Author’s note: Today’s story is a composite between two different incidents that were somewhat similar, but each different from the other. So, the final result is fiction but based on fact. Readers are invited to consider how they would have handled this situation had it happened to them in a game they played. Ignore for now that this game was larger than many of my readers play. This kind of situation can happen on a game of any size.
In 2002, there was one $5 Multi Strike Deuces Bonus Poker game at the ABC casino, along with three $1 versions of the same game. The game was worth about 99.6%, but with the slot club, mailers, and promotions, it was a good game. Especially since valuable weekly drawings were held and this $100-per-play game resulted in a lot of tickets obtained at an advantage.
The problem was there was only one such machine, and many players wanted to play it — especially one team with about eight players on it. This was, by far, the single best machine to play for well-financed knowledgeable players in that casino. If this team got the machine, I figured this game would be tied up 24/7 and hence the opportunity would be lost to me. I approached this team about including me in their rotation and they weren’t interested.
So, while I sat at the machine, I formed my own group of players as a machine-sharing-team. I knew a bunch of strong well-bankrolled players and it was easy to convince several of hooking up for a regular 6-8 hour shift “for the duration.”
One day, after I had pulled a double shift because one person called in sick, I spoke to my “relief player,” John, and he said he wouldn’t be able to make it. He was on a progressive on the other side of town that was worth more to him. Sorry.
I tried to talk him into giving up the other play. He had promised us. We might never get back on this machine again. Wasn’t his promise worth anything?
I tried to keep going, to make it a full 24-hour-shift, but I couldn’t. I called a number of other players, but nobody was able to come in and play. I became so exhausted I couldn’t see straight. I had to abandon the machine.
The next day began a month-long run where the team had the game and no non-team player could get to it. I kept checking every couple of days, in case.
Eventually the team gave up on the game. I’m not sure why. So, I got back on it and began to reform a new team.
One day John came by and asked to be part of the rotation on the game. I told him that he had let us down before and I/we were quite leery of giving him another shot at letting us down again. Once burned, twice shy.
He told me he had made a mistake, regretted it, and wanted another chance. “Everybody deserves a second chance,” he told me. “Let me prove to you I’ve changed.” I told him we already had a full team but would consider him in a backup role in case somebody had to cancel a shift or two. I never ended up calling him for this or any other game. And should I run into him today, I would not consider him for a similar position.
And this is where I’ll leave the story.
My questions to the reader are:
- Would you forgive and forget like nothing had happened? After all, nobody is perfect, everyone has made mistakes, and sometimes it’s a choice of choosing among various people, each with his/her own flaws. Or,
- Would you figure that he has shown his true colors, and once somebody has decided to put temporary profit over his agreements with friends, they will probably do that again given the chance?
What would you do?
Neither. If you don’t have a need for him, don’t include him as he is potentially unreliable. But as a backup person, better than nothing. Did he show his true colors? Who knows? Not sure why that question needs an answer.
Like any team sport, John let down the entire team by committing to be a member, then deciding there was a better opportunity elsewhere. By not fulfilling his obligation he basically punched his own ticket out of the group regarding future opportunities. Not to speak for the other participants but can’t see anyone willing to bring him back into the team because I for one would always be thinking is he going to show up today?
To avoid such situations, I never play on teams. But, I agree that John cannot be trusted.
Perhaps a different form of the question would be to consider the reverse situation for Bob. Somehow I have difficulty in believing that had the rolls been reversed and Bob was on an advantage play that he would give it up to play a lesser advantage play. I suspect that possibly Bob would have also taken a pass, but if he made that decision he would know that he was burning his bridges but would be mature enough to not have returned with his tail between his legs. He would just accept the consequences of his decision. Only Bob would know the true answer to this, perhaps he’ll comment?
John claimed that the progressive machine on the other side of town was worth more to him. I agree in the short term it was more profitable. However, a great advantage player would take into consideration the longer term. Being part of team can provide many more opportunities over the years. His lack of taking that into account shows he may not be as great an advantage player as first thought. Based on that, I would not let him on a team.
So, why are the others you called who declined to come in being excused and only “John” is being voted off the island? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the meaning of “relief” player. Is a “relief” player the same status as everyone else on the team? Sounds like they all left you hanging out to dry, not just John. JMHO.
