In many jurisdictions, including Las Vegas, casinos can restrict players from competing. The restrictions can be complete or partial — permanent or reviewable. For many players, including myself, being restricted is a state of being with which we are quite familiar.
I was waiting for a drawing at a casino in December and a friend, “Charlie,” stopped by to chat until the winners were announced. He started by telling me of the new luxury automobile he had just purchased. Eventually the conversation diverged into casinos at which he (and his wife) and I were or were not allowed to play. I mentioned that in February I was going to apply to Casino A for reinstatement.
When I was restricted from Casino A I met with the General Manager and argued why I thought I should be allowed to continue to play. The GM listened to me but said that my restriction would remain. It was a partial “no mail” restriction, and I was still welcome to play, but without the mailers the edge was too skinny to make it worthwhile in my opinion. It was clear he wasn’t going to budge. I then asked if we could revisit it in 2018, and he agreed.
Although I wasn’t successful in 2017 when I spoke with him, I’m going to try again a year later. I was glad I was able to meet and talk with him and present my case. Every restriction is a negotiation. Some players roll over and play dead with every restriction. They accept the first verdict and that’s that. I treat a restriction as a starting place for a negotiation.
If you ever wondered why some player ended up being restricted at a particular place and some other player with a similar record wasn’t, reread the last four sentences of the preceding paragraph.
I try to find a way that the casino can get basically what it wants and I still get to play. Perhaps I was restricted because I won the Senior Drawing too many times. Okay. What if I agree that whenever I earn at least $500 in such a drawing I don’t participate in them for three months? That way, the casino isn’t bombarded with “that guy always wins” complaints, which in this case might have been the underlying reason for the restriction.
Or perhaps they want me to limit my play on point multiplier days to such and such an amount, rather than being unlimited. Whatever. There are a zillion ways to reach a compromise.
It’s very possible that there’s a happy meeting ground where they can allow my play and I still feel I have a decent-enough edge. We won’t know this until we talk about it. Sometimes it works. Usually it doesn’t. But, for me anyway, it works enough of the time that it’s worthwhile to go through the process.
Although the discussion with that casino’s GM will probably happen before this article is published, the particular results of that discussion will be for a later time — or most likely never. Let’s go back to my conversation with Charlie.
Charlie told me that he thought it was ironic that I was trying to get back into Casino A because he had just decided to stop playing there. I asked him why?
“Because,” he told me, “I’ve been playing $2 8/5 Bonus Poker there (which is the best game at that casino) and I’m down more than $40,000 for the year.”
“Okay,” I replied, “you’ve been unlucky there. Five cycles behind is no fun. But why did you decide you should quit playing there?”
“If I can’t win there,” he told me, “why should I keep throwing good money after bad?”
Before we could continue the discussion, they held the drawing, neither of us were called, and then we each left to do whatever else rather than keep chatting. But I thought this was a good subject to write about. Charlie is certainly not alone in the way he thinks. But I believe that such thinking is incorrect for intelligent gamblers.
Charlie’s logic was basically: I’ve run bad. The future will be like the past. Therefore, I should cut my losses and get out.
My thinking is: This is a 99.2% game. The slot club pays 0.30% there. If you play $xxx a month you generally receive weekly mailers of $yyy, plus food vouchers and other non-cash items. They regularly have promotions and drawings that add considerable equity. Reaching their highest tier level is obtainable for me and it offers benefits I value. Over a year, I expect to have an advantage of $zzz there.
Notice that in my thinking, the fact that I was ahead or behind any given amount in the past year was not part of the equation at all. My assumption going forward is that things will be “average” in the future. The fact that I’ve had non-average results so far this year is largely an irrelevant, albeit sometimes exciting and sometimes frustrating, piece of data.
For many people, being behind $40,000 would create bankroll issues. In Charlie’s case, I don’t believe this is an issue. (Although clearly it was at least somewhat of a psychological issue if not an actual financial issue.)
