least to me) ones to share in the future.
Another funny thing about this sign is the exclamation, "Open 7 days a week!" I can't think of a single casino buffet in the Las Vegas area that isn't open seven days a week.
Now that my daughter has taught me how to post pictures of signs on this blog, I'm sure I'll find more funny (at least to me) ones to share in the future.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
The importance of pay tables
Bob Dancer, the leading video poker authority, says the most important thing a player can do to improve his results is to become familiar with pay tables. I saw a stark example of this last week at the Rio.
I went there to play my free play on the best game that casino has for dollars, 8/5 bonus poker. This game pays back a maximum of 99.17 percent. (The Rio has at least one better game, 9/6 jacks or better with a slightly reduced payout for the straight flush, which pays back a maximum of 99.52 percent, but at a minimum denomination of $5.)
I sat down and noticed an older man next to me playing rather tentatively. I glanced at his screen to see what he was playing. It was 8/5 jacks or better, which pays back a maximum of 97.30 percent.
I suddenly realized that the pay tables for 8/5 bonus poker and 8/5 jacks or better are exactly the same, except that jacks or better pays $125 for all four-of-a-kinds, but bonus poker pays $400 for four aces and $200 for four 2s, 3s or 4s.
Video poker players usually think of comparing different pay tables of the same game, not of different games. In fact, it can be very difficult to make a meaningful comparison between pay tables of different games. But in this case, the games are so similar that no specialized knowledge or resources would have been required. You can look at the two pay tables and see that they are exactly the same, except that one pays a bonus on certain four-of-a-kinds, and the other doesn't.
By the way, these bonuses are not insignificant. I didn't see what denomination my neighbor was playing for, but if it was quarters at maximum bet, the difference for four aces would be $68.75. For four 2a, 3s or 4s it would be $18.75. At dollars, the differences would be $275 for the aces and $75 for the 2s, 3s or 4s.
The lesson here is not that you should go through all the pay tables on a machine, trying to compare each line. That would be awfully time consuming and not very productive, because very few video poker games are as similar as jacks or better and bonus poker. For example, the deuces wild games have much lower payout for most hands than the games based on jacks or better. That is not because they are worse games (in fact, several deuces games pay back more than the best versions of jacks and bonus poker) but because the hands come up more frequently with the wild cards, and because of the big jackpot for four deuces in these games.
Fortunately, the games can easily be compared by overall payback if you have a video poker computer program such as Video Poker for Winners, or the Frugal Video Poker Scouting Guide, an small, inexpensive paperback book.
A player who has spent some time studying pay tables would know that 8/5 bonus poker is the best version of that game and that 8/5 jacks is a terrible version of that game. And that's all you need to know to make a decision to play one or the other.
I went there to play my free play on the best game that casino has for dollars, 8/5 bonus poker. This game pays back a maximum of 99.17 percent. (The Rio has at least one better game, 9/6 jacks or better with a slightly reduced payout for the straight flush, which pays back a maximum of 99.52 percent, but at a minimum denomination of $5.)
I sat down and noticed an older man next to me playing rather tentatively. I glanced at his screen to see what he was playing. It was 8/5 jacks or better, which pays back a maximum of 97.30 percent.
I suddenly realized that the pay tables for 8/5 bonus poker and 8/5 jacks or better are exactly the same, except that jacks or better pays $125 for all four-of-a-kinds, but bonus poker pays $400 for four aces and $200 for four 2s, 3s or 4s.
Video poker players usually think of comparing different pay tables of the same game, not of different games. In fact, it can be very difficult to make a meaningful comparison between pay tables of different games. But in this case, the games are so similar that no specialized knowledge or resources would have been required. You can look at the two pay tables and see that they are exactly the same, except that one pays a bonus on certain four-of-a-kinds, and the other doesn't.
By the way, these bonuses are not insignificant. I didn't see what denomination my neighbor was playing for, but if it was quarters at maximum bet, the difference for four aces would be $68.75. For four 2a, 3s or 4s it would be $18.75. At dollars, the differences would be $275 for the aces and $75 for the 2s, 3s or 4s.
The lesson here is not that you should go through all the pay tables on a machine, trying to compare each line. That would be awfully time consuming and not very productive, because very few video poker games are as similar as jacks or better and bonus poker. For example, the deuces wild games have much lower payout for most hands than the games based on jacks or better. That is not because they are worse games (in fact, several deuces games pay back more than the best versions of jacks and bonus poker) but because the hands come up more frequently with the wild cards, and because of the big jackpot for four deuces in these games.
Fortunately, the games can easily be compared by overall payback if you have a video poker computer program such as Video Poker for Winners, or the Frugal Video Poker Scouting Guide, an small, inexpensive paperback book.
A player who has spent some time studying pay tables would know that 8/5 bonus poker is the best version of that game and that 8/5 jacks is a terrible version of that game. And that's all you need to know to make a decision to play one or the other.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Stupid, stupid, stupid
The longer I gamble in Vegas, the more examples I see of stupidity on the part of casino management. Here is the latest:
Recently I was at the Hard Rock Hotel, where I had not played blackjack for several months. The HRH usually has one table of double deck open with good rules and a $25 minimum, which is what I have played there in the past.
I had a match play coupon from the American Casino Guide and some time on my hands, so I decided to play this game. I sat down at the usual table and played for about 35 minutes before getting my first blackjack, which came (as usual, it seems)on a mimum bet.
The dealer threw me two chips: a quarter a nickel. $30.
"Whoa," I said. "That should be $37.50."
The he informed me that this game had been changed to 6-to-5, even though that casino is full of 6-to-5 single deck games with a $15 minimum.
The limit signs at the HRH are electronic, with information about the games crawling across the bottom of the sign: "Double deck blackjack ... Blackjack pays 6-to-5 ... Double after split allowed ..."
I had glanced at the sign when I sat down, but not long enough to see the big change.
I colored up my chips and apprached a floor person to ask what happened and express my feelings. She told me that game had been hit hard by counters and the change was made about a month ago. I told her I was done playing blackjack at the Hard Rock until the full payout for blackjacks was restored. She was entirely sympathetic and pointed out that the number of players on that table was way down since the change was made.
Apparently, table games management was under pressure to make up the loss the casino had incurred by its failure to detect the counters before they did significant damage. So what did they decide to do? Punish their regular customers, and ensure that the game would make less money than before the invasion. Great thinking, guys! It's as if I owned a convenience store and someone unplugged my refrigerator, leading to all the milk going bad. So, to make up for my loss, on my next shipment of milk, I triple the price, thinking my customers either won't know the difference or won't care. (Changing the rules and paytables for casino games is, in fact, changing the price -- the customers' theoretical loss -- which many casino managers don't seem to understand.)
So, what should the HRH have done? I would have re-evaluated its methods of detecting advantage play, and I would have given customers more of a reason to play blackjack there, such as mailing out free bets and holding drawings or other promotions. It's sad to think that all the managerial talent at a major casino could come up with is punishing -- and pissing off -- its regular customers.
Recently I was at the Hard Rock Hotel, where I had not played blackjack for several months. The HRH usually has one table of double deck open with good rules and a $25 minimum, which is what I have played there in the past.
I had a match play coupon from the American Casino Guide and some time on my hands, so I decided to play this game. I sat down at the usual table and played for about 35 minutes before getting my first blackjack, which came (as usual, it seems)on a mimum bet.
The dealer threw me two chips: a quarter a nickel. $30.
"Whoa," I said. "That should be $37.50."