Past performance predicts future behavior.
Candy
My thoughts, even though I’ve never been on a team, is that the other players have their scheduled time in advance.
Some on the team might have other jobs, etc that would prevent them coming to sub at the spur of the moment.
John committed, then reneged….not a good thing when you’re talking about your team’s monetary outcome.
Also, he told Bob he had a better play elsewhere, not that he had a family emergency, car wreck, etc. He showed his true colors. Once is enough for me.
+1 on first comment. He made an agreement and failed to live up to it for his own benefit even though he had a +ev agreement. He is not trustworthy.
I don’t think it’s wise to blacklist somebody if their offense was not egregious. There’s more to be considered than any one poster has posted. It would be fine, and wise, to tell John that if he is given another chance and he fails for a 2nd time, then he will be be totally out permanently. I’m a believer in giving people the chance to repent and show that they mean it, and I think that that’s the wise thing to do religiously/metaphysically (for me, that involves God; for others, that involves karma or some other concept). And the flip side is that I believe it is religiously/metaphysically unwise and dangerous to not believe someone and not give them a chance to show that they have repented if they have in fact repented (I don’t think God would be happy with me). And there’s one other element to consider: If you don’t give John his 2nd chance, you will probably turn a friend into an enemy, and that could cause bad consequences down the road, in more ways than one. So I think the middle ground would be to give John another chance, but place him as the lowest member of the team. You should try to fill up your team with other people and make him the alternate who will fill in if there’s a cancellation; but if you can’t quite get enough other players to fill the team without John, then he would be a member of the rotation.
Always a “bleeding heart” wanting to give an obvious “me first” individual a “pass”. This guy had his chance and he blew it – you can not depend on him. Let him go his own way.
The whole “shame on you, shame on me” comment comes to mind. When given such an opportunity and you commit, you had better keep your part of the bargain. He welched on the team. Story over.
To clarify the monetary significance of his failure to keep his commitment to the team, what was the total EV for the time that the whole team missed out on the play. In other words, on average how much did this guy cost the entire team by losing control of the machine to the other team? This may be difficult to estimate since one would have to figure out expected FreePlay in mailers and drawing winnings forfeited.
We don’t live in a perfect world. Everyone deserves a second chance. Forget spite. If he fails again, then do what you have to do. Until then, please give the guy another chance. Be kind. Even when money is involved.
@Candy…It was JOHN’S TURN….not just ANYONE’S turn. He had COMMITTED to OTHER PEOPLE to THAT DAY THAT TIME….. If your babysitter said “I’ll be there Friday at 8 and called you at 7:30 and said “Someone is paying me more money to babysit their kid tonight so you’ll have to do without me, ” and you had to cancel your extremely expensive dinner and hotel room that you had paid for in advance with no refund, would you REHIRE that babysitter under the exact same circumstances a month later ?
@Al Why would you consider this ‘NOT EGREGIOUS?” You lost use of a vital tool for over a month because of someone’s SELFISH behavior!!
Wow, I don’t know what planet you both are from. I don’t think you realize what someone’s ‘WORD” is supposed to mean.
If it was initially made clear that John was on call 24/7 then shame on John.
Did John even bother calling the team to tell them about this progressive? The team was doing 6 hour shifts. Maybe one of the members would have wanted to play the progressive when not on duty. If the progressive was full, then John should have found someone to take his place while he fulfilled his obligation to the team.
Ah, the good ideas when the problem wasn’t finding something to play, the problem was what to play.
I had to go back to the original story and confirmed that John was a ‘relief player’, it was NOT a time for which he had originally been scheduled. With that I am up in the air, as I don’t know exactly what agreement was made for him to be in that position. Based only on the information given, I’d say another chance in that role would be reasonable, though he certainly wouldn’t be my only option if possible. And I’d make sure the expectations were clear on both sides.
SOSO. The teams !!! Hog a machine for weeks to make money. Screw the John Q player who wants to play for fun. I expect BS but this is exactly what happened to vpoker over years. You cannot just play for yourself. Listen to yer self. Look in the mirror and what do you see. ? Greed inconsiderate players wh destroyed vpoker. Screw your remarks in advance
Bob Dancer…please explain……
Could you please explain what you mean by “relief player?”
