I just read Bob Dancer's Jan 25th column

From what I remember from a friend winnig on of those Aveos at a Pahrump casino,they wanted her to pay the tax BEFORE she could get the car. It also meant she couldn't sell it until she paid the tax. Sounds screwy to me, but it seem lie they force you o take the cash option which is about 50% of the value of the car! That sucks! I'd get a lawyer involved before I did anything!

Dont you have to pay the SALES TAX on a car before you can take title?

Motor vehicle law varies state to state.

Basically to "take title", taxes and tags would need to be paid.

To take possession is different, and could be done with the certificate of origin, and a dealers tag or tow truck. Tax will eventually be paid when the vehicle is sold and titled.

And, bottom line, it also depends on the casino and management. The casino may not even own the car, just display it with a deal to buy it if the customer wants the car instead of cash.

I won a car a few years ago and would have HAD to pay almost $3500 to take possession. The casino would not "allow" me to use a dealer, dealer tag or tow truck, and claim the certificate of origin so I could sell the vehicle. They also required I make a decision within 24 hours or automatically accept the cash offer, and I won on a Saturday night. An Indian casino, so could not sue. Believe me, I would have easily come out $5K+ better.

I do not know why I even bothered to answer this, since Money has me on ignore.

The only thing I got out of the article is that one of the Vegas "experts" totally ignored his own advice and chased a freaking car.

Oh well, its his money in the end and I hope he enjoys his overpriced car.

"Don't chase comps", unless your an idiot like me. What a twit.

Oh, but what if the value of the car added 7.65% to the payback? LOLOLOLOL

What color was the car ?


Rick

The fact that Dancer lost money on this play is inconsequential. Whenever a player is playing with a small edge they will lose some of the time and win some of the time. Overall they will win. Those who focus on the loss are displaying illogical thinking. Remember, the play itself was essentially even so even if he did not win the car the expectation was not to lose any money.

Here's an example I've mentioned before. I have played 225K hands at SouthPoint and never had a RF. I have lost money playing at SouthPoint. However, over the time period involved I had close to the average number of RFs that I should have overall. That means I was over-royaled at other casinos. In addition, I won money overall as expected.

Hence, even though Dancer lost at this casino, he should still expect to come out close to his average expectation overall. That means he may very well have won at other casinos MORE than expected. All a gambler can do is look at the opportunities and select the one they find most likely to generate the biggest profit. We don't have the benefit of Carnacian foresight.

Finally, since this promotion has a "cash" equivalence option it should NOT be considered a comp. How hard is that to understand? It's really funny to see the "losers" come out of the woodwork when an advantage player admits a loss on a single opportunity. All they do is make obvious their own lack of critical thinking capabilities.

PS. Dancer and I do not agree on many things. We also haven't got along all that well in the past.

Although it is correct that there is a 'Cash' equivalence and it is not a comp, don't you think he should have adjusted his expected return based on SOME risk of not winning the contest....or do you think a deep pocketed high roller can automatically assume he can win any coin-in based contest?

Dancer expected to lose money playing the machines during this promotion. $540 on $1.8 million, and than $845 on $700K for the $2.5 million coin in he calculated would be enough play to win the car. He also said he assumed the car could be sold for $40K.

With deep pockets, and a proper strategy after analysis, he expected to win the contest, and based on his risk assessment, chose to go for it. He figured $2.5 million coin in would win, and was prepared to risk $10 million if needed, perhaps more. He decided to win the contest, and went after it. He did everything he needed to do to insure his standings.

Even IF someone "surprised" him somehow, and won the car, second place was $12,500. And third was $5K. So he could still expect some "profit" on his choice to enter the contest. He played to win the first prize, felt the need to change his strategy late in the contest to protect his standing, and did so.

His goal was to win that $40K. He did. His original strategy expected to lose $1380.00. He lost more. Much more. So what. It does not change the logic he shows for making the play. All it does is show the variance, the deviation professionals know to expect. Win some, lose some. Long term make money when you have the advantage.

And if he had hit that magical dealt royal on the $0.50 Fifty play, that $100K would have put him ahead and profitable, without considering the contest prize.

Meanwhile, there are some on this forum who will continue to be hypocrites and maintain his choice was stupid because he lost money in this particular quest. Those same hypocrites have tunnel vision and do not have the ability to look at the big picture, and do not want to or try to understand the math and expected value of opportunity when it knocks on the door.

It takes money to make money. He took a calculated risk and lost. Probably $40K on much much more than $2.5 million coin in. Oh well. he can afford it. Or maybe not.

OTOH, how many of you have lost your trip bankroll, and more, playing far inferior games? Negative expectation game. And justified your losses by saying, "I can afford it, and was playing for fun."

Right.

Ah...but there's the issue in my humble opinion. His 'risk assessment' included 0 percent probability of losing the contest....ZERO. And even though he won the contest, he was actually threatened by another player. Again, I don't fault the guy for risking money based on an expected return. I think his analyis was flawed..and he just can't assume he will ALWAYS win a coin-in contest. If he continues this approach, it will eventually bite him...sooner or later he'll be 80K in the hole and lose the contest too....and what becomes of that narrow EV then (since the probability of losing was estimated at 0)?