Is This Fair?
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1018.html
<a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1018.html">
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1018.html</a>
Bob Dancer's 18 OCT CasinoGaming.com Column
vpFREE Administrator wrote:
Is This Fair?
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1018.html
Of course it is ... anyone with a reasonable mind wouldn't deny it.
The question of real substance is whether it's a smart move by the
casino.
The casino is looking to boost play through these "earn a ticket"
drawings and if players are deterred by thinking they don't have a
fair shot, that goal is defeated to some extent.
Actually, a past Dancer column indicates that Palms has realized there
was a problem but responded in knee jerk fashion and shot themselves
in the foot in the process by pulling high limit NSUD all together.
As a remedy, per a Dancer article, it sounded in August that the
casino would likely reduce or eliminate the drawing entries of players
on the most favorable games in the high limit area (at least those
machines with NSUD). Does Bob's reference to having 8000 tickets in
this drawing indicate that Palms slipped up in implementing this?
In any case, recognizing that small time players are frequently the
bread and butter of any casino, there's reasonable concern when it
comes to any sense by a player that they don't have a "fair" shot at a
drawing -- whether the perception is accurate or, as in the cited
case, not.
This woman likely has a good deal of company. Other players note the
mini-whales holding a raft of ticket stubs vs. their meager handful
and, more notably, when players such as Dancer snag the top prize on
more than one occasion there's room for a good deal of demoralization.
Whether or not tickets are eliminated for high limit NSUD, my remedy
would be to provide a bonus of something like 100 tickets at the
beginning of the month for those players who recorded $10K of play in
the previous month. This risks participation in the current month's
drawing by players who sat back and rested on their laurels ... but we
know that the psychology at work here will likely boost the enthusiasm
of these players into improving on the newly found edge with some
zeal. (OK, this doesn't address our 3 ticket, $300 mo. coin-in woman
... but she's of limited concern herself.)
A $20K a month player may be frustrated to see their "equity"
substantially diluted. But I think most aren't nearly as astute with
the simple math as Bob might hope. I wouldn't look for appreciably
less play from most players, other than possibly the drawing
participation of those high limit players the casino sought to
discourage in the first place.
- Harry
I currently own all of the major VP software programs: VP Tutor, Winpoker,
VP Wizard, Optimum VP, and VP Strategy Master. They are all very good and
have contributed to my VP knowledge but they all have some serious
shortcomings. I would like to see a VP program that is comprehensive enough
to configure ANY vp hand and analyze the resulting return.
I would like to see a VP program that could do the following:
Set payoffs by suit for flushes, straight flushes and royal flushes.
Set payoffs for different 3 of a kinds
Set payoffs for certain full houses i.e - full house with only face
cards different from others
The ability to simulate progressives - set the contribution rate for
RF, SF, 4K etc and have the payouts change with the feed.
Play Multistrike, 5 play Multistrike with the correct strategy for
each level
Play 50 and 100 hand VP
Wrap a Royal - i.e. - where a sequential royal like JQKAT or QKATJ
are counted as sequential
How 'bout it programmers; anybody up for this?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@y...>
wrote:
Is This Fair?
I guess that applying "logic" is our downfall. With the "entitlement" mentality
that has evolved over the past years, people no longer think that their "part of
the pie" is a direct function of the amount of effort they apply. In today's
thinking, most people seem to expect a Gates/Dell life-style just "because".
.....bl
the game sticks to the rules. i guess jimmy carter said life isn't fair
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator <vp_free@y...>
wrote:
>
> Is This Fair?
>
I guess that applying "logic" is our downfall. With the
"entitlement" mentality
that has evolved over the past years, people no longer think that
their "part of
the pie" is a direct function of the amount of effort they apply.
In today's
thinking, most people seem to expect a Gates/Dell life-style just
"because".
To many people, I think what's "FAIR" to them is:
a) If Bob had lost at least $5,000 to $10,000 to get those many
tickets and give himself a chance to win his money back.
With his knowledge of the game and his proper selection of which game
to play, I doubt that this will happen.
b) If Bob had won at least $10,000 and decided to not collect the
tickets and give the others the "CHANCE" to win the promo.
This one will always make Bob a "HERO" to a lot of his fans.
Having won a $1 Million under his belt and maybe winning 8 out 10
times each he plays, taking away the "Too Greedy" can sure set a very
good example to many and the casinos don't have to keep making
changes to their "Promotions" or even "Pay Schedules".
