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.
Friday, February 8, 2013
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)