The he informed me that this game had been changed to 6-to-5, even though that casino is full of 6-to-5 single deck games with a $15 minimum.
The limit signs at the HRH are electronic, with information about the games crawling across the bottom of the sign: "Double deck blackjack ... Blackjack pays 6-to-5 ... Double after split allowed ..."
I had glanced at the sign when I sat down, but not long enough to see the big change.
I colored up my chips and apprached a floor person to ask what happened and express my feelings. She told me that game had been hit hard by counters and the change was made about a month ago. I told her I was done playing blackjack at the Hard Rock until the full payout for blackjacks was restored. She was entirely sympathetic and pointed out that the number of players on that table was way down since the change was made.
Apparently, table games management was under pressure to make up the loss the casino had incurred by its failure to detect the counters before they did significant damage. So what did they decide to do? Punish their regular customers, and ensure that the game would make less money than before the invasion. Great thinking, guys! It's as if I owned a convenience store and someone unplugged my refrigerator, leading to all the milk going bad. So, to make up for my loss, on my next shipment of milk, I triple the price, thinking my customers either won't know the difference or won't care. (Changing the rules and paytables for casino games is, in fact, changing the price -- the customers' theoretical loss -- which many casino managers don't seem to understand.)
So, what should the HRH have done? I would have re-evaluated its methods of detecting advantage play, and I would have given customers more of a reason to play blackjack there, such as mailing out free bets and holding drawings or other promotions. It's sad to think that all the managerial talent at a major casino could come up with is punishing -- and pissing off -- its regular customers.
Tipping
With gambling come numerous occasions when one might be expected to tip: a big winning bet at a table game, a jackpot on a slot or video poker machine, a win in a drawing. Last year I tipped thousands of dollars against an overall income that wasn't satisfactory, so I have begun to rethink my tipping policies.
The first question concerning tipping in any situation is whether to tip at all. I have a friend who plays video poker at high stakes, meaning he gets lots of hand pays (jackpots of $1,200 or more, which require the casino to issue tax forms). His policy is never to tip the employees who pay him. His rationale is that the casino should pay these people an adequate salary and that by creating an expectation that they be tipped, the casino is shifting this responsibility onto its customers. He also believes that most casino employees do not spend the tips they receive wisely. My friend is a successful businessman who truly tries to get to know many casino employees personally and help them in many ways, including with financial advice. He believes that this is more valuable than any tips he might give them.
There is a lot to be said for this point of view. However, I do not feel comfortable in most situations involving a hand pay not tipping at all. (If the service is truly terrible, I will not tip and I will tell the employees why.) The question then becomes how much to tip.
When I started playing video poker, I read in a book that 1 percent was a standard tip for a hand pay. For a while, when I was playing for quarters and dollars, this seemed to work pretty well. My tip on a dollar royal of $4,000 was $40, and that was my maximum exposure, except for the rare progressive. Now that I am often playing for higher stakes, the 1 percent rule doesn't seem to make sense. In $5 video poker, a royal pays $20,000, but the work involved in paying it is exactly the same as for a $4,000 royal. I did tip $200 on my first couple of $20,000 royals but have come to believe that $100 is a very generous tip for the amount of work involved.
Another way to avoid overtipping to is to keep in mind what the employee's job is worth. I have seen blackjack players put up tips in form of dealer bets of $25 on every hand they play; assuming a typical win rate of slightly less than half, that means the dealer is getting about $12 a hand, or $720 an hour during a slow game of 60 hands an hour. Is any dealer worth as much as a top-notch lawyer or CPA? I don't think so. Dealing is a job that requires about two weeks of training. Getting a job on the Strip or in one of the better locals' places usually requires some experience, and a dealer should have some personality and customer-relations skills. In most settings today, these qualifications would bring maybe $12 to $15 an hour at most. Most dealers probably make more than that, and at the swankiest places on the Strip, they make more than $100,000 a year. This is not a compensation level I feel any responsibility to support.
What does this mean in practical terms? To me, it's just one factor to keep in mind in deciding how much to tip a dealer. Others include how much I'm betting, whether I'm winning or losing (and by how much) and the quality of the service being provided. One thing I have learned as a blackjack player is not to over-tip on early wins, which sometimes disappear by the end of a session. You can always throw a couple of chips at the dealer as you leave; but you can't ask for your tips back after a string a losing hands wipes you out.
The traditional idea behind tipping casino employees is that the lucky gambler who wins shows his generosity by sharing his good fortune. This model has some validity in the case of a tourist who comes to Vegas with a few hundred bucks, hits for thousands, and goes home until his next trip, in six months or a year or two. For the local, regular gambler, this model has a lot less validity. Gambling results can usually be graphed as a series of peaks separated by long valleys. If a gambler is lucky, these will more or less even out in the long run. Even for professionals, big wins usually consist mostly or recouping losses, past and future. They do not really represent a windfall. I think many employees at locals casinos understand this and are happy with modest tips that add up over time.
There are, however, empoyees who feel entitled to a share of any customers' win. This is wrong for several reasons: 1. Tipping, by its very nature, is discretionary; 2. Employees do not share customers' losses, and in many if not most cases don't know how much the customer has lost before his big "win"; and 3. Emplyees don't have any of their own money in the game.
I once heard an interview on the radio with a cocktail waitress who felt she was entltled to a share of any of her customers' wins, including whenever they hit a four-of-a-kind. I found this attitude disgusting. If she wants to enjoy gambling wins, there's an easy way to do that -- gamble, and also suffer the losses. A cocktail waitress is entitled to be paid for bringing drinks, which is generally worth one or a a few dollars a drink. If she's been pleasant and the service has been good, a customer might give her something extra out a jackpot, but that to me is the exception, not the rule.
Maybe I'm overthinking this topic, but I do believe it is important to treat casino employees fairly but also to be fair to myself. Guidelines can be helpful in determing how much to tip, but in reality, eash situation is different, and judgment is alwys required.
A final thought: Being nice to casino employees may in the long run count for a lot more than tips. Most tips are pooled, so the effect of a big tip on any individual is not that great. A combination of reasonable tips and simple friendliness is probably the best formula for being welcomed and treated well.
The first question concerning tipping in any situation is whether to tip at all. I have a friend who plays video poker at high stakes, meaning he gets lots of hand pays (jackpots of $1,200 or more, which require the casino to issue tax forms). His policy is never to tip the employees who pay him. His rationale is that the casino should pay these people an adequate salary and that by creating an expectation that they be tipped, the casino is shifting this responsibility onto its customers. He also believes that most casino employees do not spend the tips they receive wisely. My friend is a successful businessman who truly tries to get to know many casino employees personally and help them in many ways, including with financial advice. He believes that this is more valuable than any tips he might give them.
There is a lot to be said for this point of view. However, I do not feel comfortable in most situations involving a hand pay not tipping at all. (If the service is truly terrible, I will not tip and I will tell the employees why.) The question then becomes how much to tip.
When I started playing video poker, I read in a book that 1 percent was a standard tip for a hand pay. For a while, when I was playing for quarters and dollars, this seemed to work pretty well. My tip on a dollar royal of $4,000 was $40, and that was my maximum exposure, except for the rare progressive. Now that I am often playing for higher stakes, the 1 percent rule doesn't seem to make sense. In $5 video poker, a royal pays $20,000, but the work involved in paying it is exactly the same as for a $4,000 royal. I did tip $200 on my first couple of $20,000 royals but have come to believe that $100 is a very generous tip for the amount of work involved.