On the other hand, if Bob loses at least half of the time he plays,
no doubt that this bag(s) of tickets is "FAIR", at least to me.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "everettrmaddock"
<everettrmaddock@y...> wrote:
the game sticks to the rules. i guess jimmy carter said life isn't
fair
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537" <bornloser1537@y...>
wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator
<vp_free@y...>
···
> wrote:
> >
> > Is This Fair?
> >
> I guess that applying "logic" is our downfall. With the
"entitlement" mentality
> that has evolved over the past years, people no longer think that
their "part of
> the pie" is a direct function of the amount of effort they apply.
In today's
> thinking, most people seem to expect a Gates/Dell life-style just
"because".
>
> .....bl
>
To many people, I think what's "FAIR" to them is:
a) If Bob had lost at least $5,000 to $10,000 to get those many
tickets and give himself a chance to win his money back.
With his knowledge of the game and his proper selection of which
game
to play, I doubt that this will happen.
b) If Bob had won at least $10,000 and decided to not collect the
tickets and give the others the "CHANCE" to win the promo.
This one will always make Bob a "HERO" to a lot of his fans.
Having won a $1 Million under his belt and maybe winning 8 out 10
times each time he plays, taking away the "Too Greedy" can sure set
a very
good example to many and the casinos don't have to keep making
changes to their "Promotions" or even "Pay Schedules".
On the other hand, if Bob loses at least half of the time he plays,
no doubt that this bag(s) of tickets is "FAIR", at least to me.
c) In addition, if part of Bob's winnings (from this type of promos)
are going to 'good cause' such as donations to Katrina victims, etc.,
having these many tickets, I think, is a "FAIR" game.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "everettrmaddock"
<everettrmaddock@y...> wrote:
>
> the game sticks to the rules. i guess jimmy carter said life
isn't
fair
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537"
<bornloser1537@y...>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator
<vp_free@y...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Is This Fair?
> > >
> > I guess that applying "logic" is our downfall. With the
> "entitlement" mentality
> > that has evolved over the past years, people no longer think
that
> their "part of
> > the pie" is a direct function of the amount of effort they
apply.
> In today's
> > thinking, most people seem to expect a Gates/Dell life-style
just
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "gilbert_616" <gilbert_616@y...> wrote:
> "because".
> >
> > .....bl
> >
>
IMHO, Bob is making a VERY weak statistical argument, and is, as he
should, really just acting in his own self interest in writing his
column.
First, lets look at the EV relative to the amount wagered. That is,
the EV in percent terms, not real dollars. One might also extend this
a bit to include the actual cost of gambling (like gas, time, etc) as
Bob did (but we will leave that for latter) There is no real way of
escaping the fact (given Bob's presentation of the rules) that each
player sees the same increase in EV (in relative percentage terms)
per ticket. But since there is only 1 prize, the likelihood of
wining increases with each ticket earned.
Likewise, to achieve optimal EV then, the goal would be to earn
exactly a multiple of 1000 points. You play 1999 points and your EV
(in percent) is much worse that if you play 2000 points. But many
times the casino gives every player 1 ticket for just showing up. In
this case the optimal EV (in terms of percent) is not to play at all.
(This is certainly a good strategy if you don't want to be invited
back again!)
Given that in percentage terms your EV is independent of the # of
tickets earned (so long as play is a multiple of 1000 points)... the
question is really why would one want to play so much as Bob? (I will
address the low-roller later).
Well, I'd assume that it is the combination of the following:
(1) The more he plays, the more tickets he earns, the higher the
likelihood that he wins the 1 prize while his EV in percentage terms
remains the same (assuming that he does play a multiple of 1000
points).
(2) In real dollars, the more tickets he earns, the larger his EV
(this makes it worth it to him relative to expenses and so-called
opportunity costs)
(3) the more tickets he earns (and the more events like this he plays
in) the lower his variance is.
So, Bob (like all good game theorists) acts in his own best interests
(given his bankroll, etc)... hence he wrote his article. In this
particular case, writing an article to scare away the low-roller
improves both is EV in real and percentage terms and reduces his
variance. Nice.
So back to the low-roller: Ostensibly, like Bob, the low-roller is
acting in her own interests. Hence she complains ("it's not fair").
