A few weeks ago, I posted a blog about not making an agreement with a player I didn’t know. (Did you notice that that blog was the first time I used an interrobang‽) That reminded me of a time I did make a deal. It wasn’t a deal where I had the advantage, but it was a deal to reduce variance.
It was at the Palms when it was still owned by the Maloofs. Perhaps 2007 or 2008, I’m not sure.
The Palms had weekly drawings back then which were very lucrative to professional players. They would give away $10,000 to $20,000 every week, and you earned entries by playing — something like one virtual ticket for every $100 coin-in. Why it was so good for professional players was that they had $5 Five Play (and $25 single line) NSU Deuces Wild.
This is a 99.73% game, and when you added in slot club, mailers, and comps, it was slightly positive game on the top. It doesn’t take too many hours to play $200,000 or more coin-in, and this much play gave you a pretty good shot at getting one of the prizes in the drawing — probably $500+ in drawing EV for that much play.
“Regular” players, who played far less, resented the fact the same players seemed to win every week. I was aware of these players being unhappy about these drawings and figured the casino would eventually find a way to spread out the winners of the drawings. But in the meantime, every Friday night I was at the Palms to get my share.
On this particular Friday, it was a bigger than average prize. Nine people were called. I was one of the nine. Eight of us got $500 in free play, and the ninth received $16,000 cash or free play. For the nine finalists, that would be an EV of $2,222 each, with some variance.
To determine who got which prize, we were called up one at a time, in the order drawn, to select envelopes on a big board. Inside eight of the envelopes was a piece of paper saying $500, and inside one was a paper saying $16,000. I looked carefully at the envelopes and they all looked the same. So far as I was concerned, this part of the drawing was pure luck.
As it happened, I was the eighth person to draw. I wasn’t even called in the first nine people. But two of the “winners” didn’t show up in the 90 seconds allowed so they redrew. I’ve made it into several drawings through the years on redraws.
The odds were very strong that by the time I got to draw, it would be moot. The $16,000 envelope would be gone, and I’d get the default $500. The seventh person to draw was “Grace,” a young woman you’ll hear more about shortly. The last person to draw was a man I had never seen before. I wasn’t going to make a deal with him. I had no idea if I could trust him.
As it happened, the first six people (I knew three of them) all drew $500. It was now down to Grace, me, and the other guy. I had never spoken to Grace, but I knew who she was. She was probably in her 30s (I was 60 in 2007), and she was the daughter of a video poker pro I had known for more than ten years. I had seen Grace at maybe 20-40 other drawings at the Palms and elsewhere, and she had picked up money in some of them. I had seen her frequently playing the same sort of machines as I played. I considered her “in the profession.”
“Grace, do you know who I am?”
She nods.
“Do you want to do a save?”
“Maybe,” she replies. “What do you have in mind?”
“If I win the $16,000, I cover the taxes on it and I pay you $5,000 cash. If you win the $16,000, I get $5,000 and you pay the taxes. If the other guy gets it, no harm no foul.”
“Sounds fair,” she responded. This wasn’t good enough. Just because she says it sounds fair doesn’t mean she agrees to it.
There were several witnesses to the exchange. I turned to a lady we both knew and trusted and said, “Did you hear that? Was it clear and left no room for misinterpretation?”
The woman replied it sounded clear and fair to her. I told Grace that we had a deal, and Grace nodded.
This was good enough. Grace had accepted the deal in front of witnesses. Some players shake hands to “seal the deal.” That has no legal bearing. I only do that if the other person sticks out a hand. In this case, no hands were shaken.
So, we had a deal. Grace turns around and selects an envelope. She drew $500, turns around to me and shrugs her shoulders somewhat apologetically.
It’s now my turn. Several people in the crowd are advising me to pick the one on the right. Probably as many are advising me to pick the one on the left. Whichever one I pick, there would be a lot of people coming up afterwards with, “I told you so!”
I picked the one on the right. It was for $500. Damn! At this point, I was clinging to the faint chance that the last one was for $500 too. I was hoping the Palms screwed up somehow and they would have to do it all over again. But my hoping was for naught. The last guy stood there in shock as the $16,000 fell to him. Oh well. I told him congratulations, went over to Grace, and said, “Maybe some other time,” and went to the cage to sign for my $500 free play.