Another way to avoid overtipping to is to keep in mind what the employee's job is worth. I have seen blackjack players put up tips in form of dealer bets of $25 on every hand they play; assuming a typical win rate of slightly less than half, that means the dealer is getting about $12 a hand, or $720 an hour during a slow game of 60 hands an hour. Is any dealer worth as much as a top-notch lawyer or CPA? I don't think so. Dealing is a job that requires about two weeks of training. Getting a job on the Strip or in one of the better locals' places usually requires some experience, and a dealer should have some personality and customer-relations skills. In most settings today, these qualifications would bring maybe $12 to $15 an hour at most. Most dealers probably make more than that, and at the swankiest places on the Strip, they make more than $100,000 a year. This is not a compensation level I feel any responsibility to support.
What does this mean in practical terms? To me, it's just one factor to keep in mind in deciding how much to tip a dealer. Others include how much I'm betting, whether I'm winning or losing (and by how much) and the quality of the service being provided. One thing I have learned as a blackjack player is not to over-tip on early wins, which sometimes disappear by the end of a session. You can always throw a couple of chips at the dealer as you leave; but you can't ask for your tips back after a string a losing hands wipes you out.
The traditional idea behind tipping casino employees is that the lucky gambler who wins shows his generosity by sharing his good fortune. This model has some validity in the case of a tourist who comes to Vegas with a few hundred bucks, hits for thousands, and goes home until his next trip, in six months or a year or two. For the local, regular gambler, this model has a lot less validity. Gambling results can usually be graphed as a series of peaks separated by long valleys. If a gambler is lucky, these will more or less even out in the long run. Even for professionals, big wins usually consist mostly or recouping losses, past and future. They do not really represent a windfall. I think many employees at locals casinos understand this and are happy with modest tips that add up over time.
There are, however, empoyees who feel entitled to a share of any customers' win. This is wrong for several reasons: 1. Tipping, by its very nature, is discretionary; 2. Employees do not share customers' losses, and in many if not most cases don't know how much the customer has lost before his big "win"; and 3. Emplyees don't have any of their own money in the game.
I once heard an interview on the radio with a cocktail waitress who felt she was entltled to a share of any of her customers' wins, including whenever they hit a four-of-a-kind. I found this attitude disgusting. If she wants to enjoy gambling wins, there's an easy way to do that -- gamble, and also suffer the losses. A cocktail waitress is entitled to be paid for bringing drinks, which is generally worth one or a a few dollars a drink. If she's been pleasant and the service has been good, a customer might give her something extra out a jackpot, but that to me is the exception, not the rule.
Maybe I'm overthinking this topic, but I do believe it is important to treat casino employees fairly but also to be fair to myself. Guidelines can be helpful in determing how much to tip, but in reality, eash situation is different, and judgment is alwys required.
A final thought: Being nice to casino employees may in the long run count for a lot more than tips. Most tips are pooled, so the effect of a big tip on any individual is not that great. A combination of reasonable tips and simple friendliness is probably the best formula for being welcomed and treated well.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Un-Fortunato for me
A few months ago I noticed a new slot progressive at Green Valley Ranch called Fortunato, which gives players at 18 $1 slot machines a chance to win three bonues, including one of a minimum of $10,000 and a maximum of $30,000.
I began watching the big electronic sign over the machines advertising the progressive bonuses when the big one reached about $16,000, thinking I would play it when it got close to $28,000. It took several weeks, but a couple of weeks ago it happened.
I knew that, mathematically, these "must hit by" progressives become a really strong play only when the meter gets very near the maximum -- in this case, $30,000. I also knew, having played similar set-ups before, that the meter usually moves a lot slower than you would think.
But I took a few other factors into account in deciding to jump on. First, the potential gain was huge. Second, the machines at the point were getting very little play. And third, I realized that several of the machines could be played with one coin, meaning a bet of $1 a spin -- less than the $1.25 a hand wagered by 25-cent video poker players betting max coin.
If that's confusing, let me try to explain. Video poker machines, and most slot machines, allow players to bet more or more "coins." In video poker, the range is usually 1 to 5 coins. In dollar slots, such as those in the Fortunato, it's usually 1 or 2 or 1 to 3 coins.
In video poker, a player who bets less than full coin is penalized severely if he hits a royal flush. That's because the return per coint for 1 to 4 coins is generally 250 per coin, but the royal pays 4,000 coins with max coin bet. If the payoff the the royal increased proportionately with each coin bet, as is the case for all other paying hands, the payoff for a royal with five coins bet would be only 1,250.
Some, but not all, slot machines similarly penalize players who bet less than the maximum. Usually all payouts but the top one increase proportionately with each coin bet, but sometimes, as in video poker, the top-ranking combination pays extra if max coin is bet.
I found one two-coin machine in the Fortunato that paid exactly proportionately for the top combination with a single coin bet, and several others where the bonus for playing max coin was negligable. The pay table for the machine with no penalty also suggested that it would have relatively low volatility, meaning fewer big ups and downs. I was most concerned about mimimizing my losses because I figured the machines in the Fortunato would be very tight to accommodate the progressive bonuses.
Long story short: I played the Fortunato for five or six days, dropping everything else the last three days or so. Until the last night, there weren't many players on it. The night before the progressive popped, I was able to play alone for several hours. The last day a few more people showed up and played longer. In talking with some of them I learned that they were regular slot players, not professional gamblers.
By the final night I did recognize one pro, and a few other people obviously had made the commitment I had to see it through to the end. Most were playing two machines.
The big bonus finally popped at about 2:15 a.m., with meter around $29,400. I was not the lucky winner.
I was a lilttle disappointed not to win after almost certainly putting in more time than any other player. But I know that on any progressive you have a small chance of winning unless you are the only one playing when it hits or are part of a team that has control of all of the machines. The question was whether this was a good play, one that justified the time and expenditure involved.
My answer to myself was yes, that I will probably do the same thing the next time the bonus gets that high. As a video poker player who often plays for $25 a hand, I found the loss I incurred very bearable, and I am hoping the casino will give me a much better mailer next month because my play this month will be mostly on slots, not video poker.
As casinos tighten up on video poker and other recognized opportunities for advantage play, players need to widen their horizons in the search for profitable gambling opportunities. I plan to try to learn more about slot progressives, which might well offer some good plays into the future.
I began watching the big electronic sign over the machines advertising the progressive bonuses when the big one reached about $16,000, thinking I would play it when it got close to $28,000. It took several weeks, but a couple of weeks ago it happened.
I knew that, mathematically, these "must hit by" progressives become a really strong play only when the meter gets very near the maximum -- in this case, $30,000. I also knew, having played similar set-ups before, that the meter usually moves a lot slower than you would think.
But I took a few other factors into account in deciding to jump on. First, the potential gain was huge. Second, the machines at the point were getting very little play. And third, I realized that several of the machines could be played with one coin, meaning a bet of $1 a spin -- less than the $1.25 a hand wagered by 25-cent video poker players betting max coin.
If that's confusing, let me try to explain. Video poker machines, and most slot machines, allow players to bet more or more "coins." In video poker, the range is usually 1 to 5 coins. In dollar slots, such as those in the Fortunato, it's usually 1 or 2 or 1 to 3 coins.
In video poker, a player who bets less than full coin is penalized severely if he hits a royal flush. That's because the return per coint for 1 to 4 coins is generally 250 per coin, but the royal pays 4,000 coins with max coin bet. If the payoff the the royal increased proportionately with each coin bet, as is the case for all other paying hands, the payoff for a royal with five coins bet would be only 1,250.