I know that things in the future won’t end up being average. Every gambling situation turns out being better or worse than I calculated. Those folks who want guarantees should pick a different hobby. But just because I know things won’t end up being average doesn’t mean that being average isn’t the best assumption to make at this point. If the $zzz I’ve calculated is big enough to meet my needs, and the variance is reasonable enough given my bankroll, and I have time to fit it into my schedule given my other gambling and non-gambling activities, then it’s full speed ahead. Being behind five royals in a year is just so much “noise.” There have definitely been years I’ve been ahead more than that. There will be good and bad streaks in the future.
In my calculation, I mentioned xxx, yyy, and zzz. These are numbers you’re going to have to estimate for yourself for every casino you’re considering. The numbers I get may not be the same as the ones you get. You may or may not like the food at the restaurants in any particular place. If you play at a lot of other casinos, you may already have more food available to you than you can possibly consume. Some promotions make more sense for bigger players — or just for seniors — or just for locals who can come in every day if the situation warrants — or whatever. Estimating these things is something you can get better at over time.
Since I’m writing this before I actually know whether I’ll be re-welcomed at Casino A and, if so, under which conditions, my 2018 “prediction” is that I will be reinstated and Charlie will decide to return. As all gamblers know, sometimes your predictions come true and sometimes they don’t.
“Notice that in my thinking, the fact that I was ahead or behind any given amount in the past year was not part of the equation at all.”
Bob, question about this quote from your article: In your vast experience have you ever encountered a situation where a player was running bad for a long time only to find out later that the machines were rigged or malfunctioning? The longer your result varies significantly from the expected result the higher the probability that something is up. Just curious, thank you!
Bob wrote: “My assumption going forward is that things will be “average” in the future.”
You can make that assumption, but it is rather coarse. I think it would be wiser to assume you will be somewhere in a 3SD distribution of possible results. You can get the 3SD range with software but you can also get it with a calculator if you know the variance and number of hands you expect to play, then 3SD = +/- 3 x square_root(variance x hands). Example: say you have an edge of 1% and a variance of 30 and will play 100,000 hands. The average result will be 1% of 100,000 bets or 1000 bets. The 3SD range will be +/- 3 x square_root(30 x 100,000) or +/- 5,196 bets. So, your 3SD range of possible results will be -4,196 to +6,196 bets. You can see you have an edge but you can also see you have a large risk of losing money even though you have an edge. 3SD covers 99.7% of the possible results, so there are still 0.3% or so of possible outliers. This does assume a “normal distribution” which is a reasonable assumption if you are playing more hands that the longest cycle in your game. If you are playing less that a cycle, you should discount (not count) the value of that cycle, so say if the royal cycle is 45,000 and you are only playing 40,000 hands, you should not count on getting a royal. If you check out jazbo.com he has some plots of possible results in video poker.
Bob,
I have been reading your Posts and books for many years. Although I don’t always agree with you, I feel you are a great writer and look forward to reading them each week. Thanks
Jim
Casinos should use a very, very simple rubric when deciding whether to let Bob and others like him play. If they want to play, then pretty much by definition, letting them play will cost the casino money. If they accept restrictions and still want to play, then those restrictions aren’t tight enough. Simple. Bob’s extremely skilled and knowledgeable. If he wants to play at your casino, that is ipso facto proof that he figures to win money from you. So why let him?
I’ve asked this question many times, directly to Bob and indirectly, and never received a straight answer. Why should ANYBODY let Bob play? It’s the same situation as the best blackjack players–no casino has any sane reason to allow them to play, so they don’t. Why is that different for Bob?
I’m rather curious as to what Bob’s argument was that he made to “Casino A” that he should be allowed to continue to play there. The only possible justification I can think of is that Bob’s presence is some kind of revenue enhancer–counterbalancing the tens of thousands he’ll win from the casino. I can’t see how that would work. His presence and existence doesn’t in and of itself encourage people to play–or if it does, that costs the casino that much more money, if they take his advice to heart!
What i think Bob is failing to mention–and with good reason, I imagine–is whatever bargain with the devil he has to make to be allowed to play (at certain casinos, at least). In my experience, if there’s one thing the casinos don’t like, it’s people who are consistent winners. If you’re a consistent winner and everyone knows it, you can’t really count on convincing them that you’ve just been lucky or that you’ll reform your ways and start losing. So what kind of “deal” do you have to make?