But there is a little more than EV and variance affecting what is
going on here. For the low roller, The physiological aspects
of "Certainty Equivalent" or CE are at play. Luckily this stuff has
been well studied. Imagine that you have the opportunity to (1)
receive $25 for certain or (2) a 50% change to win $50 (& a 50% to
win nothing). From an EV perspective there is no reason to prefer
option (1) or (2), yet in study after study, people do tend to have a
preference. For small money, they usually prefer
option (1)-- the certain option. But as the "win" increases, the
preference changes: for example, if option (1) is still $25, but
option (2) becomes a 1% chance of winning $2500, people tend to take
option 2 even though there is no mathematical (EV) based reason to do
so. The situation becomes even more interesting when the options do
not have equivalent EV: for example, even if option (2) is the 0.01%
chance of winning $200000 (EV = $20 not $25), more people tend to
prefer this option (perhaps this is why people play the lottery or
gamble?) BTW, the situation reverses when one is given the choice of
a certain small loss (say the loss of $25) versus a small probability
of a large loss (the 0.01% chance of losing $200000). In this case,
people tend to prefer the smaller certain loss, even if the EV of the
uncertain even is higher! Wow.
Summary: Bob acts in his own self-interest (as he should) in regards
to EV (both in real and percentage terms) and writes an article that
(at least to me) subtly discourages the low-roller from playing. The
low-roller does a similar thing, but really only is concerned with
relative EV and (over) values the uncertain large win of $25K versus
the certain (small) loss of expenses (gas, etc) & opportunity costs.
-- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
···
vpFREE Administrator wrote:
> Is This Fair?
>
> http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2005/1018.html
Gilbert wrote: b) If Bob had won at least $10,000 and decided to not
collect the
tickets and give the others the "CHANCE" to win the promo.
This one will always make Bob a "HERO" to a lot of his fans.
Not a chance. If I'm in a promotion, I'm in it to win. Being ahead
or behind $100,000 for the promotion would have no effect on my attempt
to win an associated drawing. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive
about the winning process. Every weekend there are 40 drawings around
town --- and I avoid at least 38 of them every weekend. I haven't
noticed this avoidance of 38 drawings every week adding in the slightest
to my sainthood.
Bob Dancer
For the best in video poker information, visit www.bobdancer.com
or call 1-800-244-2224 M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
cdfsrule wrote (excerpting):
IMHO, Bob is making a VERY weak statistical argument, and is, as he
should, really just acting in his own self interest in writing his
column ...
... the question is really why would one want to play so much as
Bob? (I will address the low-roller later).Well, I'd assume that it is the combination of the following:
(1) The more he plays, the more tickets he earns, the higher the
likelihood that he wins the 1 prize while his EV in percentage terms
remains the same (assuming that he does play a multiple of 1000
points).
(2) In real dollars, the more tickets he earns, the larger his EV
(this makes it worth it to him relative to expenses and so-called
opportunity costs)
(3) the more tickets he earns (and the more events like this he
plays in) the lower his variance is.
So, Bob (like all good game theorists) acts in his own best
interests (given his bankroll, etc)... hence he wrote his article.
In this particular case, writing an article to scare away the
low-roller improves both is EV in real and percentage terms and
reduces his variance. Nice.
Please don't be yet one more person who resorts to convoluted
Machiavellian logic to explain Dancer's actions. It just isn't
becoming and betrays more about the person writing than sheds light on
Dancer's motivations.
I don't think Dancer has some deep dark purpose here. His writings
make it clear that EV is the overwhelming driving force in his play
actions and if a promotion presents the best available play, all
things considered, he'll play it hard.
I think it's a very safe bet that were there a better opportunity
available at any time during the month, he'd be chasing it rather than
driving hard on this one in order to, as you appear to suggest,
preserve some perceived advantage in hoarding tickets.
Above all, I don't think he's trying to sweep little old ladies with 3
tickets out the door come next drawing. I think even he would weigh
the added EV of that move as being offset by the social consequences
;). I do think it was foolhardy to try his line of reasoning with the
woman he encountered (but maybe AC is much more effective at driving
that point home than the more enlightened LV market).
I did enjoy your economic argument of the low-roller drawing rationale
though ... being a tad of an academic myself. Nice job 
- Harry
(I may have overstretched in my speculations re Dancer ... if so, I
extend my apologies)
Cdfsrule wrote:
<<Given that in percentage terms your EV is independent of the # of tickets
earned (so long as play is a multiple of 1000 points)... the question is
really why would one want to play so much as Bob?>>
The ER of the play actually decreases slightly with each ticket earned, but
you continue gaining expected value up to the point where one additional
ticket has so little value that it costs more to earn it than it is worth.
For practical purposes this limit is seldom reached.
He wants to play that much to make the most money.