Some, but not all, slot machines similarly penalize players who bet less than the maximum. Usually all payouts but the top one increase proportionately with each coin bet, but sometimes, as in video poker, the top-ranking combination pays extra if max coin is bet.
I found one two-coin machine in the Fortunato that paid exactly proportionately for the top combination with a single coin bet, and several others where the bonus for playing max coin was negligable. The pay table for the machine with no penalty also suggested that it would have relatively low volatility, meaning fewer big ups and downs. I was most concerned about mimimizing my losses because I figured the machines in the Fortunato would be very tight to accommodate the progressive bonuses.
Long story short: I played the Fortunato for five or six days, dropping everything else the last three days or so. Until the last night, there weren't many players on it. The night before the progressive popped, I was able to play alone for several hours. The last day a few more people showed up and played longer. In talking with some of them I learned that they were regular slot players, not professional gamblers.
By the final night I did recognize one pro, and a few other people obviously had made the commitment I had to see it through to the end. Most were playing two machines.
The big bonus finally popped at about 2:15 a.m., with meter around $29,400. I was not the lucky winner.
I was a lilttle disappointed not to win after almost certainly putting in more time than any other player. But I know that on any progressive you have a small chance of winning unless you are the only one playing when it hits or are part of a team that has control of all of the machines. The question was whether this was a good play, one that justified the time and expenditure involved.
My answer to myself was yes, that I will probably do the same thing the next time the bonus gets that high. As a video poker player who often plays for $25 a hand, I found the loss I incurred very bearable, and I am hoping the casino will give me a much better mailer next month because my play this month will be mostly on slots, not video poker.
As casinos tighten up on video poker and other recognized opportunities for advantage play, players need to widen their horizons in the search for profitable gambling opportunities. I plan to try to learn more about slot progressives, which might well offer some good plays into the future.
Palms pulls the plug on blackjack promotion
Further evidence of incompentence of the new management at the Palms, as if any were needed ...
A couple of weeks ago the casino ran a blackjack promotion. As advertised, it was to run from noon to 5 p.m. Monday through Thursday. The promotion modified the casino's regular single-deck game to give players a 6-to-5 payment on all winning hands, not just blackjacks. While the 6-to-5 payout on blackjacks, which has become common on single-deck games, is a rip-off, 6-to-5 vs. even money on other winning hands is a massive 20 percent premium that would easily outweigh the reduction on blackjacks. The maximum bet that would bring the bonus payout was $100.
(Deceptive advertising side note: Advertising for the promotion promised premium payouts for "all" wining hands, but the rules actually called for even money on the second hands created by splits and double downs.)
When I learned about this promotion, I tried to do a quick mental calculation of how much it would be worth to a player. I started with the assumption that tables would be full the and the game would be slow because dealers would need extra time to calculate the payouts. For number of hands per hour I picked a relatively low and round number, 50.
I also figured that the rules for this game, unmodified by the promotion, give the house an edge of 1.5 percent against a basic strategy player. So, figuring on betting the maximum of $100 per hand for 50 hands, a player would be wagering $5,000 an hour. One and half percent of that is $75, the player's approximate expected loss without the promotion.
To figure the effect of the 20-percent premium on non-blackjack wins, I first recalled that players win, on average, somewhere around 40 percent of the hands in blackjack. Applied to 50 hands an hour, that gives us approximately 20 wins per hour. About three of those will be blackjacks, so the 20-percent bonus would apply to an average of about 17 hands. At $100 a hand, that comes to $20 x 17, or $340 an hour. From that we have to subtract the house margin on the basic game of $75 an hour, which gives us $265 an hour.
Note that this calculation was done without even a pencil and paper, relying on memory for the percentage of hands won on average by players, and not accounting for split and double-down hands. So it is very, very rough. But it clearly shows that the players in this promotion would have a huge advantage.
On the first day of the promotion I was not able to get to the Palms until late afternoon. Surprisingly, the two single-deck tables were not full and most players were betting less than the $100 maximum, indicating that the advantage player community was largely unaware of the promotion. I had a run of bad luck and wound up dead even at 5 p.m., when the promotion ended for the day. Another player, who had been there for several hours betting $100 a hand, told me he was cashing out a $600 profit but had been up by more during much of the promotion.
The next day, the tables were packed and I couldn't get on. The day after that, Wednesday, I couldn't get to the Palms. On Thursday, which was to be the last day of the promotion, I made it a point to get there well before noon to make sure I could get a seat. Seeing no one else waiting, I asked if the promotion was still going on and was given the bad news. I wasn't able to determine exactly when it ended, but apparently it was sometime on Wednesday.
If there's one thing even the dumbest casino managers have learned, it's to reserve the legal right to modify or discontinue all promotions at any time, in their sole discretion. The Palms relied on this weasel wording to pull the plug. That gaming authorities allow casinos to get away with this when patrons incur expenses and expend valuable time to take advantage of promotions is patently unfair. I imagine that there can be legitimate reasons for a casino to change, delay or even abort a promotion, but the failure of casino management to calculate the cost of its own offering is an entirely different thing. The law should require that when a casino offers a promotion, the players get the value of that promotion.
Of course, the Palms could have let the promotion run as advertised, absorbing the loss caused by its its own bad decision. That would have been the honorable thing to do.
More Palms incompetence: One of the things the new managment did was tear down the enclosure that formed the casino's high-limit slot room, replacing it with a less-attractive and awdwardly placed structure consisting of plain, low walls. Recently the location of this new high-limit corral was shifted to eliminate the problems causing by its original placement -- an expense that might have been avoided by use of pencil and paper before hammer and nails.
Finally, on my last visit to the Palms, I noticed that the color of the signs that in some cases inaccurately described "full pay" video poker games had been changed. Now, if management, which has been put on notice of the errors in these signs by me and at least one other person, would change their content ...
A couple of weeks ago the casino ran a blackjack promotion. As advertised, it was to run from noon to 5 p.m. Monday through Thursday. The promotion modified the casino's regular single-deck game to give players a 6-to-5 payment on all winning hands, not just blackjacks. While the 6-to-5 payout on blackjacks, which has become common on single-deck games, is a rip-off, 6-to-5 vs. even money on other winning hands is a massive 20 percent premium that would easily outweigh the reduction on blackjacks. The maximum bet that would bring the bonus payout was $100.
(Deceptive advertising side note: Advertising for the promotion promised premium payouts for "all" wining hands, but the rules actually called for even money on the second hands created by splits and double downs.)
When I learned about this promotion, I tried to do a quick mental calculation of how much it would be worth to a player. I started with the assumption that tables would be full the and the game would be slow because dealers would need extra time to calculate the payouts. For number of hands per hour I picked a relatively low and round number, 50.
I also figured that the rules for this game, unmodified by the promotion, give the house an edge of 1.5 percent against a basic strategy player. So, figuring on betting the maximum of $100 per hand for 50 hands, a player would be wagering $5,000 an hour. One and half percent of that is $75, the player's approximate expected loss without the promotion.
To figure the effect of the 20-percent premium on non-blackjack wins, I first recalled that players win, on average, somewhere around 40 percent of the hands in blackjack. Applied to 50 hands an hour, that gives us approximately 20 wins per hour. About three of those will be blackjacks, so the 20-percent bonus would apply to an average of about 17 hands. At $100 a hand, that comes to $20 x 17, or $340 an hour. From that we have to subtract the house margin on the basic game of $75 an hour, which gives us $265 an hour.