So, the deal Grace and I made came to be for a situation that didn’t come to pass. Often that happens. You need to have the deal in place beforehand in case some particular circumstance happens. After you know the results of the drawing is too late to make a deal.
I’ve done versions of this “save” numerous times over the years with gamblers I knew and trusted. The key parts are:
- Trust between the parties.
- Clear handling of all possibilities.
- Clear agreement on who bears the tax liability.
This last point was in the news not long before this drawing took place. Jamie Gold won $12,000,000 in the 2006 World Series of Poker event, and there was somebody who put up some percentage (perhaps 50%, I don’t remember) of Jamie’s $10,000 entry fee for a share of the profits. Now that the result was in, Jamie insisted the split should be “after taxes” and the other guy wanted his money “before taxes.” Eventually it got settled, but it got played out in public and it hurt Jamie’s reputation.
I especially didn’t want a misunderstanding like this because I was a “rich and famous” gambler who wrote a book about winning a million dollars, and the person I was making the deal with is almost always somebody that most people outside of the video poker gambler community have never heard about. If it became some sort of news, the sentiment would usually be against me. No thanks!
Well that’s was in the good ol’ times. When the Maloof managed Palms casino had good videopoker and good promotions. I remember that. They even had Full Pay Deuces Wild progressive. The small time gamblers went crazy about these machines. I even hit the progressive once, and the attendant was smart enough to hussle out a nice tip of me….
Cash drawings that are based on the concept to draw all winners first and then have them pick an envelope is a nice thing for the peanut gallery but its’ not very effective. Each and everybody visiting a casino during such a drawing wants to win, which is a given. So if his name is not being called, he/she feels frustrated or disappointed. You can see that whenever big drawings are over, the crowds are vanishing and there’s back-up from the parking lot to the exit roads. I agree that such drawings should honor high volume players and grand them more drawing tickets and not hand out one ticket to a patron per day, but there are probably legal issues that do not allow pushing high volume play in order to hand out more drawing tickets and hence the chances of winning something. From the casino’s point of view, however, this is exactly the right and the only way to maximize the effective value of a cash drawing.
I work for a relatively small casino that is offering cash drawings from time to time. There are no requirements in terms of playing volume in order to get a drawing ticket. Each visitor entering the casino during a given period is being given 1 ticket, one-per-day. Europe’s casinos have entry policies and register the patrons in the system, you can’t just walk into a place. So, I have noticed that whenever there’s such a drawing, a lot of people come to visit, many young patrons that don’t actually look like gamblers but rather like people looking for freebies, and once the drawing is through, they mysteriosly disappear again.
Since our drawing is giving away the prizes without such a bling bling show and tries to keep it short and fast, I have not vitnessed and potential deal-making among those winners. Except perhaps personal deals between friends, just in case one of them gets drawn and this winner has a personal deal with someone else. Which is not the casino’s concern. Plus, our cash drawings are not taxeable. I am sure that some people have similar deals described by Mr Bob Dancer, although it’s actually not even worth the sweat in my opinion.
From Switzerland
Boris
I actually would prefer the system Bob described, versus the protracted “one at a time” winner drawings, suffering through comedy acts or skits or loud band numbers in between (yeah, generation gap). I finally realized that mostly I’m treading the guppy pool in those drawings, having earned a few paltry tickets while higher players have hundreds in the barrel. Just call me the head grape on the vine…head sour grape, that is. LOL.
OK, so give me your opinions on this “save” which was with a good buddy of mine, and caused some hurt feelings, but I thought I was totally in the right:
years back at the Round bar in Pechanga the 1$ progressive royal was over 11K; my lifelong friend and I both had seats and did a Save for i think 3/4k or so….we played for couple hours and of course nada, and at that point my buddy was getting pretty beat up financially…he says something to the effect of ” I gotta take a break” or “im getting food” or something, and left the area. Not sure if he locked up machine , but he had been gone for minimum 20 minutes when of course I hit it.
I texted him pic and say “you are going to want to kill yourself ,lol…knowing that he knows that he had bowed out of our deal…but he came back and was adamant that he was owed his “save” …I laughed and said you had quit (basically) and i owed him nada–i was shocked he even thought he should be getting his share….I never paid him and we remain friends but he was not happy for awhile about this…
Is there any shot im in the wrong?
