Posted on 14 Comments

In Case of Recession

Richard Munchkin and I received the following question for our mailbag show on Gambling with an Edge. I think my complete answer is too involved to answer on the podcast, so I’m going to attempt it here. The question was:

Both of you were active APs (I think, anyway) during one of the worst recessions of the last century, in 2008. What meaningful effect did this have on casinos and on your work? Did games tighten up? Comps? Do you have any advice for APs in the event of a deep recession (hypothetically of course…)?

Continue reading In Case of Recession
Posted on 18 Comments

My Explanation

In the comments on gamblingwithanedge.com relating to a recent blog post of mine, a man named Tim wrote: 

Perhaps this has been discussed multiple times, but why don’t the Strip casinos offer full pay video poker? For example, I would sit and play 10 play 9/6 Jacks or better quarters for hours (like I do at South Point). If there is only 6/5 bonus, I may sit at a bar and just play $20. 

Continue reading My Explanation
Posted on 28 Comments

New Casino Opening Up

Resorts World Las Vegas is set to open on June 24. You can bet I’ll be there in the first few days to check things out. If I find anything playable, I’ll play a lot and sit back and wait and see what comes in the mail. I suppose you could say that’s my standard M.O. at casino openings.

Some of my best results ever have been at casino openings. Often the new slot director was an assistant slot director at the last place worked and doesn’t understand how much of a difference there is between the two positions. The net effect is that new casinos sometimes open much looser or more generous than is profitable for them — and that’s good news for the players.

Continue reading New Casino Opening Up
Posted on 37 Comments

Who Are the Patrons?

On our February 4 Gambling with an Edge podcast, Anthony Curtis brought up something that I had experienced, but not understood why it was happening. With some notable exceptions, numerous Las Vegas casinos have really tightened up. Slot clubs are less generous. Promotions are smaller. Games aren’t as loose as they were.

In my opinion, this is not the smart way for these casinos to be acting. Their customers are hurting. Their customers have less money. At least some of the customers are wary about venturing into casinos at all until the percentage of our population vaccinated is much higher than it is now.

Continue reading Who Are the Patrons?
Posted on 3 Comments

Which is the Better Place?

I received an email asking which of two casinos was the better choice for this player.

Casino A had 9/6 Jacks or Better with a 0.1% slot club with no multiple points ever. Casino B had 8/5 Bonus Poker with a 0.25% slot club, and he only played when there were triple points. He said the food comps at Casino A were better, but he wasn’t there for eating. He was there for making money.

He told me he played both games perfectly. This is extremely unlikely. Although 9/6 Jacks or Better is one of the easiest video poker games to memorize, 8/5 Bonus Poker isn’t. I would estimate fewer than one in a thousand 8/5 Bonus Poker players play the game perfectly. But letting that assumption slide, let’s see what we have, assuming perfect play.

 

Casino A:      9/6 Jacks                   99.54%

Slot Club                   00.10%

Total                           99.64%

 

Casino B:      8/5 Bonus                  99.17%

Slot Club                   00.75%

Total                           99.92%

 

The obvious answer, then, is that Casino B is considerably better. For a dollar player who plays 600 hands per hour, Casino A is $8.40 per hour more expensive than Casino B.

The obvious answer is incorrect, however. For this player, it is not the case that Casino B is better. Why not? Because his stated goal is to make money and that means that both casinos are TOTALLY unacceptable. Not less acceptable; TOTALLY unacceptable.

A return of 99.92% is not “close enough.” It’s impossible to end up a long-term winner when the casino has any advantage at all.

If the casinos had other promotions, however, that could change things. Perhaps one or both send periodic checks in the mail on the order of “come in during the first two weeks of the month and we’ll give you $50 just for showing up.” Or perhaps they have regular drawings and the player has a decent shot at winning something valuable. Either or both of these promotions could make the casinos potentially profitable. But without such promotions, the house has the edge.

For most players, this would not be an insurmountable problem. Few players demand that casinos be potentially profitable. (No slot player, for example, has any realistic expectation of being an overall winner. They hope to win THIS TIME, but they know that in the long run the casino will most likely win from them.)

Many players value the gambling experience and count the free meals and rooms as part of the deal. For players like that, both casinos offer an excellent gamble which is better for the player than can be found in many casinos. Which casino is better might well depend on how much better the food is at the casino with the lesser game and how important that is to the player. To some people having a quality meal is extremely important. Others don’t care that much.

Or perhaps how nice the rooms are. Or maybe how smoky the casino is. Or possibly “easier to get to.” All kinds of solid reasons exist for choosing one place over another.

