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.
Friday, February 8, 2013
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.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Why we lose at video poker
How often after a losing session have you thought, or heard another video poker player say, "I just didn't get enough four-of-a-kinds" or "I hit the deuces but pissed it all away." We tend to blame the cards, and sometimes they can be merciless, but there are three bigger reasons why we lose:
1. We aren't using the proper strategy for the game we're playing. Teacher and author Bob Dancer estimates that half of all video poker players switch among games but use the same or almost the same strategy for all of them. This won't hurt much in some cases, but in others it can be extremely costly. Even different versions of the same game can require significant strategy changes. For example, in some versions of deuces wild, you should hold two pair. In others, you should hold only one of the two pair. It depends on whether the full house pays three or four per coin bet.
2. Because the big-payout hands make up a significant part of the return in all video poker games, you are going to lose most of the time when you don't hit a royal flush, four deuces, four aces, etc. The good news is that when you hit one of the big-payout hands, you are likely to win more in that session than you lose in your losing sessions (although this obviously is not always true).
3. Finally, the main reason we lose is that we are playing games that cannot be beaten. In Nevada, there are still games available with a long-term return, with perfect play, of more than 100 percent. These include full-pay deuces wild, double bonus, double double bonus and loose deuce deuces wild. There are many other games on which a player can achieve an overall return of 100 percent or more if slot club benefits are taken into account. Depending on what a particular casino is offering, most games with a return of 99.5 percent or better fall into this category. These include 9/6 jacks or better and 16/10 "not so ugly" deuces wild. It is sometimes possible to get benefits that bring the return of a 99 percent game above 100 percent.
If you play games with much less than a 99 percent return, you are almost certainly going to be a long-term loser, no matter what the casino gives you for playing. Further, although winning sessions are certainly possible with lousy-paying games, you will have fewer of them than with better games, you will usually lose more money when you lose and you will usually win less money when you win.
Let me give you example. There's a small casino near the Las Vegas Strip called Ellis Island (named for its ower, Gary Ellis). It's known for its steak dinner special, microbrewery, karaoke bar and barbeque. For 40 years it's been popular with locals, particularly employees of other casinos, as well as value-oriented tourists.
My spouse and I have been regular players at "the Island" since we moved to Vegas. For the past couple of years or so, we have played single-line 9/6 jacks or better at the $2 and $5 denominations.
On a recent visit we were disappointed to find that our 9/6 jacks had been downgraded to 9/5. That means instead of paying six coins per coin bet or 30 for a max-coin bet, the game now pays five per coin or 25 for a max-coin bet. For a $5 player betting max coin, that's a pay cut of $25 per flush, from $150 to $125. For a $1 player its's a cut of $5 per flush, and for a quarter player, of $1.25 per flush.
Assuming you're playing proper strategy, the cost per hour or per session depends on how fast you play. Approaching the problem from a different direction, I figured that the cost of this change to a $5 max-coin player playing 600 hands an hour at approximately $150 an hour! (My method was to find the difference in payout between the 9/6 and 9/5 games -- approximately one percentage point -- and multiply it by the amount of money a $5 player runs through the machine at 600 hands an hour. With a max-coin bet of $25 an hour, that comes to $15,000 an hour. One percent of that is $150.)
This shows the importance of checking the pay table of any video poker game before you shovel in your money -- and of knowing what numbers to look for. With video poker, the pay table is the price tag.
You should know the common versions of each game you play regularly and how much they cost the player. As I have pointed out many times, an invaluable resource for this is Jean Scott and Viktor Nacht's Video Poker Scouting Guide.
As for Ellis Island, I don't know whether I'll continue to play there. I do know that I will not be playing 9/5 jacks or better there or anywhere else, barring circumstances so unusual they are difficult to imagine.
1. We aren't using the proper strategy for the game we're playing. Teacher and author Bob Dancer estimates that half of all video poker players switch among games but use the same or almost the same strategy for all of them. This won't hurt much in some cases, but in others it can be extremely costly. Even different versions of the same game can require significant strategy changes. For example, in some versions of deuces wild, you should hold two pair. In others, you should hold only one of the two pair. It depends on whether the full house pays three or four per coin bet.
