I recently returned to the Riviera with my wife to play the remaining $500 in credits I had from their $1,000 loss guarantee for new players club members. I headed to the machine I had played during my first visit, which had what appeared to be $1 8/5 bonus poker on it, which would be the best video poker game in the casino with a long-term payback of 99.17 percent with maximum bets and perfect strategy.
Except that, as my spouse noticed immediately, this game wasn't really 8/5 bonus poker, even though the pay table showed payouts of 8 per coin for the full house and 5 for the flush. What my spouse saw was a very unusual change near the bottom of the pay table. Instead of paying 2 for a full house, this game paid only 1. Because two pair occur very often in bonus poker, this change makes a huge difference in the game's theoretical payback, bringing it all the way down to 86.31 percent -- yes, that's 86, not 96 -- and making it by far the worst video poker game I have ever seen.
This alteration is perfectly legal, as long as it's disclosed on the pay table, which this was. The main lesson here is to look at all the numbers on the pay table before playing any game at any casino for the first time. Most of us are in the habit of looking at certain numbers on the pay table to determine what version of a game is in front of us -- in bonus poker, what varies is typically the payouts for the full house and flush -- but any number on the pay table can be changed. Also of note is that the same change in payout will have a bigger effect on the return of the game the farther down the pay table they are. That's because the closer you get to the bottom of the pay table, the more frequently the hands occur. One coin less for two pair hurts a lot because two pair is a very common hand in bonus poker.
I was glad I was able to avoid playing this awful game but couldn't help wondering if the pay table was the same during my first trip to the Riviera, when I played the same machine. I know I didn't check the bottom of the pay table, but I would hope I would have noticed the short pay for two pair as I played. Maybe the payout for two pair at that time was the standard 2; maybe I didn't notice the short pay. Either way, I hope I'll never fall for something like this in the future.
Since this happened, I've given a bit of thought to the ethics of it. It's standard for casinos to offer different versions of the same video poker games, but usually with the common variations in the pay table. For example, 9/6 jacks or better and 8/5 jacks or better, the first numbers referring to the payout for the full house and the second numbers for the flush. Video poker players with any level of sophistication know about these "standard variations" and look for them before choosing a game to play. The ethics question posed here is whether it is fair for a casino to make a highly unusual change in the pay table, one that most players would never think to look for -- especially one that makes an enormous difference in the payback of the game. In my mind the Riviera's pay table raises the question of what other ways it might try to take advantage of the people who play there (I have seen absolutely no evidence of anything else at all questionable). I'm not sure whether people who would do this are the kind of people I want to do business with.
Incidentally, I got the information on the payback of the Riviera's version of 8/5 bonus poker from the invaluable "Frugal Video Poker Scouting Guide" by Jean Scott and Viktor Nacht. That the Riviera's version of 8/5 bonus poker was in the book indicates that it has been found in other casinos (the book predates the current management regime of the Riviera). That doesn't make it any more fair, but it does reinforce the message of buyer beware when playing any video poker machine for the first time.
Showing posts with label Riviera. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Riviera. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Monday, April 30, 2012
'We want the hardcore gambler ...'
The above is an unusual, almost heretical, statement by a casino executive, yet it was made by Noah Acres, the Riviera's director of player development (more about this ironic title later), in material aimed not at industry insiders but at new players at his casino.
The reason such statements are so rare is that the "gaming" industry has taken great pains to paint gambling as just another form of entertainment, one with minimal negative effects on the communities where casinos are found. Casinos stress that they love winners, but what they really love are ignorant players who win by dumb luck. Anyone who knows enough not even to win but just to lose less than most is considered a threat by many if not most gaming executives.
Of course, the ugly truth about gambling is that it ruins lives. Not many, as a percentage of those who gamble, but undoubtedly thousands each year in the United States. The extent to which the gaming industry is responsible for creating, enabling and increasing addiction is beyond the scope of this post, because it is beyond my knowledge of these issues. But I do know that the industry does everything it can to disassociate itself from anything hinting at exploitation of addicted gamblers.
The context of Mr. Acres' statement was an information card on a promotion at the Riviera offering new and some inactive players a $1,000 loss guarantee. There's nothing new about this kind of promotion but in five years in Las Vegas I have never seen one this big.