Note that this calculation was done without even a pencil and paper, relying on memory for the percentage of hands won on average by players, and not accounting for split and double-down hands. So it is very, very rough. But it clearly shows that the players in this promotion would have a huge advantage.
On the first day of the promotion I was not able to get to the Palms until late afternoon. Surprisingly, the two single-deck tables were not full and most players were betting less than the $100 maximum, indicating that the advantage player community was largely unaware of the promotion. I had a run of bad luck and wound up dead even at 5 p.m., when the promotion ended for the day. Another player, who had been there for several hours betting $100 a hand, told me he was cashing out a $600 profit but had been up by more during much of the promotion.
The next day, the tables were packed and I couldn't get on. The day after that, Wednesday, I couldn't get to the Palms. On Thursday, which was to be the last day of the promotion, I made it a point to get there well before noon to make sure I could get a seat. Seeing no one else waiting, I asked if the promotion was still going on and was given the bad news. I wasn't able to determine exactly when it ended, but apparently it was sometime on Wednesday.
If there's one thing even the dumbest casino managers have learned, it's to reserve the legal right to modify or discontinue all promotions at any time, in their sole discretion. The Palms relied on this weasel wording to pull the plug. That gaming authorities allow casinos to get away with this when patrons incur expenses and expend valuable time to take advantage of promotions is patently unfair. I imagine that there can be legitimate reasons for a casino to change, delay or even abort a promotion, but the failure of casino management to calculate the cost of its own offering is an entirely different thing. The law should require that when a casino offers a promotion, the players get the value of that promotion.
Of course, the Palms could have let the promotion run as advertised, absorbing the loss caused by its its own bad decision. That would have been the honorable thing to do.
More Palms incompetence: One of the things the new managment did was tear down the enclosure that formed the casino's high-limit slot room, replacing it with a less-attractive and awdwardly placed structure consisting of plain, low walls. Recently the location of this new high-limit corral was shifted to eliminate the problems causing by its original placement -- an expense that might have been avoided by use of pencil and paper before hammer and nails.
Finally, on my last visit to the Palms, I noticed that the color of the signs that in some cases inaccurately described "full pay" video poker games had been changed. Now, if management, which has been put on notice of the errors in these signs by me and at least one other person, would change their content ...
Friday, February 8, 2013
Dishonest casino advertising -- part 2
Late last month at the Palms, I noticed some new yellow signs above several banks of video poker machines between the hotel registration desk and the hideous walled compound that now serves as the casino's high-limit slot area. These signs contained numerous errors, and I asked a slot attendant I knew to call a supervisor over so I could point these out.
As I explained the errors, it became obvious that the man I was talking to lacked even a basic understanding of video poker. He assured me, however, that others had pointed out the errors and that they would be fixed. I wrote the Palms through its web site, pointing out numerous but not all of the errors I saw. My spouse posted a copy with my permission on VPFree2.
A couple of nights ago I was in the Palms again and decided to toddle over to see what had been done about the yellow signs. It looked as if they had been changed, but, except for one of them, they're still wrong.
The biggest error in the signs that are still wrong is the advertising of games as "full pay" that are not. In the video poker community, "full pay" means the best widely available version of a particular game. In a very few cases there may be room for argument, but in general there is overwhelming agreement about which pay tables are "full pay" and which are not. (Incidentally, "full pay" is not necessarily synonymous with 100 percent payback. Although virtually all 100-percent payback games are "full pay," not all full-pay games pay back 100 percent.)
On my most recent visit, one of the signs advertised "Full Pay on Palms Video Poker." The game was deuces wild at 25 cents and 50 cents. The "program" noted on the sign was 10/4 and the payback was 99.7 percent. The good news is, the Palms got the payback right. The game in question is known as 16/10 or "not so ugly" deuces. This is not full pay deuces, which the Palms actually has a few yards away, which is distinguished by paying five coins for four of a kind. Full pay deuces is gradually disappearing, but is widely available for quarters in Nevada. This game pays back 100.8 percent with maximum coins bet and perfect strategy, which is a lot more than 99.7 percent.
Another game the Palms advertised as "full pay" that isn't is the 25 and 50 cent loose deuces. The Palms' version of this game pay 12 for five of a kind, for a maximum return to the player of 99.2 percent. This payback was correctly noted on the Palms' sign, but calling this version of loose deuces "full pay" is clearly false. What is now the full-pay version pays 15 for five of a kind for a total return of up to 100.15 percent. This game is widely available in denominations of up to $1. (There is also in Las Vegas one remaing relic of a version of this game that paid back 101 percent. It's a single-line nickel game in the "Vintage Vegas" part of the D casino downtown.)
The Palms also advertises as "full pay" its version of Joker Poker paying pack up to 98.4 percent. I know nothing about the joker games, but "The Frugal Video Poker Scouting Guide" lists versions paying back a lot more, so I doubt very much the sign claiming "full pay" is correct.
The one game the Palms got right with its sign is 9/6 jacks or better, the full-pay version of which pays back 99.5 percent with maximum coins bet and perfect play. It should be noted, however, that this game is widely available in denominations much higher than the 25 and 50 cent versions under the yellow sign at the Palms.
It is becoming more common that casinos reduce the benefits of playing their best games. Stations, for example, recently reduced the points earned on its "optimum" machines -- those with games paying back more than 100 percent -- to three points earned for every $12 played through. (On all other video poker at Stations, including games as good as or better than those advertised as full pay at the Palms, $1 = three points.) The optimum machines at Stations are also no longer available for point multipliers, and free play cannot be downloaded onto them.
The Palms cuts in half the points earned on its so-called "full pay" games, none of which pays back 100 percent (points earned on the 100-plus percent payback games at the Palms are reduced by three-quarters from the amount of points earned on most video poker throughout the casino). Both the 100 percent and "full pay" machines at the Palms are ineligible for promotions.
Earning fewer points and being ineligible for promotions may be a fair tradeoff for playing games that can return very nearly 100 percent or more than 100 percent to the player. But it is entirely unreasonable and uncompetitive in the Las Vegas market to reduce benefits for playing any game that returns less than 99.5 percent -- especially when that game is falsely advertised as the best of its kind.
May I suggest that the Palms not try to fit games that are not full pay under the rubric of full pay and instead take the approach of Stations, which has machines labeled "up to 99.8 percent payback." The downside is that not all the games on these machines offer paybacks of anywhere near 99.8 percent -- as always, the player needs to be familiar with the exact paytable of the game he plans to play.) If it takes this approach, the Palms can decide whether to reduce the points earned on these machines and whether to make them ineligible for promotions (Stations has done neither).
Whatever it decides to do, the Palms needs to clean up its act, and stop falsely advertising as full pay what clearly isn't.
As I explained the errors, it became obvious that the man I was talking to lacked even a basic understanding of video poker. He assured me, however, that others had pointed out the errors and that they would be fixed. I wrote the Palms through its web site, pointing out numerous but not all of the errors I saw. My spouse posted a copy with my permission on VPFree2.
A couple of nights ago I was in the Palms again and decided to toddle over to see what had been done about the yellow signs. It looked as if they had been changed, but, except for one of them, they're still wrong.
The biggest error in the signs that are still wrong is the advertising of games as "full pay" that are not. In the video poker community, "full pay" means the best widely available version of a particular game. In a very few cases there may be room for argument, but in general there is overwhelming agreement about which pay tables are "full pay" and which are not. (Incidentally, "full pay" is not necessarily synonymous with 100 percent payback. Although virtually all 100-percent payback games are "full pay," not all full-pay games pay back 100 percent.)