2. Because the big-payout hands make up a significant part of the return in all video poker games, you are going to lose most of the time when you don't hit a royal flush, four deuces, four aces, etc. The good news is that when you hit one of the big-payout hands, you are likely to win more in that session than you lose in your losing sessions (although this obviously is not always true).
3. Finally, the main reason we lose is that we are playing games that cannot be beaten. In Nevada, there are still games available with a long-term return, with perfect play, of more than 100 percent. These include full-pay deuces wild, double bonus, double double bonus and loose deuce deuces wild. There are many other games on which a player can achieve an overall return of 100 percent or more if slot club benefits are taken into account. Depending on what a particular casino is offering, most games with a return of 99.5 percent or better fall into this category. These include 9/6 jacks or better and 16/10 "not so ugly" deuces wild. It is sometimes possible to get benefits that bring the return of a 99 percent game above 100 percent.
If you play games with much less than a 99 percent return, you are almost certainly going to be a long-term loser, no matter what the casino gives you for playing. Further, although winning sessions are certainly possible with lousy-paying games, you will have fewer of them than with better games, you will usually lose more money when you lose and you will usually win less money when you win.
Let me give you example. There's a small casino near the Las Vegas Strip called Ellis Island (named for its ower, Gary Ellis). It's known for its steak dinner special, microbrewery, karaoke bar and barbeque. For 40 years it's been popular with locals, particularly employees of other casinos, as well as value-oriented tourists.
My spouse and I have been regular players at "the Island" since we moved to Vegas. For the past couple of years or so, we have played single-line 9/6 jacks or better at the $2 and $5 denominations.
On a recent visit we were disappointed to find that our 9/6 jacks had been downgraded to 9/5. That means instead of paying six coins per coin bet or 30 for a max-coin bet, the game now pays five per coin or 25 for a max-coin bet. For a $5 player betting max coin, that's a pay cut of $25 per flush, from $150 to $125. For a $1 player its's a cut of $5 per flush, and for a quarter player, of $1.25 per flush.
Assuming you're playing proper strategy, the cost per hour or per session depends on how fast you play. Approaching the problem from a different direction, I figured that the cost of this change to a $5 max-coin player playing 600 hands an hour at approximately $150 an hour! (My method was to find the difference in payout between the 9/6 and 9/5 games -- approximately one percentage point -- and multiply it by the amount of money a $5 player runs through the machine at 600 hands an hour. With a max-coin bet of $25 an hour, that comes to $15,000 an hour. One percent of that is $150.)
This shows the importance of checking the pay table of any video poker game before you shovel in your money -- and of knowing what numbers to look for. With video poker, the pay table is the price tag.
You should know the common versions of each game you play regularly and how much they cost the player. As I have pointed out many times, an invaluable resource for this is Jean Scott and Viktor Nacht's Video Poker Scouting Guide.
As for Ellis Island, I don't know whether I'll continue to play there. I do know that I will not be playing 9/5 jacks or better there or anywhere else, barring circumstances so unusual they are difficult to imagine.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
A dealt royal -- and an even bigger surprise
I was recently playing $1 Jacks or Better at Hooters in Las Vegas when I hit the deal button and a royal flush popped up. That's a rare event -- about once in every 600,000 hands, or once a year for a full-time player. But what happened next was even more of a surprise.
When a jackpot of $1,200 or more is hit on a machine, it's supposed to lock up. That's because such jackpots are taxable, and casinos have to issue tax forms to the player and the IRS. Employees pay such jackpots by hand, then adjust the machine to remove the equivalent amount of credits.
But the machine at Hooters never locked up -- it just racked up the 4,000 credits for my royal and let me keep playing. I was getting double points, so I kept going for a while. When I was ready to leave I hit the cash out button and the machine printed out a ticket for $4,100.
My intent was to take the ticket to the cage and explain what happened. But before I could leave the machine, a slot attendant approached. I told her what had happened, and she called over one of her co-workers. The two of them reviewed the hands played on the machine as far back as it would let them, which wasn't all the way back to the royal. They then got a supervisor involved and didn't tell me anything about what was happening (language was at least part of the problem). I asked to see a manager and told them I was losing patience and wanted to get the matter resolved.