The idea is simple. You sign up for a players' club card and go play a slot or video poker machine until you have had enough or lost $1,000. If you are unlucky enough to win, it's as if the promotion didn't exist. You cash out as usual and that's it. If you lose, you get half your loss back immediately in the form of free slot play and half on your "next visit" (if you take advantage of this promotion, be sure to ask when the second installment becomes available and how long your have to use both installments of your free slot play).
Before we went to the Riviera, my wife and I listened to a discussion of this promotion on the radio program "Gambling with an Edge." Based on the discussion among hosts Bob Dancer and Mike Shakelford and guest Richard Munchkin, we set a goal of winning $2,000 or busting out trying. Losing, say, $300 would be taking advantage of only 30 percent of the value of the promotion. We made sure to get to the casino early in the evening to give ourselves plenty of time to run through $1,000 each.
Several types of slot, video poker and virtual table game machines have been excluded from this promotion. We both decided to play video poker at the highest denomination available, $1 single line. My spouse opted to play double double bonus even though the pay table, 8/5, is horrendous (we looked it up later and found the payback was less than 97 percent). This game offers a lot of opportunities for big hits, including $2,000 for four aces and a kicker, meaning that if she got lucky, she could reach $4,000 without hitting a royal flush. The downside of this strategy is that if she didn't get many four-of-a-kinds she could go down quickly. Of course, with the loss guarantee, the downside risk was greatly reduced. I took a more conservative approach, playing the best game available, 8/5 bonus poker (slightly over 99 percent payback). I knew I'd need a royal flush to hit $2,000, but I planned to alter my strategy a bit to increase the chance of hitting a royal (but in the process decrease the statistical return of the game). I hoped that playing a game with a higher return and less variance would keep me alive longer, giving me more of a chance to hit the royal. Another factor is that I am more comfortable playing bonus poker than double double bonus, though I have played the latter in tournaments.
In retrospect, I think both decisions were defensible, but my wife's was better -- and not just because she wound up hitting four aces with a kicker (after hitting four aces without, which kept her going awhile). I wound up losing $1,000 in less than two hours. At that point she was up a couple of hundred. I went and got my first $500 in free play and ran it through the machine. We decided I'd take advantage of some opportunies at other casinos and come back in a couple of hours. A half hour, maybe 40 minutes later she called me and said she had hit the four aces with a kicker. She was down only about $200, so if she quit right then she'd lock in a $1,800 win. The alternative under our plan was to try to win more or lose a full $1,000, and there probably wasn't time for that. So she "settled" for a win that was $200 short of her goal.
The reason her strategy was probably better than mine is because she had more chances to win. She also had much more of a chance of losing, but the entire loss would be reimbursed. Of course, had she actually lost, she would have played the free play much more conservatively because at that point any losses would be hers, and real.
Now, a word about the title of that executive who said he wanted "the hardcore gambler." To the unititated, "director of player development" might sound like someone in charge of educating players, making them better. But this is the last thing the casinos want. The development in this title refers to the casinos' business, not the quality of its players (unless quality is defined as losing more).
As for Mr. Acres, I think he's got quite a challenge ahead of him. The Riviera, one of the oldest casinos on the Strip, is, by today's standards, a dump. Think the Tropicana before its recent makeover. Furthermore, it's in a really bad neighborhood, by Strip standards, stuck amid closed casinos, failed projects and that butt of jokes, Circus Circus.
The loss guarantee will bring tourists in and maybe some locals. But whether they'll come back is another issue. The Riviera has introduced some better-than-usual games, for the Strip, including single zero roulette. But the games mostly aren't as good as those available in locals' casinos. I'll be back to play my second $500 in free play, but after that Mr. Acres and his colleagues will have to come up with something else to hook me as a regular.
I wish them luck in trying to revive the Riviera, and I'm afraid they're going to need it.
The reason such statements are so rare is that the "gaming" industry has taken great pains to paint gambling as just another form of entertainment, one with minimal negative effects on the communities where casinos are found. Casinos stress that they love winners, but what they really love are ignorant players who win by dumb luck. Anyone who knows enough not even to win but just to lose less than most is considered a threat by many if not most gaming executives.