<<Summary: Bob acts in his own self-interest (as he should) in regards to EV
(both in real and percentage terms) and writes an article that (at least to
me) subtly discourages the low-roller from playing.>>
I suspect he was just trying to discourage them from complaining.
Cogno
I'll thrown in another interesting study in the field of Behaviorial
Finance done by Prof. Thaler at University of Chicago, much to Eugene
Fama's chagin I might add.
The study was done in two parts. First people were allowed to choose
how their lifetime earnings were to be distributed to them, and were
given three choices: increasing, level, or decreasing. note that
total amount distributed is the same in all three cases e.g. if
lifetime earnings were $300,000 over a lifetime of three years the
scenarios would be:
1. yr1=50,000; yr2=$100,000; yr2=$150,000
2. yr1=yr2=yr3=$100,000
3. yr1=$150,000; yr2=$100,000; yr3=$50,000
Now clearly option 3 is the most advantageous followed by option 2
with option 1 being the worst choice. So of course people in the
study had the strongest preference for option 1! followed by option
2! and option 3 was by far the least chosen option.
Now here's the real kicker, part two of the study. Participants were
told how they could put their income in a savings account and earn
interest during the 3 year period. In other words it was clearly
explained how option 3 was clearly the best choice. Even under this
test scenario option 1 was preferred, there was some defection to
option 3, but a surprisingly small percentage.
I think this study points to why advantage play is such a small part
of overall vp play.
thymos_one
Casino Comps
New Group Dedicated to Tracking Casino Comps
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/casino_comps
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "cdfsrule" <groups.yahoo@v...> wrote:
The physiological aspects of "Certainty Equivalent" or CE are at
play. Luckily this stuff has
been well studied.
I do not think that ANYONE wins 8 out of 10 trials and I would doubt
that anyone wins 50% of the time.
I lose most of the time, but when I hit a high progressive, I recover
all losses and then some/
It all depends on how much you lose, not how often.
···
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:48:44 -0000, you wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "gilbert_616" <gilbert_616@y...> wrote:
To many people, I think what's "FAIR" to them is:
a) If Bob had lost at least $5,000 to $10,000 to get those many
tickets and give himself a chance to win his money back.
With his knowledge of the game and his proper selection of whichgame
to play, I doubt that this will happen.
b) If Bob had won at least $10,000 and decided to not collect the
tickets and give the others the "CHANCE" to win the promo.
This one will always make Bob a "HERO" to a lot of his fans.
Having won a $1 Million under his belt and maybe winning 8 out 10
times each time he plays, taking away the "Too Greedy" can sure seta very
good example to many and the casinos don't have to keep making
changes to their "Promotions" or even "Pay Schedules".
On the other hand, if Bob loses at least half of the time he plays,
no doubt that this bag(s) of tickets is "FAIR", at least to me.c) In addition, if part of Bob's winnings (from this type of promos)
are going to 'good cause' such as donations to Katrina victims, etc.,
having these many tickets, I think, is a "FAIR" game.--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "everettrmaddock"
<everettrmaddock@y...> wrote:
>
> the game sticks to the rules. i guess jimmy carter said lifeisn't
fair
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "bornloser1537"<bornloser1537@y...>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, vpFREE Administrator
<vp_free@y...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Is This Fair?
> > >
> > I guess that applying "logic" is our downfall. With the
> "entitlement" mentality
> > that has evolved over the past years, people no longer thinkthat
> their "part of
> > the pie" is a direct function of the amount of effort theyapply.
> In today's
> > thinking, most people seem to expect a Gates/Dell life-stylejust
> "because".
> >
> > .....bl
> >
>vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
Harry (and others),
No longer an academic, I sure do appreciate your kind words (at the
end of your post!). That said, I am not trying to be Machiavellian
or convoluted and I don't care to make a moral or ethical judgment on
Bob or anyone else. I was just describing the situation as I saw
it. I truly believe Bob should, when playing VP, act in his own self
interest. If not, whose self-interest should he be acting for? Yours?
The casinos?
BTW, I do have some experience in these ticket-per-X point events as
a not-quite high-roller. For example, a couple of months ago I
played at the Wynn $90K give away. I don't recall the exact details,
but I earned something like 40 tickets for about $800K coin in over a
couple of days. I played damn and was probably in the top 10 in
ticket earners, though number one had over 200 tickets (over $4
million coin in). And guess what?
A nice old lady with just 10 tickets won the $90K (actually a car).