About a half hour after the royal the slot people reached a manager. They were told to issue the tax forms for the jackpot, pay me by hand and take my cashout ticket. This is exactly how the matter should have been handled, only without the half-hour wait. After I was paid the manager came over and we had a brief chat. I asked him what the maximum ticket amount the cage at Hooters will pay without a hassle, and he said $1,200. Taking my $4,100 ticket to the cage would have set off a process that would have taken longer than what I experienced, he told me.
While I was waiting to be paid, a troubling question crossed my mind: Would the casino claim the machine malfunctioned and refuse to pay me? I was prepared to argue that any malfunction involved only those parts of the machine that are supposed to lock it up for a hand pay, not the random number generator that dealt me the royal. Fortunately, I never had to make the argument because the issue never came up.
When a jackpot of $1,200 or more is hit on a machine, it's supposed to lock up. That's because such jackpots are taxable, and casinos have to issue tax forms to the player and the IRS. Employees pay such jackpots by hand, then adjust the machine to remove the equivalent amount of credits.
But the machine at Hooters never locked up -- it just racked up the 4,000 credits for my royal and let me keep playing. I was getting double points, so I kept going for a while. When I was ready to leave I hit the cash out button and the machine printed out a ticket for $4,100.
My intent was to take the ticket to the cage and explain what happened. But before I could leave the machine, a slot attendant approached. I told her what had happened, and she called over one of her co-workers. The two of them reviewed the hands played on the machine as far back as it would let them, which wasn't all the way back to the royal. They then got a supervisor involved and didn't tell me anything about what was happening (language was at least part of the problem). I asked to see a manager and told them I was losing patience and wanted to get the matter resolved.
About a half hour after the royal the slot people reached a manager. They were told to issue the tax forms for the jackpot, pay me by hand and take my cashout ticket. This is exactly how the matter should have been handled, only without the half-hour wait. After I was paid the manager came over and we had a brief chat. I asked him what the maximum ticket amount the cage at Hooters will pay without a hassle, and he said $1,200. Taking my $4,100 ticket to the cage would have set off a process that would have taken longer than what I experienced, he told me.
While I was waiting to be paid, a troubling question crossed my mind: Would the casino claim the machine malfunctioned and refuse to pay me? I was prepared to argue that any malfunction involved only those parts of the machine that are supposed to lock it up for a hand pay, not the random number generator that dealt me the royal. Fortunately, I never had to make the argument because the issue never came up.
Food stamps
Among the kinds of comps casinos provide their regular players are food credits. These are usually coupons -- my spouse and I call them "food stamps" -- that are part of a monthly calendar of offers sent by the marketing department.
These coupons have advantages and disadvantages over the other common forms of food comps.
At many if not most casinos, table game players (and sometimes slot players) earn comps that can be issued only by a host or pit boss, a process that can take some time. And often players aren't informed of their balances, so a request can result in a frustrating and embarrassing rejection. Using food stamps avoids these difficulties.
Slot points are the other way many players "pay" for food. The advantage of using points is that its easy for players to determine their balances and redeem them. But at most casinos points can be used for other valuable things, such as free play and cash back. So it's smart to use other kinds of comps to pay for food.
Food stamps typically come with conditions. Usually they are valid only on certain dates, or invalid on certain days, such as holidays or weekends. Often they are valid only at some of a casino's restaurants. Sometimes they cannot be combined with other food stamps or other types of comps. They are almost always for a specific player, who must provide ID and sometimes a players card to redeem the coupon.
For us, the most troublesome restriction -- one that's on almost all food stamps -- is that they cannot be used for takeout. This does not mean that you can't order more food than you can eat and take the rest home, but you do have to be seated in a restaurant and eat something. This might seem like it would be embarrassing, but we do it all the time, and have found that servers are more than happy to cooperate in the belief that a bigger check will mean a bigger tip.
But you can only so many meals a month, and with the amount of gambling we do, we always wind up with food stamps we can't use for sit-down dining. Fortunately, we've discovered some ways to get around the dining-in restriction.
