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.