On my most recent visit, one of the signs advertised "Full Pay on Palms Video Poker." The game was deuces wild at 25 cents and 50 cents. The "program" noted on the sign was 10/4 and the payback was 99.7 percent. The good news is, the Palms got the payback right. The game in question is known as 16/10 or "not so ugly" deuces. This is not full pay deuces, which the Palms actually has a few yards away, which is distinguished by paying five coins for four of a kind. Full pay deuces is gradually disappearing, but is widely available for quarters in Nevada. This game pays back 100.8 percent with maximum coins bet and perfect strategy, which is a lot more than 99.7 percent.
Another game the Palms advertised as "full pay" that isn't is the 25 and 50 cent loose deuces. The Palms' version of this game pay 12 for five of a kind, for a maximum return to the player of 99.2 percent. This payback was correctly noted on the Palms' sign, but calling this version of loose deuces "full pay" is clearly false. What is now the full-pay version pays 15 for five of a kind for a total return of up to 100.15 percent. This game is widely available in denominations of up to $1. (There is also in Las Vegas one remaing relic of a version of this game that paid back 101 percent. It's a single-line nickel game in the "Vintage Vegas" part of the D casino downtown.)
The Palms also advertises as "full pay" its version of Joker Poker paying pack up to 98.4 percent. I know nothing about the joker games, but "The Frugal Video Poker Scouting Guide" lists versions paying back a lot more, so I doubt very much the sign claiming "full pay" is correct.
The one game the Palms got right with its sign is 9/6 jacks or better, the full-pay version of which pays back 99.5 percent with maximum coins bet and perfect play. It should be noted, however, that this game is widely available in denominations much higher than the 25 and 50 cent versions under the yellow sign at the Palms.
It is becoming more common that casinos reduce the benefits of playing their best games. Stations, for example, recently reduced the points earned on its "optimum" machines -- those with games paying back more than 100 percent -- to three points earned for every $12 played through. (On all other video poker at Stations, including games as good as or better than those advertised as full pay at the Palms, $1 = three points.) The optimum machines at Stations are also no longer available for point multipliers, and free play cannot be downloaded onto them.
The Palms cuts in half the points earned on its so-called "full pay" games, none of which pays back 100 percent (points earned on the 100-plus percent payback games at the Palms are reduced by three-quarters from the amount of points earned on most video poker throughout the casino). Both the 100 percent and "full pay" machines at the Palms are ineligible for promotions.
Earning fewer points and being ineligible for promotions may be a fair tradeoff for playing games that can return very nearly 100 percent or more than 100 percent to the player. But it is entirely unreasonable and uncompetitive in the Las Vegas market to reduce benefits for playing any game that returns less than 99.5 percent -- especially when that game is falsely advertised as the best of its kind.
May I suggest that the Palms not try to fit games that are not full pay under the rubric of full pay and instead take the approach of Stations, which has machines labeled "up to 99.8 percent payback." The downside is that not all the games on these machines offer paybacks of anywhere near 99.8 percent -- as always, the player needs to be familiar with the exact paytable of the game he plans to play.) If it takes this approach, the Palms can decide whether to reduce the points earned on these machines and whether to make them ineligible for promotions (Stations has done neither).
Whatever it decides to do, the Palms needs to clean up its act, and stop falsely advertising as full pay what clearly isn't.
Dishonest casino advertising -- part 1
Since November the Silverton has been running a "Reel & Win" slot tournament on Tuesdays, open to all of the casino's rewards club members. Players may earn up to two additional entries by earning 100 points each on the day of the tournament, and diamond club members get a second free entry.
This is much like the other low-value tournaments many locals casinos run, often as part of a seniors day. What caught my eye about this one was the total prize money advertised on signs in the casino, on at least one billboard, and in this month's Silverton mailer. The amount in the logo used in the advertising is $10,000.
That's not a huge amount for a slot tournament but it is quite a bit more than usual for an event open to the public. The nearby South Point has a weekly tournament for seniors on Thursdays with a prize pool of just over $5,000, and that's the biggest one I'm aware of.
Another ususual thing I noticed in the advertising for the Silverton's tournament is that the first prize is $1,000, which is a very low percentage of the advertised total. In most gambling tournaments, the first prize is half of somewhere near half of the purse.
This information simmered for a couple of weeks in my brain until this week, when I thought to pick up a rules sheet for the tournament at the players club. The title on the sheet is "Reel & Win Slot Tournament," not "$10,000 Reel & Win Slot Weekly Slot Tournament" as on the advertising logo. The second line of the rules sheet notes that the tournaments have run every Tuesday starting Nov. 6, 2012.
The bottom of the rules sheet gives all the prizes for the tournament. I added them up and got $2,515, not $10,000.
If this were being clearly advertised as a monthly promotion, I wouldn't have a problem with Silverton claiming it's giving away $10,000. But nothing in the advertising or the rules sheet indicates that they are talking about anything other than each weekly tournament.
To figure your equity in any tournament -- the money value of your entries -- you divide the total prize money by the total number of entries. Almost always, the only specific information available before a tournament -- especially one open to the public and not requiring pre-registration -- is the total prize money. You usually have to guess at how many people will show up and how many entries each will have.
Incidentally, whenever I go to any kind of tournament, I try to get as much information as I can about the number of people participating and the total number of entries, so I can better estimate the equity of similar, future tournaments at that casino. Based on this general experience, I would guess the value of an entry to the Silverton's weekly tournament is between one and three dollars. If the prize money were as advertised, those amounts would be four times as much. As I understand the rules, a diamond-level player can get four entries, worth a total of perhaps ten dollars. Still not much, but a lot better than what he's really getting.
This is much like the other low-value tournaments many locals casinos run, often as part of a seniors day. What caught my eye about this one was the total prize money advertised on signs in the casino, on at least one billboard, and in this month's Silverton mailer. The amount in the logo used in the advertising is $10,000.
That's not a huge amount for a slot tournament but it is quite a bit more than usual for an event open to the public. The nearby South Point has a weekly tournament for seniors on Thursdays with a prize pool of just over $5,000, and that's the biggest one I'm aware of.
Another ususual thing I noticed in the advertising for the Silverton's tournament is that the first prize is $1,000, which is a very low percentage of the advertised total. In most gambling tournaments, the first prize is half of somewhere near half of the purse.
This information simmered for a couple of weeks in my brain until this week, when I thought to pick up a rules sheet for the tournament at the players club. The title on the sheet is "Reel & Win Slot Tournament," not "$10,000 Reel & Win Slot Weekly Slot Tournament" as on the advertising logo. The second line of the rules sheet notes that the tournaments have run every Tuesday starting Nov. 6, 2012.
The bottom of the rules sheet gives all the prizes for the tournament. I added them up and got $2,515, not $10,000.
If this were being clearly advertised as a monthly promotion, I wouldn't have a problem with Silverton claiming it's giving away $10,000. But nothing in the advertising or the rules sheet indicates that they are talking about anything other than each weekly tournament.
To figure your equity in any tournament -- the money value of your entries -- you divide the total prize money by the total number of entries. Almost always, the only specific information available before a tournament -- especially one open to the public and not requiring pre-registration -- is the total prize money. You usually have to guess at how many people will show up and how many entries each will have.