A few pieces of feedback:
1. This is sort of corrective input, but it’s not meant to put Mr. Dancer down, but to make him feel better. Re the statement “The odds were very strong that by the time I got to draw, it would be moot. The $16,000 envelope would be gone, and I’d get the default $500.”, the vibe that comes through is that he wished he had an earlier position in the draw (ideally, going first) so as to have a better chance of getting the $16,000 envelope. But that’s just not true. All 9 contestants had an equal chance of drawing the best envelope, no matter what place in the sequence you got. Look at it this way: The first person who picks an envelope has an 88.9% chance of winding up with a $500 envelope. But so do all the other 8 people.
2. Re the agreement “If I win the $16,000, I cover the taxes on it and I pay you $5,000 cash. If you win the $16,000, I get $5,000 and you pay the taxes. If the other guy gets it, no harm no foul.”: I’m not sure this is always a fair deal to the winner. If you’re in a high-enough tax bracket, you might have to lose 1/2 of that $16K to taxes, leaving you with just $3K after giving $5K away. A wise/fair split would be either $5K/$3K favoring the winner, or $4K/$4K.
3. A three-way agreement with the other guy might be OK, if he’s a local and his residence address is printed on his driver’s license. All three parties would agree to take photos of the others’ faces and driver’s licenses and slot-club cards via their cell phones. If the guy doesn’t have a local address on his DL, or doesn’t have a club card, then no deal. But if it’s a go, then you all would swear to a contract verbally in front of 1 or 2 other people you can trust, and shake hands just for the gesture. Verbal contracts ARE legally binding. The “save” amount would be $2K or $2,500.
4. I dislike the structure that severely favors rich people or, at least, those who are able to play at a very high denom, precisely for the reasons stated: Rich people have an unfair advantage and it’s the same contestants most of the time. The high rollers are already getting more perks than the common folk; they don’t need more. Harrah’s on the Strip had a drawing many years ago in which 3 names would be drawn to choose a key and see if it would start this new car. This rich, well-to-do, 50-ish, very reserved (unsmiling) woman’s name was drawn for 2 of the 3 names. The 3rd name was a young Hispanic lady in her 20’s who was smiling and clearly not a high roller. The older woman chose her 2 keys first, then the young lady took the remaining key. The older woman put the 1st key in and turned it, but it didn’t start the car. Then she put her 2nd key in, and it didn’t start the car either. Then the young lady put her key in turned it, and the car started. I and a lot of other people were so happy that she won the car instead of the rich old lady.
5. To Alex Moore, who asked what we thought about his refusal to give his friend the $750: Yes, you absolutely were in the wrong. Not to put you down, but what you did was unethical, and jerk-ish (because the guy was a good long-time friend). The friend said he was taking a break; he did NOT say that he was finished playing. What should’ve been done was for him to specify whether he was or was not done playing. If he said he was done, then it would’ve been okay for you to keep the entire $11K. But if he said he was taking a break but then coming back, then you would prorate the $750 downward. But if you were truly a “best buddy”, you wouldn’t even do this math (much less give him zilch); you would’ve just given him the $750, because best buddies don’t require everything to be even-steven, because best buddies just do often treat the other guy without there being a reason or occasion for doing so.
I’m going to answer for Bob on your first point. Bob is well aware that his EV does not depend on the draw order. But the blog post is about cutting a deal. Cutting a deal with many players is very difficult, and not worth even attempting for a drawing where the prize range is $500 to $16k (the final table of WSOP might be a different story). The only chance to cut a deal and blog the story later, is when it gets down to the last three players 7 8 and 9, where Bob is 8. But the envelopes are opened sequentially. So once the first six players have picked, there is a 67% chance that the big prize is gone, and the issue of cutting a deal is moot.
This one is my comment to Alex Moore’s experience: Well , that’s something you have to deal with all the time, and it’s not easy to make the proper decision. In fact, if you play with somebody who is playing at much lower pace than you or somebody who is constantly taking restroom breaks or goes for a walk or enjoys chatting with friends on the phone, then I would probably not make the deal and play on my own.
If the person is a very good friend of yours and money matters to both of you, then you would be better off discussing that before you get ready to play. Since you have known each other for many years before you started playing for the Royal Flush and your buddy decided to call it a quits, then its very difficult to make the proper decision. Perhaps such a possible scenario would have to discussed and set for granted before you start playing, for example….”if someone of us both takes a dinner break, restroom break or does many phone calls (in order to reduce the gaming action and hence his volatilty), while the other person is playing and happens to hit it, then the share goes down to a certain amount (1000 dollars, 2000 dollars, etc?). The full deal is only valid as long as both players are playing simultaneously and there should be a rule to play seriously and at ore or less the same pace. Breaks or Quits would result in a previously defined amount (consolation prize). This would motivate each other to play on together and go for the big 1.