Was this guy just your sub in an emergency and he would never know when the team would call?
Or, did he have a scheduled time and was a full-time part of the team?
I read it as, he was the planned “relief” shift coming in for a planned 6 hours. If he was a “temp” (or “sub” so to speak), I believe he would have the right to say no, I’m not available this time, unless you had come to a previous
agreement that his use was at the team’s discretion, not his own.
Thanks
This is a great example how selfish gamblers actually are. The true face of John came up, and many others will probably remain hidden for a long time. If you play in a team, how can you always be 100 per cent sure that no member of that gambling team is reporting higher losses that they actually happened? We all know that story and how it ends, but how sure can you actually be that it never happened to you in your life? It’s tough to trust a liar a 2nd time and if John was not a liar then at least his behavior was dis-honest.
One of the comments goes into the direction that such plays destroyed all good videopoker. I have to disagree on that one. In my opinion it was meant to happen anyway because people are using software at home to improve their skills and the casinos also learned their lessons. Today’s promotions aren’t as good as they used to be because the margins have become way smaller, for everybody. And some day all good videopoker games will be gone, that’s for sure.
Europe doesn’t have any good videopoker at all. Some of you readers may find this unusual, perhaps even bizarre. However, casinos over here still give the gamblers a good chance to win. At least there are no such things are silly WO-2 forms for winners over 1199 Dollars, which is just ridiculous nowadays. Compared to 20 years ago, 1199 dollars equals to perhaps 500 to 600 “old” dollars by value, so what did they not raise that threshold long time ago? For tourists like me this rule has eliminated all interest in playing for higher stakes while in Las Vegas.
From Switzerland, Boris
some people have asked about my ‘relief player’ phrasing. John was a full team member, and had scheduled times to be there. I called him a relief player because I had the shift before him and he was relieving me.
It retrospect, perhaps I should have said that more clearly.
Bob’s explanation of “relief player” and “rotation” does clear things up a bit.
Maybe a “fair” way of doing it, if there are enough members: Two missed calls/filling your shift, for any reason, and you don’t arrange for your replacement, you are off the team forever. Something like that. That takes out the ‘friendship’ and ‘truthful’ variables. Somebody has to do the bookkeeping, though.
As for “John”, with the above rules, let him back in the rotation. Otherwise, let him join/screw up somebody else’s team. LOL.
Wow, i did not know such teams existed. A bit naive i guess. Obviously these exist to prevent the general public from playing. Personally i think the practice is bad. I always thought the “war” was against the casino owners, not fellow players. Doesn’t look good for video poker players. Could it be one of the reasons why payouts have been reduced? Possibly doesn’t help.
Incidentally, how does the switch takes place? The replacement stands beside the players and slides in his seat?
What if a non team player wants to sit in instead, is the fight on?
All strange to me.
once again, as always in a team, you have to make sure that the team fellows are totally loyal and trustworth. One foul egg in a team that is not 100 per cent with you can ruin the entire mission. I think this is what happens all the time. Poker tournament players that team up , cash game professionals, etc etc, slot players chasing a progressive bank….with one person you can’t trust 100 per cent it’s getting difficult already. That’s why I believe that Mr Bob Dancer’s decision was good to cut off that other guy immediately, without giving him a 2nd chance. Once burned, 2x shy. There’s a lot of truth behind this saying….
From Switzerland
Boris
Committing to a team is a business decision. “John” didn’t embezzle money from the team, he made a selfish decision that cost the team an advantage. In business, if a key employee makes a bad decision that hurts profits, is it smart to basically fire that employee when his previous history has been very positive? What about all of the other positives he has brought to the company? No one gets a second chance?
In this instance, what about the other “team” members that wouldn’t come to Bob’s aid when he requested relief? If no one else would step up, are they truly that committed to the team? It’s incredible to read some of the Dudley Do-Rights on here that are so righteous. Apparently they’ve never committed a selfish act, or they’ve committed one and expect to be hanged as a result. Short-sighted, to be certain.
As far as I am concerned, the phone call was the second chance. It’s not like John was at the hospital with an injured kid. He was gambling elsewhere and chose to ignore his previously agreed upon commitment, then chose to still not come in when informed it was a necessity.
Buh bye John
just curious, was the game/machine profitable up to the time of the lost seat?