vpFREE2 Forums

A Reply To Just Criticism,

#1

I meant to reply to Harry's post yesterday, but didn't GATI (new item
for the vpFREE Glossary that applies to me quite often: Get Around To
It). I plan to comment on the Harry, QZ and Brian posts tonight.

For now I'll give you a few teasers:

QZ has been one of my "favorite people" for many years

Harry and Brian are more recent "favorite people" additions

Prolonging good plays is an inexact art rather than a science

No-brainers often aren't

Different perspectives, different solutions

Good situations vs good machines

What goes into the DataBase

ICB (Infallible Crystal Ball)

Self interest rules (as it should)

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 27 Dec 2003 at 14:43, Harry Porter wrote:

QZ -- Nice, sensible post ... even if coming from a scum-of-the-earth
pro. (Hmmm, guess I'd better add a "smiley" to that, huh?)

I'm hoping that we can count on some lively return debate from our
VPFree Administrator. After all, it takes two to hold up the ends of
a discussion.

#2

I'm having a problem deciding how much detail to include in my
comments, so I'm taking a further raincheck until I get things
better organized.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 27 Dec 2003 at 10:22, vp_FREE wrote:

I meant to reply to Harry's post yesterday, but didn't GATI (new item
for the vpFREE Glossary that applies to me quite often: Get Around To
It). I plan to comment on the Harry, QZ and Brian posts tonight.

#3

vp_FREE wrote:

I'm having a problem deciding how much detail to include in my
comments, so I'm taking a further raincheck until I get things
better organized.

I'm not terribly impatient in waiting for your comments. There's one
thing that I wouldn't mind seeing addressed in them.

It's what I might call the "indiscretion factor".

Consider a very strong $1 play that's been given some widespread
publicity through a group such as this. A very casual player, perhaps
one who seldom ventures to $1 play and one who is more than a little
green, decides to hit it with a couple hundred bucks in hand.

In the course of his foray he takes it upon himself to approach a
floor manager and comment, "I can't believe you have such a wonderful
play on your floor, providing close to a 1% potential advantage".
(I've heard tell of players who've acted in a very similar manner.)

Does the floor manager react with pleasure that there's such
enthusiasm over the play? Or do shades of paranoia sweep over him,
fearful now that hoards of "pros" may descend upon the machines and
take him to the cleaners?

I don't think this is merely an academic question and believe this
situation, among others, is a risk that widely publicized plays are
subject to.

- Harry

#4

Unfortunately, Harry, there is no way to protect us from the idiots of the world who help screw up a good thing; however, I'd have to disagree with any hint that this would somehow reveal to the casinos that they have blundered by carrying a machine which is a positive play. Except for a possible rare error, I'm convinced that the casinos know exactly what they have and where. Maybe I'm giving casino management more credit than I should, but I expect that the casinos are already fully aware of the precise theoretical return for every one of their machines. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if I owned a casino and my upper management people were ignorant about VP, including the ER for each machine, and were not also routinely lurking on groups such as VPFree, I'd fire them for incompetence. From a business perspective, I'd want to maintain a balance between the bottom line for each machine while having machines that attract a lot of play -- hopefully with more coin-in by players who are using less than optimum play. I'm sure there are probably complicated 'forumulas' that even consider floor placement, but in any situation where I would have a positive machine on the floor, it sure wouldn't be because of our ignorance about the theoretical return of a machine -- and if it was, the person responsible would get his/her walking papers.

But this is not to dismiss Harry's observation as of no consequence. On the contrary, if nothing else it would serve as a reminder to management to keep an eye on that machine, and of course if it appeared that more and more advantage players were using it, then I'd reevaluate the situation.

Bill

Harry Porter wrote:

Consider a very strong $1 play that's been given some widespread
publicity through a group such as this. A very casual player, perhaps
one who seldom ventures to $1 play and one who is more than a little
green, decides to hit it with a couple hundred bucks in hand.

In the course of his foray he takes it upon himself to approach a
floor manager and comment, "I can't believe you have such a wonderful
play on your floor, providing close to a 1% potential advantage".
(I've heard tell of players who've acted in a very similar manner.)

snip

#5

seen too many situations to share your "conviction". Not sure where
you are getting it from. Facts better than guesses.

Unfortunately, Harry, there is no way to protect us from the idiots

of

the world who help screw up a good thing; however, I'd have to

disagree

with any hint that this would somehow reveal to the casinos that

they

have blundered by carrying a machine which is a positive play.

Except

for a possible rare error, I'm convinced that the casinos know

exactly

what they have and where. Maybe I'm giving casino management more
credit than I should, but I expect that the casinos are already

fully

aware of the precise theoretical return for every one of their
machines. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if I owned a
casino and my upper management people were ignorant about VP,

including

the ER for each machine, and were not also routinely lurking on

groups

such as VPFree, I'd fire them for incompetence. From a business
perspective, I'd want to maintain a balance between the bottom

line for

each machine while having machines that attract a lot of play --
hopefully with more coin-in by players who are using less than

optimum

play. I'm sure there are probably complicated 'forumulas' that

even

consider floor placement, but in any situation where I would have a
positive machine on the floor, it sure wouldn't be because of our
ignorance about the theoretical return of a machine -- and if it

was,

the person responsible would get his/her walking papers.

But this is not to dismiss Harry's observation as of no

consequence. On

the contrary, if nothing else it would serve as a reminder to

management

to keep an eye on that machine, and of course if it appeared that

more

and more advantage players were using it, then I'd reevaluate the

situation.

Bill

Harry Porter wrote:

> Consider a very strong $1 play that's been given some widespread
> publicity through a group such as this. A very casual player,

perhaps

> one who seldom ventures to $1 play and one who is more than a

little

> green, decides to hit it with a couple hundred bucks in hand.
>
> In the course of his foray he takes it upon himself to approach a
> floor manager and comment, "I can't believe you have such a

wonderful

> play on your floor, providing close to a 1% potential advantage".
> (I've heard tell of players who've acted in a very similar

manner.)

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:

snip

#6

I agree. Facts _are_ better than guesses. And unless you spend 24/7 observing the type of play being registered on all of the machines in all of the casinos, it sounds to me like your statement is as much a guess as mine ... despite that you've "seen too many situations". My statement was admittedly opinion, but it was, I think, pretty logical. Casinos are businesses and I'm sure that management is making an attempt to run them like a business. If you think for a moment that the casinos somehow don't understand optimum play and what the theoretical ER is on every machine they have, well ... then my opinion is that you are naive. And when casinos install advantage machines for whatever marketing considerations, they're not very likely to pull the machine all of a sudden just because one idiot remarks to a floor person that the machine is a good play -- but on the other hand I would imagine that _any_ attention whatsoever is reason for them to keep a closer eye on the bottom-line for that machine. Frankly, I'd be more concerned about the casino keeping an eye on the person who made the statement -- to see how well that person plays, and whether they play anything else besides VP, and whether we would want that person to continue coming.

Bill Velek

Michael Boutot wrote:

seen too many situations to share your "conviction". Not sure where
you are getting it from. Facts better than guesses.

snip