Booting Players the Suncoast Way — Part 2 of 2

Last week I began a brief history of my experiences at Suncoast. If necessary, I suggest you begin there, available here, and then continue with the story below. I’ll be happy to wait.

Although I discovered that my card was more restricted at Suncoast than I realized, I also had Shirley’s card, so I began playing on her card when I went to Suncoast. My philosophy on playing with her card was that if a casino told me not to play with her card, I wouldn’t. If they didn’t tell me that I couldn’t, I would. Any time I got a taxable jackpot I would tell the casino staff that she was my wife and that was usually okay. With respect to the sister properties of Suncoast, I never had a problem playing on Shirley’s card at either Orleans or Sam’s Town. At Gold Coast, they had specifically told me not to play on her card, so I didn’t. I certainly wasn’t going to ask at Suncoast. I figured the answer might well be something I didn’t want to hear. Someone wiser than me once said it’s often easier to seek forgiveness afterwards rather than to seek permission beforehand.

I no longer play on Shirley’s card because we’re no longer together. If a local casino sends her free play, however, I will still pick it up. This hasn’t happened recently and I doubt it will very often in the future.

Playing on Shirley’s card was a good way to get Emerald status for Shirley — which requires something like $150,000 coin-in over six months. She was no longer going into casinos at that point and much of my Expected Value from play at Sam’s Town and Gold Coast included the equity from drawings. Without her attending the drawings, there had been no intelligent plays that would allow her to play enough to earn Emerald status (or, rather, would allow me to play on her card enough for her to achieve Emerald status.) (There were intelligent plays if I wanted to play for low stakes and grind it out. I didn’t.) But now, if I could play $10,000 or more coin-in every Thursday on her card, she’d get Emerald status and a mailer. In addition to free play, we valued these mailers because they included food coupons that I could use for takeout from Ping Pang Pong at Gold Coast. Shirley was a big fan of the way that restaurant prepared Curry Chicken.

The first time I hit a royal on Shirley’s card at Suncoast, I waited for a slot attendant with some dread. I figured this could be the end of the line there. But no, they accepted my “Shirley’s my wife” explanation without qualms and paid me in short order. A couple of months later I hit another royal, and again was paid without hesitation.

It’s not uncommon to be over-royaled at some casinos and under-royaled at others. Wherever you are over-royaled (assuming you’re playing for stakes where W2Gs are generated) you face some extra scrutiny. Because of this extra scrutiny, Suncoast wasn’t where I wanted to be over-royaled.

The third (and last) royal I hit at Suncoast on Shirley’s card came with a visit by two slot shift bosses. They told me not to play slots or video poker at Suncoast anymore. It was polite enough but it was also clear that they were “foot soldiers” carrying out the orders from somebody higher on the food chain and that arguing with them would be fruitless. I asked to speak with the slot director. This request was denied.

Okay. It wasn’t totally unexpected and my play there had been profitable — in terms of winning at the machines, the mailer money, and the Curry Chicken. This wasn’t my first rodeo with respect to being backed off. It’s just part of the cost of doing business.

It was, however, a lot worse than I thought. Someone at Suncoast marked my record so that I would never again receive BConnected mailers no matter how much I played at Gold Coast and Sam’s Town. At both casinos, mailers include extra point multiplier days that aren’t available to players who don’t receive mailers. When I went to the booth at Gold Coast to see if I could get my mailers resumed, I was told that I had to go through the Director of Security at Suncoast. If I could get him to remove his “restraining order,” Gold Coast would happily resume mailers based on my play. But if I couldn’t do this, Gold Coast wouldn’t issue me any mailers.

To date I haven’t pursued this. Although this might be seen as a classic “sour grapes” rationalization, I realized that Gold Coast was way too smoky and the 8:15 p.m. weekend drawings were difficult for me to attend because I was often participating in 8 p.m. drawings at Palms across the street. Plus the drawings at Gold Coast are far less lucrative than they had been. That entire chain of casinos is in trouble and they are all making cutbacks.

Talking to others, I have found a number of players who have been 86’d from Suncoast for playing BPD on multiple point days. Some get the restraining order for all casinos in the chain and some don’t. Suncoast seems to have the intentional philosophy of dangling this game and multiplier as bait. If a player is smart enough to recognize what a good opportunity this is, the casino promptly cuts him off and adds his name to their list of undesirable players.

Most casinos who find a game unprofitable remove the game. Suncoast keeps the game but them removes anyone who plays it regularly on multiple point days. What they are doing is perfectly legal. But it’s not particularly smart.

Suncoast has 86’d a LOT of players. Some of these players are very competent and the casino had no chance against them with the current mix of games and promotions. However, many of these players weren’t particularly strong but just got lucky and hit a few jackpots. Suncoast will never collect another dime from these players because the players aren’t allowed to play there.

Luring players in for the express intention of kicking them out creates a lot of hard feelings. Video poker players talk to each other. How much harm does it do a casino when a strong player says “Don’t play at Suncoast because they don’t play fair”? It is not my intention to damage Suncoast further. It is my intention, however, to notify players of the trap set by that casino so these players can avoid becoming ensnared in that trap.

It would seem far wiser for a casino to have games and promotions that can be profitable for the casino, attractive to the players, and don’t warrant kicking players out. The marketing department and the slot department need to talk to each other. It’s likely that Suncoast is taking these player-restriction actions at least in part because the chain of casinos is in financial trouble. But I believe the Suncoast policies are exacerbating those problems rather than solving them.

The slot director previously didn’t want to speak to me about this. Somehow I doubt if these two articles will make him any more interested in what I have to say.