What should this particular player do then? The choice is between either not playing, or lowering his expectations about whether or not this game will be profitable. It would not be terrible should he decide to play anyway because he really enjoys it. After all, people pay to do many pleasurable things. And if gambling is pleasurable, it’s okay to pay for that too. But I encourage you to be realistic about whether you are playing for profit or playing for pleasure.

In similar cases, I ALWAYS choose not to play. I’ve played video poker for close to 25 years and it’s isn’t a “special treat” to me. I enjoy it. But I can go without playing if the odds aren’t there.

Posted on 5 Comments

Build A Wall!

Mr. B, a highly successful AP who doesn’t play casino table games, said to me over lunch in a casino coffee shop, “Why don’t they fix everything? If I ran the casino, I would just make it so that no game is beatable!” I’m sure you would try, B! It’s a fair question, but the full answer goes beyond game protection.

Let’s start with the idea of complete game protection. It’s a unicorn. First of all, it’s not even an appropriate objective. Though some casinos actually do have a pathological drive to thwart all APs, that’s just biting off your nose to spite your face. The real goal is profit maximization. The most random shuffle, which would thwart many AP moves, is not as profitable as a much faster shuffle that may occasionally be beaten by a highly skilled AP. Thorough background checks on every person walking into the casino would shut down some APs, but would create a major discouragement to the thousands of degenerates who want to gamble right now! London’s style of casino management is stupid. A zero tolerance policy is not optimal.

Even if a casino wanted to stop every AP, they couldn’t. Casinos have to play the hand they’ve been dealt. Their employee pool consists of people who are less educated and under-incentivized relative to the top APs who are trying to beat the games. Think about it. Casino employees universally believe that the idiot at third base is killing the table by taking the dealer’s bust card. These are people who believe that simply by virtue of a big bankroll and proper money management, a player can beat the games. Ackkk!

If a new casino opens up in Pennsylvania, there are no local employees who have the experience of the long-time Vegas pros who are about to walk in to whack the games. These employees will not know every AP method to beat the games, and it’s not their job to know. Even a Table Games Manager is not a game-protection specialist. A Table Games Manager has to do many things, while APs specialize. There are always new casinos, new employees, new games, new equipment, and new circumstances that make it impossible for a casino to anticipate and thwart every new method of beating a game.

My crew recently found a new game in a casino. The game gave the basic-strategy player an edge of 10.6%, and this was the stingier incarnation (the first gave an edge over 15%). Since the game was new and unique, the casino had no one to turn to for answers or to check the inventor’s math, and the game died a horrible death. Next!

But the real reason that it is difficult to thwart all AP activity is not related to game protection, but rather game design. Suppose that the casinos actually want to provide some entertainment value while they suck every penny from a gambler’s life savings (I said “suppose”!) In that case, they probably want the game to involve some playing decisions. (Obviously, the success of three-reel slots and baccarat shows that playing decisions are not necessarily critical to provide entertainment value. Addictive drugs are entertaining.)
Furthermore, they probably want the game to give the players an edge in the ballpark of -4% (fast games, such as blackjack and Casino War, can make money for the casino even with edges in the -0.5% to -2.5% range). Here’s the key question: Given that there are playing decisions to make within the game, what is the gap between the typical gambler’s edge and the expert player’s edge?

If the game involves tricky consequential decisions, then the expert player’s edge might be 20% higher than the gambler’s edge. But if the casino wants the masses to be playing at -4%, then it means the expert is now at +16%. If we were to make the payouts stingier, to put an expert at breakeven, then the gambler would be at -20%. At that level, the gambler probably gets gutted too quickly, and the game won’t be popular. The zero-tolerance policy to thwart the expert makes the game unpalatable to the thousands of regular gamblers.

You’ve got to give the fish some play for their money. Fantasy sports websites started to see this problem. The pros were gutting the fish so efficiently that the fish lost interest, and the regulators started questioning the equity of it all.

So the key in game design is to offer a set of decisions where the range from the smart to the stupid is not too extreme, or to offer decisions that provide entertainment, but which are completely inconsequential in the game, and which are meaningless in terms of EV. For instance, in Rock, Paper, Scissors, the player has a choice, but a meaningless one if measured by EV. Likewise, choosing Banker vs. Player in baccarat is a relatively inconsequential decision, but one which receives more human scrutiny each day than the debate over climate change.

Posted on 19 Comments

Are Women the Dutch Book?