Such deals remind me of those silly final table in poker tournaments where extra deals that are oftentimes made in order to give the bubble boy a little something being the unlucky loser. The payout structure is usually predefined by the poker management and that’s something which is the way it should be played accordingly. However, different stack sizes can motivate players all the time to try to get more or less from the prize pool, based on the current stack they have. I prefer a no-deal and would appreciate if that would be the rule but of course the house doesn’t want to mess with the players and keep them as their patrons for the future, so this negotiation thing is something that is part of the game.
From Switzerland
Boris
I do deals with people, never had an issue or problem, in the old low ball five card draw game at least half the regulars had bad beat jackpot sharing deals. I personally despise all drawings, just give me a fair game and fair promotions to entice me to play at your facility. My local card room does a “promotion”, they raffle off freaking designer hand bags, if you get an ace high flush or better you get a raffle ticket. Worst. Promotion. Ever. I say give out food comps, raise the jackpot, double the jackpot during certain times, try to give all the players the feeling they have a shot. Promotions are scarce since Covid, it’s going the other way, they have discontinued food comps at my local, I have repeatedly expressed my displeasure to management, to no avail… The very best promotion for a live poker game is the $100 bonus when you lose with pocket aces, this promotion is magic, when you are dealt aces your blood starts immediately flowing, hard. It brings in players, Gucci bags do not…
Alex’s buddy left, that contingency wasn’t discussed. I’d have had to honor the deal, especially since the “lifelong friend” was low on funds, and the karma thing, since I had the good fortune. But that’s just me.
Better still, Alex could have chosen not to rub it in the friend’s face by texting the picture etc. , since Alex knew he wasn’t going to honor the deal. Alex could have just taken the money and left the area. Once they met up again he could have kept it to himself that he hit the jackpot while the friend was gone. Lifelong friendship saved.
I’d be willing to bet that this friend will forgive but never forget, and maybe with some unspoken hard feelings.
Candy
Seeing the responses , I guess i didnt make it clear enough that to me, he was done playing at that Bar where the Royal is and wasnt clear AT ALL that he was coming back to play. In face , he may very well have been playing elsewhere when I did hit it–isnt that just a freeroll for him if true?. I would ALWAYS do the right thing in my mind as far as these deals go, and was 100% in the right, and would never have thought to get paid if situations were reversed.
That is why I sent that pic, not to rub anything in my 40 year long friends’ face but to just say “geez, i fcking hit the thing and you had bailed out, oh well”
Believe me , he has done alright by me over the years. Just this year a mini-max slot jackpot was like at 9.2k (must hit by 10k) and I was there and he was home. I had plenty of money on me to give it a whirl on my own but texted him and asked him if wants in to bring at least 3k out there….he said yes and hit the road (probably 45 min drive).
Needless to say I had 4.7k waiting for him when he arrived as i hit it long before he got there…a nice little bonus for him…
Did you pay your friend his investment? It’s not too late to do that and tack on some interest. But if it wasn’t clear, you pay him. Possibly, he would’ve not taken the full amount. But what a friendship strengthening jesture that would’ve been. And how many things since then might he have excluded you. It’s good you’re still friends; can’t put a price on that!
I think the #1 point to take away from this story is that it really helps, and it really avoids debates and problems, if we get everything nailed down beforehand. When you delineate all details ahead of time, then there is nothing fuzzy or unknown, and there is nothing to differ about or argue about. I once typed up documents (as a word processor many years ago) for a lawsuit in which there was a dispute over what the insurance company was required to cover and pay out. It was a long, complex case that ran up a lot of lawyer hours. And you know why there was a dispute? Because the insurance company did not define the term “incident” in the policy. What happened, in a nutshell, is that a car going downhill on a street in a hilly area, badly scraped a parked car, then continued downhill and had another such encounter with a (different) parked car, and then continued on and had a 3rd such encounter before it came to a halt. The policy had a maximum payout “per incident”, so of course the insurance company argued that the entire group of encounters was just one incident, while the insured guy argued that there were three incidents. If the insurance company had simply written a detailed definition of “incident” into the policy, there would’ve been no difference of opinion, and no lawsuit.
