I was waiting at the M for the results of the Wednesday senior drawing. A woman recognized me and wanted to chat. I didn’t recognize her, but there are thousands of people who’ve attended my classes that I don’t specifically remember, so I listened to her question. She told me her name was Sandy.
Sandy mentioned that she and her husband were doing much worse this year than they had done previously. She wondered if this was because casinos were tightening machines due to the recession.
I told her that with video poker, it’s always possible to evaluate the machines based on pay schedules. Even if machines were tighter on average, there were still thousands of machines in Vegas that returned more than 100% — including slot clubs and promotions — on a daily basis, and many more on multiple point days. I asked her what machines she was playing.
She shrugged and pointed at her husband, Pete, who was playing on a nearby machine. He was playing nickel Five Play and switching games right and left. The games on this particular machine for this denomination probably returned 96%-97% when played well — which was not what Pete was doing.
Pete decided to ask me how to play a particular hand — Ah Kh Jh 5h 7c. He didn’t know whether to play for the royal or the flush. I told him, generally speaking, the pay schedule amount for the flush determines this. Since this game returned 6 for 1 (it was 9-6-4 Double Bonus), he should go for the royal. More importantly, there were a lot better games in the casino and he didn’t have much long term chance playing this particular machine. And if he was going to be playing it, he should learn the proper holds for each game. Switching back and forth he was taking the worst of it.
He asked me what games were better. I told him I hadn’t scouted thoroughly for the stakes he was playing — but I did know there were quarter 9/6 Jacks or Better games cost the same $1.25 per play and paid a lot more than what he was getting here. Perhaps there were better games I hadn’t discovered because I wasn’t looking at machines for those stakes.
Pete then told me that I should scout the casino and report back to him what game he should play. I looked at him incredulously.
“Okay,” I told him. “I’ll do that — as soon as you pay me $300 to cover my time and expertise.” Pete wasn’t happy with my answer and accused me of being greedy. And then he asked me to help him play another hand.
I laughed and told him I had a number of books and articles available that covered what he wanted to know, many of them free, he was welcome to come to the free classes, and I was willing to be hired to give him private lessons. I wasn’t interested in standing there and helping him play such a bad machine. I had already given him the advice not to play that machine, and he was obviously ignoring that. Then he insults me and asks for more help. I excused myself and walked away.
Sandy was embarrassed at her husband’s words — but Pete was oblivious to having said anything offensive. As I went away, I heard him continuing to complain to Sandy that I had so much information and was hoarding it. It just wasn’t fair.
Pete seems to think that people should be available to provide him information exactly when he’s in the mood to receive it. (Basically he believes that his life is more important than mine or anyone else’s.) What’s more, anyone who knows something should be willing to provide the information to him for free. I suspect folks disappoint him greatly all the time.
I don’t expect people to give me things “just because,” and I don’t believe that I have a duty to be an inexhaustible resource to everybody. I have a number of friends and we help each other out all the time without keeping score exactly, and being generally available to answer a few questions for almost anybody is part of who I am. Knowing where to draw the line is sometimes a bit awkward. Fortunately for me, Pete made it easy this time.