Last week, as part of the celebration for International Women’s Day (March 8), a statue of a defiant girl staring down the Wall Street bull appeared. Count me among those who love the statue and hope it will stay. It is no secret that women are under-represented in many fields, including the AP world, as I discussed in an earlier post. Some APs have floated the idea that if the casino’s old-boy network underestimates the skills of women, women might actually have a strategic advantage relative to their fellow male APs. These ringer women will get away with murder, and will make huge profits before they are even suspected. Well, that’s the theory at least, but are women the Dutch Book? Continue reading Are Women the Dutch Book?

Posted on 17 Comments

You’re Not Ready Yet

Immediately after one of my classes at the South Point, a man, “Joe,” came up to me and asked if I would mentor him in becoming a professional video poker player. He told me he had plenty of bankroll and wanted to turbocharge his learning process. He had heard that I would do private consulting for $250 an hour with a two-hour minimum and that did not present a problem for him.

I had another engagement after class, so we scheduled a lunch date for the near future. Although I have food comps at casinos, I preferred having the conversation at a local Applebee’s where the chances of being overheard by other players was far less. I don’t pay retail for food in Vegas very often, but this was one of those times.

In the time before I met with Joe, I tried to figure out what kind of person I would be willing to mentor. Assuming he had the bankroll, I figured the main criteria were:

a. His personality was acceptable to me. This isn’t a particularly high bar to cross, but there are a few people I just don’t enjoy hanging out with. I didn’t want a long-term relationship with somebody like that.

b. He was smart enough. Video poker is applied math. Not everybody is capable of learning it at a high level.

c. He had some history of success at the game and could study on his own. When I’m consulting with somebody two hours at a time, I don’t really care how good they are when they come to me. I’ll spend the two hours doing my best to improve their skill and knowledge level. But a mentoring relationship is a longer-term affair and spending dozens of hours while moving somebody from beginner to intermediate isn’t how I want to spend my time.

Okay. After Joe and I ordered lunch, I asked him where he lived and how he got his bankroll. I had spoken to Joe a few times previously and he passed the personality test, such as it is. He had sent me a number of emails over the past few years with questions and/or suggestions for the Gambling with an Edge radio show. These emails led me to believe he was smart enough to succeed at this.

Joe told me he was 49 years old, lived on the East Coast, and had recently inherited more than $2 million. He planned to retire from the Air Force Reserve in a few months and was looking at how he wanted to spend the rest of his life.

Joe had listened to a number of the radio shows and it really sounded like I enjoyed my life more than he enjoyed his. Plus, he had read my Million Dollar Video Poker autobiography and was fascinated with the life of a gambler. He decided he wanted to invest a portion of his inheritance, maybe $200,000, to see if he had the aptitude to maybe be the next Bob Dancer.

I asked him how many of the Winner’s Guides he had closely studied. He told me he had purchased a set but had yet to open them up. I asked him how much time he had spent with a computer program such as Video Poker for Winners. He told me he hadn’t purchased a copy of that yet but it was next on his list.

I told him he wasn’t ready for mentoring yet. In the next six months, I suggested he learn two games at the professional level — perhaps Jacks or Better and NSU Deuces Wild. Using the Winner’s Guides and the software, this wasn’t such a formidable task. But neither was it a trivial one.

Then, I wanted him to spend at least two weeks straight in Las Vegas or another casino city gambling 30 hours a week. At the end of that, if he still wanted me to mentor him, he knew how to get in touch with me. I would give him a test on the two games, and if he knew the games at a high level, we could revisit the mentoring idea.

Joe was in love with the idea of being a gambler, but he hadn’t had any actual experience. It’s hard work to get to the professional level at one game — let alone two. Playing 60 hours will turn out to be a boring experience for many people.

Video poker is a grind-it-out affair. It’s one thing to be fascinated by what appears to be a glamorous life. It’s another thing entirely to go through the process of getting good at some games and then successfully playing those games for 60 hours without going totally bonkers.

Can Joe do this?

I don’t know. If he can’t, he was never going to be a success at gambling anyway. If he can master two games and still be interested in being mentored after some real-life experience, then at least he will be going into this with his eyes wide open rather than looking through the rose-colored glasses he seems to be wearing today.

On one of our radio shows, Richard Munchkin told us that he periodically gets these kinds of requests from people wishing to learn blackjack. Richard tells them to learn basic strategy completely for four different games — i.e. with or without standing on soft 17 and with or without the ability to double after splitting. Once they know all four of these basic strategies, come back and see him again.

Richard tells me he’s never had somebody come back to him with these four strategies memorized.

I guess Richard’s experience influenced how I dealt with Joe. The task I gave Joe is more difficult than learning four basic strategies — each of which is more than 90% identical with the others. Jacks or Better and Deuces Wild are games very different from each other.

Still, if Joe passes this test, he’ll be a worthy student and I won’t mind at all working with him.