At the delis at Sam's Town and Green Valley Ranch the employees have been happy to pull together big orders of stuff for us to take out. One big advantage of being able to "shop" at the delis is that they carry canned and bottled beverages and other items that won't spoil, so we can stock up if we have enough credits to use. Other deli items we buy with food stamps include prepared salads, fruit plates, cakes and pies. Sometimes deli employees spend considerable time helping us make good use of our food stamps. To be considerate of other deli customers, who are often in a hurry, we let them cut in and ask the employees to stop what they're doing for us and take care of the others. We also tip employees who have helped us with a big order.
At most casinos food stamps cannot be used at food court outlets, but in Las Vegas there is at least one exception -- the Palms. All of the outlets there accept Palms food coupons. Also at the Palms, the 24/7 Cafe now has a case displaying sandwiches, salads, fruit plates, pastries and Krispy Kreme doughnuts. Food stamps can be used to pay for these items for takeout.
One final tip regarding food stamps: Don't be afraid to ask for exceptions to the rules. We have had some success getting restaurants to accept food stamps from both my spouse and me despite rules against using more than one coupon per party. Signs that appeared within the past few months at the M Resort suggest that expiration dates can also be overlooked: "Unfortunately, we no longer accept expired or post dated coupons." Unfortunately, I never thought to try to use an expired or post dated food stamp at the M when they were being accepted.
These coupons have advantages and disadvantages over the other common forms of food comps.
At many if not most casinos, table game players (and sometimes slot players) earn comps that can be issued only by a host or pit boss, a process that can take some time. And often players aren't informed of their balances, so a request can result in a frustrating and embarrassing rejection. Using food stamps avoids these difficulties.
Slot points are the other way many players "pay" for food. The advantage of using points is that its easy for players to determine their balances and redeem them. But at most casinos points can be used for other valuable things, such as free play and cash back. So it's smart to use other kinds of comps to pay for food.
Food stamps typically come with conditions. Usually they are valid only on certain dates, or invalid on certain days, such as holidays or weekends. Often they are valid only at some of a casino's restaurants. Sometimes they cannot be combined with other food stamps or other types of comps. They are almost always for a specific player, who must provide ID and sometimes a players card to redeem the coupon.
For us, the most troublesome restriction -- one that's on almost all food stamps -- is that they cannot be used for takeout. This does not mean that you can't order more food than you can eat and take the rest home, but you do have to be seated in a restaurant and eat something. This might seem like it would be embarrassing, but we do it all the time, and have found that servers are more than happy to cooperate in the belief that a bigger check will mean a bigger tip.
But you can only so many meals a month, and with the amount of gambling we do, we always wind up with food stamps we can't use for sit-down dining. Fortunately, we've discovered some ways to get around the dining-in restriction.
At the delis at Sam's Town and Green Valley Ranch the employees have been happy to pull together big orders of stuff for us to take out. One big advantage of being able to "shop" at the delis is that they carry canned and bottled beverages and other items that won't spoil, so we can stock up if we have enough credits to use. Other deli items we buy with food stamps include prepared salads, fruit plates, cakes and pies. Sometimes deli employees spend considerable time helping us make good use of our food stamps. To be considerate of other deli customers, who are often in a hurry, we let them cut in and ask the employees to stop what they're doing for us and take care of the others. We also tip employees who have helped us with a big order.
At most casinos food stamps cannot be used at food court outlets, but in Las Vegas there is at least one exception -- the Palms. All of the outlets there accept Palms food coupons. Also at the Palms, the 24/7 Cafe now has a case displaying sandwiches, salads, fruit plates, pastries and Krispy Kreme doughnuts. Food stamps can be used to pay for these items for takeout.
One final tip regarding food stamps: Don't be afraid to ask for exceptions to the rules. We have had some success getting restaurants to accept food stamps from both my spouse and me despite rules against using more than one coupon per party. Signs that appeared within the past few months at the M Resort suggest that expiration dates can also be overlooked: "Unfortunately, we no longer accept expired or post dated coupons." Unfortunately, I never thought to try to use an expired or post dated food stamp at the M when they were being accepted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