Kevin Lewis wrote: “If he wants to play at your casino, that is ipso facto proof that he figures to win money from you. So why let him?”
One reason might be that part of his winnngs come from other players, not the casino.
If the payback plus slot club plus mailers adds up to 99.8% and the payback from drawings is 0.4% then both come out ahead by letting him play there. (Other players in the drawings come out behind if Bob plays, but those players typically don’t really know that.)
Is that scenario the case at “casino A” in this article, I have no way of knowing; but it’s certainly one scenario where letting him play makes sense for both.
That’s kind of my point about the drawings–whatever money the casino allocates to those drawings is to attract new players and to encourage existing players to play more/come back. If the Bobs and Charlies win half of the drawings, that detracts from the value of the promotion–to the casino AND the players. Thus, I can’t see how the casino would be happy with the drawing soundtrack being: “And our winner is…Bob Dancer. Our next winner is…Bob Dancer. The next winner is…Bob Dancer.” Bob did, in fact, mention a possible willingness to cap his drawing winnings as a remedy–but the trouble with that is that the other players wouldn’t know that, and might still stay away if they saw he was going to be playing.
Look at it this way…if you heard that there was a promotion tomorrow where you got a drawing ticket for a new car for every $10,000 coin-in, would the knowledge that there would be another player there putting in $8,000,000 discourage you?
Liz wrote, “3SD covers 99.7% of the possible results, so there are still 0.3% or so of possible outliers. This does assume a “normal distribution” which is a reasonable assumption if you are playing more hands that the longest cycle in your game.”
Liz, it takes way way more than a cycle for the results to begin to look like a ‘normal distribution’. Say you play 8/5 Bonus Poker with enough cashback or other perks to make the game 100%. Here is what the distribution of results would look like after 50,000 hands:*
RESULT PROBABILITY
lose > 5SD 0.00%
lose 4SD to 5SD 0.00%
lose 3SD to 4SD 0.00%
lose 2SD to 3SD 0.48%
lose 1SD to 2SD 15%
lose up to 1SD 39%
win up to 1SD 30%
win 1SD to 2SD 12%
win 2SD to 3SD 3.00%
win 3SD to 4SD 0.54%
win 4SD to 5SD 0.08%
win > 5 SD 0.008%
Note the non-normal skew. Even though it’s an even game, 54% of the time you will end up a loser after 50,000 hands. The chance of being outside 3SD’s is more than twice what a normal distribution would predict. Happily, virtually all of that occurs on the +3SD side. The chance of losing more than 3SD’s is almost zero.
Losing more than 2SD’s is a fairly rare event, about 0.5% or one in 200. You’re substantially more likely to finish with a greater than 3SD win than with a loss greater than 2SD!
–Dunbar
*The table data comes from 1,000,000 trials using DRA-VP 2.0.
I think about this holistically and individually … On the whole, “t” thousands VP players will play $x and win $y, leaving $z in gross profit from the machines. Most players are average in their play (e.g. not experts, know the basics, don’t understand penalty cards, etc.) Within those “t” thousands of players, some are very poor and have a winning percentage that is 1-, 2- or 3-standard deviations below the mean player. These are players the GM wants to return again and again, by offering more perks, nice atmosphere, drawings, etc.. Then there are players like Bob Dancer and Charlie who are very good and have a winning percentage that is 1-, 2- or 3-standard deviations above the mean player. If a GM cuts these, the overall profitability of the gaming floor will improve as the high payback machines are left for the average players and the poor players who don’t know the nuances of what to hold based on the pay table.
(The typical casino GM has the ability to differentiate who believes they can win at their casino but isn’t and who is actually coming out ahead. Sometimes they don’t fully review the data, evidenced by banning someone who hits 2 Royals in a month on a high limit machine, while other times they know people by reputation and long-term history, or even from a different property.)
