A recent thread on the vpFREE bulletin board began with a complaint that the kiosk games at an unnamed casino were unfair. Seems that when the poster was prompted to choose among five or so different icons, he always received something like 3,000 points valued at $3. After he made his choice, the prizes behind the other icons were displayed, showing that prizes up to 500,000 points were available.
He played enough to correctly come to the conclusion that the game was rigged and he had no chance for the bigger prizes. He was questioning the legality and fairness of having kiosk games like this.
As I understand the rules in Nevada, if the game LOOKS like real gambling paraphernalia, then it must be fair. That is, if the kiosk depicts regular dice being rolled, then the RNG (pseudo Random Number Generator for you sticklers out there) must have ace-ace coming up 1-in-36 times. On the other hand, if the kiosk game requires you to select one of several cartoonish penguins, as an example, there is no legal requirement that the results be equally likely. (Full disclosure: My understanding is based on conversations with machine manufacturers rather than a careful review of the law.)
I actually prefer those types of kiosk games over “fair” games since I’m a big player. A fair game, like at the Palms, gives everybody who has qualified for their promotion an equal chance to pick an inexpensive wallet — where 90% of them have $5 inside, 9+% have $10 inside, and less than 1% have bigger bills. That would be a fair game, and not one that interests me.
In a kiosk game, players are typically placed into 30 or more different categories depending on their value to the casino. Players who play a lot of slots are in a higher category than players who only play video poker. Players who play $500,000 a month are in a higher category than those who only play $300 a month. Players who have lost a lot often get placed in a higher category than players who have won. Etc.
If I’ve played $1,000,000 coin-in over the past month and go to a kiosk for a “random” prize, it’s reasonable to expect that my prize will be greater than the guy who only played $200. If the casino is forced to give everybody the same chance, big players are penalized. If the casino is allowed to weight the chance of the bigger prizes being awarded to their more valuable customers, big players are rewarded. I prefer the latter system.
I understand that players who don’t play big are better served by random games rather than weighted games. I also understand that players often complain if THIS PARTICULAR GAME isn’t best for them. That is, they want weighted games at the casinos where they play the heaviest and random games at the ones where they barely play. Whichever way the casino runs their promotions, some players will complain about it.
Let me talk about something else now because my thoughts on the kiosk games only add up to half a column. I could pad it, but I’d rather change subjects. It’s only loosely related to gambling, but hey! It’s my column and I can write about what I want!
Bonnie and I recently attended a 3-day square dance convention (Thursday evening through Sunday noon) which was a five-hour drive from home. While we appreciate the nicer rooms we can get from casinos where I play big, modest rooms on the road are acceptable to both of us when we have to pay “real money” for them. Searching the Internet, we found an acceptable room about four miles from the convention site. The same room would cost $70 per night with a continental breakfast included or $60 per night without the continental breakfast. Which to sign up for?
I chose the “without” option. When we got there we found that they didn’t check names when we came down to eat in the mornings. So we ate a few pieces of fruit and drank some coffee “for free.” Had they checked names, which definitely happens at some places, we would have either paid the surcharge or eaten elsewhere. (We had actually packed a considerable number of apples, oranges, and avocados which we mostly brought back home with us.) But enough places fail to check names that we “gambled” we could eat without paying the surcharge. We ended up saving $30.
Is this dishonest? Of course it is. But rightly or wrongly, we can live with this level of deception. I have no accurate way of estimating how many others would engage in a similar deception, but my guess is that it’s closer to 50% than it is to either 0% or 100%. And it’s also my guess that advantage gamblers and wannabe advantage gamblers would engage in this deception more frequently than would the general public. I further guess that the hotel chain knows a certain amount of this is going to go on and prices accordingly.
There are people who would never stoop to this. I suspect there are far more who will TELL you they would never stoop to this. People from the latter group are often prone to criticize and condemn those of us who do. Many people seem to enjoy looking down their nose at others’ shortcomings while ignoring their own.
Whether you agree with my guesses or not, if this general subject is of interest to you, consider reading the delightful book by Dan Ariely called “The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty.”