Incidentally, whenever I go to any kind of tournament, I try to get as much information as I can about the number of people participating and the total number of entries, so I can better estimate the equity of similar, future tournaments at that casino. Based on this general experience, I would guess the value of an entry to the Silverton's weekly tournament is between one and three dollars. If the prize money were as advertised, those amounts would be four times as much. As I understand the rules, a diamond-level player can get four entries, worth a total of perhaps ten dollars. Still not much, but a lot better than what he's really getting.
Cashing in on a blackjack coupon
The other night I went to the Palms to play the first of four "start your hand with an ace" coupons that casino had sent me for this month.
The coupon replaces the first card of a hand, serving as an ace. So when you're ready to use it, the dealer gives you just one card instead of the usual two.
The Palms coupon can be used only on a 6-deck shoe game. The unusual thing about this coupon is the high maximum bet allowed -- $100. I have gotten these coupons from other casinos with a $10 max, which isn't worth a special trip.
Wanting to use the Palms coupon to full advantage, I sat through more than a shoe and half at a $10 table until the count got high enough to put out 10 units.
When you use one of these coupons, whether you're counting cards or not, what you have in mind is the hope of getting a blackjack. That's because 30 percent of total cards in the shoe have a value of ten.
What I got turned out to be better -- another ace. The dealer flipped over a ten for his upcard.
Of course, I split the aces, pulling a ten to the first one and another ace to the second one. Fortunately, the rules allowed me to resplit. The dealer threw another ten on the seond ace and yet another ace on the third ace. In a grand finale, he threw down two tens, giving me four 21s, each with $100 in chips behind it.
I was just relieved that I wasn't going to lose any of my $400. But I knew strange things can happen, and my four 21s could just wind up a push.
This was one of the few times I was glad to see a ten as the dealer flipped over his hole card. The other players went crazy; the dealer said he had never seen such a thing in 20 years, and the pit critter who had been watching -- and appeared to be all of 21 years old -- just looked dazed.
I held up a green chip and asked the dealer if he wanted to take it or bet it. As nearly all dealers do, he wanted to bet it, which proved to be a good decision as I won the next hand he put $50 in the toke box.
I played out the shoe and cashed out with a $675 profit on two shoes, $400 of it on that one fateful hand.
The coupon replaces the first card of a hand, serving as an ace. So when you're ready to use it, the dealer gives you just one card instead of the usual two.
The Palms coupon can be used only on a 6-deck shoe game. The unusual thing about this coupon is the high maximum bet allowed -- $100. I have gotten these coupons from other casinos with a $10 max, which isn't worth a special trip.
Wanting to use the Palms coupon to full advantage, I sat through more than a shoe and half at a $10 table until the count got high enough to put out 10 units.
When you use one of these coupons, whether you're counting cards or not, what you have in mind is the hope of getting a blackjack. That's because 30 percent of total cards in the shoe have a value of ten.
What I got turned out to be better -- another ace. The dealer flipped over a ten for his upcard.
Of course, I split the aces, pulling a ten to the first one and another ace to the second one. Fortunately, the rules allowed me to resplit. The dealer threw another ten on the seond ace and yet another ace on the third ace. In a grand finale, he threw down two tens, giving me four 21s, each with $100 in chips behind it.
I was just relieved that I wasn't going to lose any of my $400. But I knew strange things can happen, and my four 21s could just wind up a push.
This was one of the few times I was glad to see a ten as the dealer flipped over his hole card. The other players went crazy; the dealer said he had never seen such a thing in 20 years, and the pit critter who had been watching -- and appeared to be all of 21 years old -- just looked dazed.
I held up a green chip and asked the dealer if he wanted to take it or bet it. As nearly all dealers do, he wanted to bet it, which proved to be a good decision as I won the next hand he put $50 in the toke box.
I played out the shoe and cashed out with a $675 profit on two shoes, $400 of it on that one fateful hand.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Double for less? Never say never
Doubling is an essential part of blackjack strategy. When the player has the advantage, it lets him get more money on the table and, in the long run, win more or lose less.
To many players, doubling feels aggressive, so they don't always do it. In fact, failing to double when you should isn't conservative, it's wasteful, because in the long run by winning less than you should you are reducing your return from the game.
One way players deal with a reluctance to double when they know they should is by doubling for less. Conventional wisdom is that this is never the right thing to do because it takes away part of the long-term gain you get from doubling when you have the advantage.
But, a few weeks ago, I saw a possible reason to double for less. This incident illustrates one of the things that makes blackjack so interesting to me. It is more than a mathematical exercise; it is played by human beings with quirks and foibles, and what they do is sometimes unexpected and mysterious.
I was playing a double-deck game, dealt face down, at a downtown Las Vegas casino. The gentleman at third base was betting two hands, usually at two, three or four times the minimum bet.
At one point this guy decides to double one of his hands for less. The dealer calls out "doubling for less," which is common practice. Among other reasons, this makes it tough for the player to claim later that he had doubled for the full amount and is owed more than he was paid.
Some time later -- as best as I could see -- he was playing two hands and on one of them, doubled for less -- two units on a three-unit bet. The dealer didn't call it. After the hand was over, she had lots of bets to pay off, which she did quickly. Again, as best as I could see, this guy was paid three units for his two-unit "double." No one said anything.
I can't even be sure I saw what I thought I saw, and I certainly can't say whether this guy intentionally doubled for less. The fact that he had doubled for less before did lead me to believe he did it again.
If I saw what I thought I did, it raises an ethical question: Should he have taken the money? The law in Nevada is clear that players are not responsible for dealer mistakes and are not obligated to point them out or return the money.
This incident suggests that a blackjack player could add to his income by doubling for less when dealer payout mistakes are likely. Whether he's comfortable doing so is something every player must decide for himself.
To many players, doubling feels aggressive, so they don't always do it. In fact, failing to double when you should isn't conservative, it's wasteful, because in the long run by winning less than you should you are reducing your return from the game.
One way players deal with a reluctance to double when they know they should is by doubling for less. Conventional wisdom is that this is never the right thing to do because it takes away part of the long-term gain you get from doubling when you have the advantage.
But, a few weeks ago, I saw a possible reason to double for less. This incident illustrates one of the things that makes blackjack so interesting to me. It is more than a mathematical exercise; it is played by human beings with quirks and foibles, and what they do is sometimes unexpected and mysterious.
I was playing a double-deck game, dealt face down, at a downtown Las Vegas casino. The gentleman at third base was betting two hands, usually at two, three or four times the minimum bet.
At one point this guy decides to double one of his hands for less. The dealer calls out "doubling for less," which is common practice. Among other reasons, this makes it tough for the player to claim later that he had doubled for the full amount and is owed more than he was paid.
Some time later -- as best as I could see -- he was playing two hands and on one of them, doubled for less -- two units on a three-unit bet. The dealer didn't call it. After the hand was over, she had lots of bets to pay off, which she did quickly. Again, as best as I could see, this guy was paid three units for his two-unit "double." No one said anything.
I can't even be sure I saw what I thought I saw, and I certainly can't say whether this guy intentionally doubled for less. The fact that he had doubled for less before did lead me to believe he did it again.
If I saw what I thought I did, it raises an ethical question: Should he have taken the money? The law in Nevada is clear that players are not responsible for dealer mistakes and are not obligated to point them out or return the money.
This incident suggests that a blackjack player could add to his income by doubling for less when dealer payout mistakes are likely. Whether he's comfortable doing so is something every player must decide for himself.
How did he know?
One reason I enjoy blackjack so much is that you never know what you're going to see next. People do some crazy things, and the results are sometimes incredible.