If the GM cuts too many Charlies & Bob Dancers, word gets around that the promotions are stingy and it hurts the reputation, thus giving a negative impression to the meat & potatoes average players. If the GM lets the Charlies & Bob Dancers have full reign, they are playing at a loss to the casino, word gets out that they hog the good machines and win all the drawing prizes so-why-bother. These are soft measurements of success, not hard data, so a GM has to use his/her intuition to gauge the floor.
The GM at a smartly run casino has a goal to maximize both short-term and long-term profit. It’s a tricky balance for both the GM & the Charlies because they have their own motivations — plus a GM, while trying to appear to address each customer as individuals, is busy every day with general management issues. That’s where negotiation comes in.
But then, if you ban Charlie and Bob and leave the high payback machines, I’m not sure if the average player would recognize the high payback machines anyway. I suppose the casino could put up a sign over them that said “99% Payback.”
I basically agree with the entire article except for the statement “For many people, being behind $40,000 would create bankroll issues.” The fact is that this would “create bankroll issues” for MOST people, the overwhelming majority. Most people have a “trip bankroll” of less than $1,000, and probably would not ever risk or allocate more than $5,000 for gambling, simply because most people are not rich and do not have a ton of money saved away because they never earned that much and never had an astronomical gambling or lottery win. No offense intended, but this is yet another instance of someone in a higher financial tier forgetting that most people are not like them monetarily. And regardless of one’s financial tier, there is the issue of financial responsibility. We should never risk all our money on gambling, so if we’ve lost a certain large amount, we should stop gambling, either totally for now, or else on anything that isn’t very low risk.
One person mentioned the possibility of machines being rigged/malfunctioning. Over the past few months, I have noticed inconsistencies of points earned between what I have played and what the casino’s computer records show. I have mentioned this to them. I have jotted down numbers, I have taken pictures of the points earned prior to moving to another machine. Only yesterday, this happened again. I needed to earn 300 points to win a prize. After accruing over 700 points, I went for the prize only to be told that I had earned 240 pts. Have others noticed these discrepancies? The only way/reason I noticed the inconsistencies, is because I was playing to earn prizes. When I would go to get the prize, I was told I had insufficient points. I also asked this casino why I hadn’t go up in levels. Her response, it is not how much you play, it is a multitude of factors such as the money you put in, the length of time played…and so forth. Why can’t they tell us how our tiers are judged? At least at this casino?
In reply to Janice’s comment about slot readers not registering all points – YES, this does happen. A nationwide casino was running a promotion from July 1 – November 30 2017 and I noticed after my third visit that I was not earning the points correctly relative to play (I could log into my account online and check balances). It was a simple “earn 5 player points, get 1 promotion point”. I first took my concerns to my local casino, who didn’t even know they were running this promotion! It took 3 weeks of back-and-forth emails with the local casino before they acknowledged the promotion, then admitted they couldn’t help me with the dilemma. This whole time I was keeping detailed records of player points earned vs. promotion points. I asked that my complaints be escalated to the corporate office – which it was. Took another few weeks to get someone there to address my concerns (still keeping detailed records). Finally, in October, I started tracking each visit specific games played, coin in, coin out, player points earned at each game. My corporate contact – really nice person named Sara – would pull my play history (there was a 3 day lag of computer reporting). I would email Sara my detailed play for the day – she would email me my play history for that day – and we would have a phone call to compare and contrast. She took the results to the IT department and it was determined that I was NOT earning points correctly according to the promotion (and money was on the line!). One day she determined I should have earned 30 promotion points, the system only credited me with 27. We determined that every day of play I was shorted points and these points were to be converted to free play/comp at the end of the promotion! In the end, IT could not figure out why it was shorting me (and my husband) and they asked me at the end of the promotion, to tell them how many promotion points I thought my husband and I had earned and they converted our points into free play/comp according to my detailed records! The funny part is, I asked Sara if she had gotten many complaints about points being shorted and she said less than 10 people had complained – millions of people participating in this promotion were leaving money on the table and didn’t even realize it!
So yes, you probably are getting shorted! Take your detailed records to the players club and ask that they run your play history (they can do it) and escalate your concerns to the top of casino management if you have to! It’s your money you’re playing to earn the prizes you’re entitled to!