I knew in advance that there were going to be some heavy hitters
there, but every ticket earned by someone else affected my likelihood
of winning equally, whether it was the low-rollers second ticket
(everyone who showed up got 1 ticket for "free") or the heavy-hitters
250th. Hence, it was surely in my best interest to do what I could
to reduce the number of tickets earned. While I can't say that I
employed any trickery or lied, I made it my business to comment to
many a low-roller that there were folks who were on there way to
earning hundreds of tickets...after all, it was true. Perhaps my
comments discouraged someone from playing more? I don't know (should
I care? I wasn't cheating or lying). Likewise, we won't ever know
if Bob's article will have a similar effect. It would certainly be a
lot harder to discourage the high-roller from earning more tickets.
Is this why Bob had to resort to trickery? I don't know and
truthfully I don't care (about Bob's *actuall* motivations at all).
The only thing I wanted to point out that it was and still is in
Bob's best interest to reduce the number of tickets earned by
everyone else but himself, high-roller or low roller alike, whether
or not he actually acted this way or not. Perhaps Bob acted (in
writing the article) to promote his self interest? I don't know, but
IMHO, he would have been foolish for him not to do, and I believe
writing the article was a good move. That was my point. Surely I
also recognize that by pointing this out I may actually limit the
ticket-reducing effects of the article (if any)--and therefore reduce
my own EV in the next event I participate in. And if this post or
my previous one sheds any light on me, let it be this: I believe that
in this case, and in many others, honesty and full disclosure surely
trumps any small advantage secrecy might gain.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
Please don't be yet one more person who resorts to convoluted
Machiavellian logic to explain Dancer's actions. It just isn't
becoming and betrays more about the person writing than sheds light
on Dancer's motivations.
I did enjoy your economic argument of the low-roller drawing
rationale
···
though ... being a tad of an academic myself. Nice job
- Harry
(I may have overstretched in my speculations re Dancer ... if so, I
extend my apologies)
I immediately thought of 3 life scenarios that would
make your "clearly. . . most advantageous" statement
clearly wrong! Then I stopped thinking about such a
trivial problem.
"Chicago School of Economics" - attempted master's
thesis gone wrong.
···
--- thymos_one <thymos_one@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "cdfsrule"
<groups.yahoo@v...> wrote:
>
>
> The physiological aspects of "Certainty
Equivalent" or CE are at
>play. Luckily this stuff has
> been well studied.I'll thrown in another interesting study in the
field of Behaviorial
Finance done by Prof. Thaler at University of
Chicago, much to Eugene
Fama's chagin I might add.The study was done in two parts. First people were
allowed to choose
how their lifetime earnings were to be distributed
to them, and were
given three choices: increasing, level, or
decreasing. note that
total amount distributed is the same in all three
cases e.g. if
lifetime earnings were $300,000 over a lifetime of
three years the
scenarios would be:1. yr1=50,000; yr2=$100,000; yr2=$150,000
2. yr1=yr2=yr3=$100,000
3. yr1=$150,000; yr2=$100,000; yr3=$50,000Now clearly option 3 is the most advantageous
followed by option 2
with option 1 being the worst choice. So of course
people in the
study had the strongest preference for option 1!
followed by option
2! and option 3 was by far the least chosen option.Now here's the real kicker, part two of the study.
Participants were
told how they could put their income in a savings
account and earn
interest during the 3 year period. In other words it
was clearly
explained how option 3 was clearly the best choice.
Even under this
test scenario option 1 was preferred, there was some
defection to
option 3, but a surprisingly small percentage.I think this study points to why advantage play is
such a small part
of overall vp play.
Short response can be found on free^2.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, jim thompson <meldrone@y...> wrote:
I immediately thought of 3 life scenarios that would
make your "clearly. . . most advantageous" statement
clearly wrong! Then I stopped thinking about such a
trivial problem.
> 1. yr1==50,000; yr2==$100,000; yr2==$150,000 =
> 2. yr1==yr2==yr3==$100,000
> 3. yr1==$150,000; yr2==$100,000; yr3==$50,000
> =
> Now clearly option 3 is the most advantageous
> followed by option 2 =
> with option 1 being the worst choice.
Right you are! My boo-boo.
Cdfsrule (incorrectly) wrote:
Given that in percentage terms your EV is independent of the # of
tickets earned (so long as play is a multiple of 1000 points)... the
question is really why would one want to play so much as Bob?>>
Here's the correct answer...
The ER of the play actually decreases slightly with each ticket
earned, but you continue gaining expected value up to the point where
one additional ticket has so little value that it costs more to earn
it than it is worth. For practical purposes this limit is seldom
reached.