A case in point: Last night, I was playing double-deck blackjack in downtown Las Vegas. This game is dealt from a shoe, with the cards placed face-up on the table by the dealer.
The player to my right seemed to be about average in skill. Now, if you know anything about blackjack, you know this: You never, ever hit a hard 17.
So the dealer is showing a 10 and this guy starts hitting his hand. I don't remember what he started with, but soon there was a line-up of little cards above his bet. I tried to let him know when the threes and fours added up to 17, but the music in the place was so loud he might not have heard me.
Anyway, he hits the hard 17. And draws an ace, giving him 18. At this point he has the common sense to stop.
The other players finish their hands and the dealer flips her hole card -- a seven.
I turn to my right and ask, "How did you know?"
He just smiled.
A case in point: Last night, I was playing double-deck blackjack in downtown Las Vegas. This game is dealt from a shoe, with the cards placed face-up on the table by the dealer.
The player to my right seemed to be about average in skill. Now, if you know anything about blackjack, you know this: You never, ever hit a hard 17.
So the dealer is showing a 10 and this guy starts hitting his hand. I don't remember what he started with, but soon there was a line-up of little cards above his bet. I tried to let him know when the threes and fours added up to 17, but the music in the place was so loud he might not have heard me.
Anyway, he hits the hard 17. And draws an ace, giving him 18. At this point he has the common sense to stop.
The other players finish their hands and the dealer flips her hole card -- a seven.
I turn to my right and ask, "How did you know?"
He just smiled.
Ellis Island capitulates
This is long overdue, but I did want to follow up on what happened at Ellis Island after that casino switched its 9/6 jacks or better to 9/5. Apparently I wasn't the only one high-limit player who boycotted the inferior game because about five weeks after the change, the 9/6 jack were back, in denominations up to $5.
Better than that, on the same machines, Ellis added 16/10 "not so ugly" deuces, also up to $5. This game pays back 99.73 percent with perfect play and max coins bet, considerably better than the 99.54 percent for jacks. There are only a few places that offer this version of deuces at more than $1.
Even better, Ellis offers point multipliers of up to 6x. With points worth 0.1 percent, the 16/10 deuces are highly positive on point multiplier days, not even counting the value of promotions and monthly mailers.
Alas, when something in a casino seems too good to be true, it is not likely to last. I expected the 16/10 deuces to disappear, at least at $5 and maybe also at $2. Instead, Ellis reacted by excluding all the games on the machines in question from multipliers and a particular four-of-a-kind poromotion. Because of other promotions there is still some value in playing these games, but not nearly as much as there was with the point multipliers.
All in all, I think Ellis Island handled the situation quite well -- after the initial decision to downgrade the 9/6 jacks. The casino obviously had lost a considerable amount of business from its biggest players, and correctly determined the reason. The great thing about the casino's reaction was that it not only gave back what it took away (the 9/6 jacks), but gave its aggrieved players something extra (the 16/10 deuces) to make up for the original offense and build some additional goodwill.
In my experience, casino managers generally don't understand or don't want to admit that downgrading games can cost them business. It seems they think returning the theoretical return on a game by changing, for example, the play table, will increase their hold in amount similar to the increase in their theoretical win. This apparently failed to happen at Ellis Island.
An interesting test case will the the recent downgrading of the pay tables on a $1 triple- and five-play progressive at Green Valley Ranch. The best game on these progressives was 15/9 "pseudo not so ugly" deuces, with a maximum payback of 98.94 percent, not counting the value of the progressive jackpots over the regular royal amount. A few days ago I noticed that the deuces games had been downgraded to 12/10, a version of deuces that's common on the Las Vegas Strip but relatively rare in locals casinos because of its low payback of 97.58 percent.
Here's my theory as to why this game was downgraded: These machines don't seem to get a lot of play when the progressive jackpots are low, but when they get high enough, there is a regular group of players who will play them long and hard. I am sure the casino makes a lot of money when this happens.
Months, maybe a year, ago, the number of machines in the bank of progressives was cut from six to three. This might have had an effect on the total amount of play they got. For whatever reason, the progressives don't seem to have gotten big enough as often to attract the players who sometimes hit this game hard. The machines weren't earning as much as the casino wanted, so someone decided to squeeze the lemon harder.
My guess is that the downgrading of the deuces pay table started a death spiral that will lead to the removal of this progressive. The progressives now have to be much higher to be attractive, meaning the machines need more play when the jackpots are low. Because of the bad new pay tables, its likely they will get less play, rather than more. I'm not sure what the managers at Green Valley could or should have done, but my prediction is that the course they have taken will lead to the loss of these games -- and a lot of business from some of the casino's biggest players.
Better than that, on the same machines, Ellis added 16/10 "not so ugly" deuces, also up to $5. This game pays back 99.73 percent with perfect play and max coins bet, considerably better than the 99.54 percent for jacks. There are only a few places that offer this version of deuces at more than $1.
Even better, Ellis offers point multipliers of up to 6x. With points worth 0.1 percent, the 16/10 deuces are highly positive on point multiplier days, not even counting the value of promotions and monthly mailers.
Alas, when something in a casino seems too good to be true, it is not likely to last. I expected the 16/10 deuces to disappear, at least at $5 and maybe also at $2. Instead, Ellis reacted by excluding all the games on the machines in question from multipliers and a particular four-of-a-kind poromotion. Because of other promotions there is still some value in playing these games, but not nearly as much as there was with the point multipliers.
All in all, I think Ellis Island handled the situation quite well -- after the initial decision to downgrade the 9/6 jacks. The casino obviously had lost a considerable amount of business from its biggest players, and correctly determined the reason. The great thing about the casino's reaction was that it not only gave back what it took away (the 9/6 jacks), but gave its aggrieved players something extra (the 16/10 deuces) to make up for the original offense and build some additional goodwill.
In my experience, casino managers generally don't understand or don't want to admit that downgrading games can cost them business. It seems they think returning the theoretical return on a game by changing, for example, the play table, will increase their hold in amount similar to the increase in their theoretical win. This apparently failed to happen at Ellis Island.
An interesting test case will the the recent downgrading of the pay tables on a $1 triple- and five-play progressive at Green Valley Ranch. The best game on these progressives was 15/9 "pseudo not so ugly" deuces, with a maximum payback of 98.94 percent, not counting the value of the progressive jackpots over the regular royal amount. A few days ago I noticed that the deuces games had been downgraded to 12/10, a version of deuces that's common on the Las Vegas Strip but relatively rare in locals casinos because of its low payback of 97.58 percent.
Here's my theory as to why this game was downgraded: These machines don't seem to get a lot of play when the progressive jackpots are low, but when they get high enough, there is a regular group of players who will play them long and hard. I am sure the casino makes a lot of money when this happens.
Months, maybe a year, ago, the number of machines in the bank of progressives was cut from six to three. This might have had an effect on the total amount of play they got. For whatever reason, the progressives don't seem to have gotten big enough as often to attract the players who sometimes hit this game hard. The machines weren't earning as much as the casino wanted, so someone decided to squeeze the lemon harder.
My guess is that the downgrading of the deuces pay table started a death spiral that will lead to the removal of this progressive. The progressives now have to be much higher to be attractive, meaning the machines need more play when the jackpots are low. Because of the bad new pay tables, its likely they will get less play, rather than more. I'm not sure what the managers at Green Valley could or should have done, but my prediction is that the course they have taken will lead to the loss of these games -- and a lot of business from some of the casino's biggest players.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