Of course, the ugly truth about gambling is that it ruins lives. Not many, as a percentage of those who gamble, but undoubtedly thousands each year in the United States. The extent to which the gaming industry is responsible for creating, enabling and increasing addiction is beyond the scope of this post, because it is beyond my knowledge of these issues. But I do know that the industry does everything it can to disassociate itself from anything hinting at exploitation of addicted gamblers.
The context of Mr. Acres' statement was an information card on a promotion at the Riviera offering new and some inactive players a $1,000 loss guarantee. There's nothing new about this kind of promotion but in five years in Las Vegas I have never seen one this big.
The idea is simple. You sign up for a players' club card and go play a slot or video poker machine until you have had enough or lost $1,000. If you are unlucky enough to win, it's as if the promotion didn't exist. You cash out as usual and that's it. If you lose, you get half your loss back immediately in the form of free slot play and half on your "next visit" (if you take advantage of this promotion, be sure to ask when the second installment becomes available and how long your have to use both installments of your free slot play).
Before we went to the Riviera, my wife and I listened to a discussion of this promotion on the radio program "Gambling with an Edge." Based on the discussion among hosts Bob Dancer and Mike Shakelford and guest Richard Munchkin, we set a goal of winning $2,000 or busting out trying. Losing, say, $300 would be taking advantage of only 30 percent of the value of the promotion. We made sure to get to the casino early in the evening to give ourselves plenty of time to run through $1,000 each.
Several types of slot, video poker and virtual table game machines have been excluded from this promotion. We both decided to play video poker at the highest denomination available, $1 single line. My spouse opted to play double double bonus even though the pay table, 8/5, is horrendous (we looked it up later and found the payback was less than 97 percent). This game offers a lot of opportunities for big hits, including $2,000 for four aces and a kicker, meaning that if she got lucky, she could reach $4,000 without hitting a royal flush. The downside of this strategy is that if she didn't get many four-of-a-kinds she could go down quickly. Of course, with the loss guarantee, the downside risk was greatly reduced. I took a more conservative approach, playing the best game available, 8/5 bonus poker (slightly over 99 percent payback). I knew I'd need a royal flush to hit $2,000, but I planned to alter my strategy a bit to increase the chance of hitting a royal (but in the process decrease the statistical return of the game). I hoped that playing a game with a higher return and less variance would keep me alive longer, giving me more of a chance to hit the royal. Another factor is that I am more comfortable playing bonus poker than double double bonus, though I have played the latter in tournaments.
In retrospect, I think both decisions were defensible, but my wife's was better -- and not just because she wound up hitting four aces with a kicker (after hitting four aces without, which kept her going awhile). I wound up losing $1,000 in less than two hours. At that point she was up a couple of hundred. I went and got my first $500 in free play and ran it through the machine. We decided I'd take advantage of some opportunies at other casinos and come back in a couple of hours. A half hour, maybe 40 minutes later she called me and said she had hit the four aces with a kicker. She was down only about $200, so if she quit right then she'd lock in a $1,800 win. The alternative under our plan was to try to win more or lose a full $1,000, and there probably wasn't time for that. So she "settled" for a win that was $200 short of her goal.
The reason her strategy was probably better than mine is because she had more chances to win. She also had much more of a chance of losing, but the entire loss would be reimbursed. Of course, had she actually lost, she would have played the free play much more conservatively because at that point any losses would be hers, and real.
Now, a word about the title of that executive who said he wanted "the hardcore gambler." To the unititated, "director of player development" might sound like someone in charge of educating players, making them better. But this is the last thing the casinos want. The development in this title refers to the casinos' business, not the quality of its players (unless quality is defined as losing more).
As for Mr. Acres, I think he's got quite a challenge ahead of him. The Riviera, one of the oldest casinos on the Strip, is, by today's standards, a dump. Think the Tropicana before its recent makeover. Furthermore, it's in a really bad neighborhood, by Strip standards, stuck amid closed casinos, failed projects and that butt of jokes, Circus Circus.
The loss guarantee will bring tourists in and maybe some locals. But whether they'll come back is another issue. The Riviera has introduced some better-than-usual games, for the Strip, including single zero roulette. But the games mostly aren't as good as those available in locals' casinos. I'll be back to play my second $500 in free play, but after that Mr. Acres and his colleagues will have to come up with something else to hook me as a regular.
I wish them luck in trying to revive the Riviera, and I'm afraid they're going to need it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