The same applies to the situation here. We can’t say for 100% sure that the friend had decided to end his play and thus definitely be out of the deal. We also can’t say for 100% sure that the friend would be coming back and thus should have been continuously in the deal and thus deserving of his little cut if Alex hit the jackpot while he was away. The friend should’ve been proactive and stated what his plans/intentions were, and if he didn’t do that, Alex should’ve queried him to get an answer to that question. They both should’ve worked to nail down what the friend’s status would be, and if they did that, then there wouldn’t have been any doubt or disagreement. We should do this in all areas of life, if we can.
However, having said the above statements, I have to say that my clear impression is that the friend was not ending his play or his right to get his small portion of the prize. His statements, as relayed by Alex, just do not say that he was terminating his participation. But in a later post, Alex says that he’s pretty sure that the friend did intend to exit from the endeavor. The question arises: How or why are you sure of that? Your original description of what happened doesn’t support that assertion, so was there something the friend said that you did not report? You are coming off as being under the spotlight and trying to get the heat off you. But that all could’ve been avoided if you guys had nailed everything down before the friend left the area.
You mentioned the possibility that your friend might have deceived you by actually playing on a machine elsewhere in the casino (out of your sight) when he said he was taking a break. Well, if he did that, then I would have to say that you two guys aren’t the “best buds” that you suggested you are. My impression is that I don’t think he would do that. That would be extremely crafty, but also unlikely. If he intended on continuing to play and go for the royal, but he just wanted to leave his current machine because it wasn’t paying well, why wouldn’t he just say that he’s moving to a different machine? That’s what most people would say if this were the case.
Your friend could have many reasons for wanting to continue the friendship despite what happened, so the fact that he remained your friend (and hasn’t brought this up every day) doesn’t mean that he isn’t still fuming inside, holding it against you. If you truly want to be a good-quality friend, and have a good-quality friendship, I think you should offer him $500 out of that $750. He can’t disagree that he played less time than you did, so he has to agree to a reduced amount, and 2/3 seems fair and appropriate. Giving him this amount would likely erase all (or at least most) of whatever resentment or victimization he’s been feeling, and make things feel all right. That would make for a better friendship in the future. I think that’s worth it.
I want to report a positive little experience I had over a decade ago. The Pioneer is a small casino in Laughlin that is definitely geared toward low rollers. I don’t remember them having any VP machines at more than the $1 denomination (though I admit I didn’t check that out). They had a promotion in which you got 1 drawing ticket for each 4-of-a-Kind you got, no matter what denom you played at, so long as you were playing max-coin. (I don’t remember if you also got a ticket for getting final hands that were better than a mere quad: straight flush, royal flush, aces with 2-3-4.) Anyway, over 3 days of play, playing max-coin quarters ($1.25 per hand), I got 41 tickets and put them in the physical barrel after each of my playing sessions. I wound up having about 1/3 of the tickets in the barrel! I had a great chance at the top prize of $200, and I did in fact win it. Giving 1 ticket for each “big hit”, no matter what the denom, instead of awarding tickets for coin-through or points earned, was the most democratic and fair, because it didn’t favor the richer players. All players had an equal chance of getting the top prize. I think that’s the best way to go.
Hey Alex, you did ask…”give me your opinions”…and “Is there any shot I’m in the wrong?”
So we opined. That’s all.
I interpreted Alex’s original post to mean their deal was for 3 or 4 thousand dollars. It seems most others here interpreted it as $750. Can you clarify, Alex?
I once had a very good play opportunity and I asked other members of my family if that would like to pool their money with me. We would split up the profits equally. In the end we all won and were issued W2-Gs. I agonized over how to properly reimburse each person for the tax consequences they incurred.
I don’t think I will do that again.
This is tough territory. There are armies of actuaries speculating on contingencies like these – running models, what-if scenarios, reducing psychology to a set of mathematical symbols, etc. Just how much work -is- involved in making what might seem like a casual agreement and then enforcing it? Judy Justice seems to be filled with people who don’t “get it in writing,” and who are perhaps valuing a chance meeting as an acquaintanceship or even a friendship at the time things are discussed only to find out that when it got all the way to court, there wasn’t much in the first place.