vpFREE2 Forums

Boycotts

#1

Sally, I don't think you are missing anything. You are 100% correct. I
couldn't disagree with vpFree more on this topic. There is absolutely no
upside to playing at the Coasts properties. IMHO to think otherwise is
delusional.

                                    Rasti$Rulz
                           Coasts Casinos = vp-hell

                 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vp-heaven

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally" <tribbles@programmer.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:03 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Boycotts

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, nthumphrey <nthumphrey@y...> wrote:
> Crystal Clear,
--vp_FREE wrote:
> The real heros in a "reducing the paytables" situation are the
> winning/advantage players who continue to play positive situations at
> an offending casino, even though they could get a better return at
> another casino.have been removed]

It's not crystal clear to me. It's all foggy. First of all I really
doubt that the few players who actually can play quarter 10/7 at an
advantage would have a noticeable effect on Coast's return. That's why
Coast left the 10/7, isn't it? Also if they "continue to play" there,
they were already playing there, so there would be no effect. Isn't
that right?

But here's why I really don't get this idea. I'll assume I
underestimate how many winning 10/7 players there are, and that those
who think they are, really are. Even if that heroic band of advantage
players really could lower Coast's return on 10/7 DB by a noticeable
amount, how would that have any effect on them bringing back fpdw? I'm
sorry if I'm being dense. As I said the last time this came up, if it
had that much of an effect, wouldn't they just take out the 10/7? I'm
probably missing something.
Sal

#2

I suspect that your disagreement stems from a failure to fully read
or understand my comments. You, and others, have attributed words and
ideas to me that I haven't spoken or proposed.

My only solution and recommendation for saving positive VP has been
that "I continue to feel that the best way to preserve positive
video poker is to educate the masses to demand positive games, and
then have the masses play those games poorly." Incidentally, I'm
now working on a couple of projects to further this solution.

Beyond that, I have just pointed out that "winning/advantage players
hurt a casino's bottom line when they play positive situations" and
that non-advantage patronage helps a casino's bottom line. I made
these observations in response to criticism that was directed towards
players who weren't supporting calls for a boycott.

If you read my previous comments about advantage players and positive
situations, you will see that they were theoretical (and factual) in
nature, and didn't recommend any course of action. Whether or not
advantage play at offending casinos shouldn't be done, or not,
because it won't bring back FPDW, or may condemn 10/7 DB, or because
no one plays perfectly, and even if they did the the impact would be
small, and advantage players also play negative games, and advantage
players have non-advantage friends, etc., etc., wasn't the subject of
my comments.

My point was, and remains (sans any recommendation or solution):
"Advantage play on positive situations hurts the bottom line of
the casino that receives that play."

Communication is a difficult thing, and few (definitely including me)
are very good at it.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 31 Mar 2003 at 16:04, Video Poker Vegas wrote:

Sally, I don't think you are missing anything. You are 100% correct.
I couldn't disagree with vpFree more on this topic.

#3

Communication is a difficult thing, and few (definitely including

me)

are very good at it.

Tom, not to worry. It is very difficult to communicate with ones
finger tips rather than voice and facial expressions. Further the
receiver (myself included) tend to read what they want to see/"hear"
and skip the rest.

Bottom line, I refuse to communicate important information with
family or friends via e-mail due to the possibility of a complete
misunderstanding.

DWK

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vp_FREE" <vpFREE@L...> wrote:

#4

Tom, I do understand where you are coming from and believe you are an asset
in the war to save full pay. On the other hand, at least one regular poster
who continues to play at the Coasts, has publicly said that he consistently
loses playing video poker. I admire his honestly, and believe that 90% of
all the vp players are losing more than they win. I just think we are all
better off when players lose at venues other than the Coasts at this point
in time. In theory, you are right about a player who can consistently win
at DB or DDB hurting the bottom line. I just believe this is too dangerous
a course to follow, since most players can't win consistently at these
games, even though they think of themselves as winners.

We can theorize all we want but the bottom line is that competition keeps
100%+ return games in Las Vegas. If the numbers go down significantly then
the Coasts will reverse direction. If the numbers improve or stay the same,
then the other venues will follow the Coast's lead. We are already seeing
fall out at the Stations and the Palms as a result of the Coast downgrades.
Send all the players, both good and bad to other venues to play. The bad
players far out number the good players. There are very few players with
the discipline or inclination to play only positive return games. Most will
contribute to the profit of the venue in which they chose to play.

                                    Rasti$Rulz
                           Coasts Casinos = vp-hell

                 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vp-heaven

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "vp_FREE" <vpFREE@LVCM.com>
To: "vpFREE" <vpFREE@Yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:11 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Boycotts

On 31 Mar 2003 at 16:04, Video Poker Vegas wrote:

> Sally, I don't think you are missing anything. You are 100% correct.
> I couldn't disagree with vpFree more on this topic.

I suspect that your disagreement stems from a failure to fully read
or understand my comments. You, and others, have attributed words and
ideas to me that I haven't spoken or proposed.

#5

vp_FREE wrote:

My point was, and remains (sans any recommendation or solution):
"Advantage play on positive situations hurts the bottom line of
the casino that receives that play."

I'm chiming in late on this, having returned from LV only this evening.

I won't argue this point, but I would add my voice to those who
advocate avoiding Coast properties. The issue here is the
desirability of sending a clear message, not looking to get one last
lick in while some positive opportunities still exist at a property.

Frankly, continuing to play at a property that has taken actions which
adversely affect opportunities does nothing to motivate that property
to restore the good plays.

Reducing the number of bodies sitting at the machines and eating in
their restaurants is a visible indicator that, in sufficient numbers,
management will sit up and take note of. It's unlikely that they'll
say, "well, those that left we don't want here anyways". And, if you
manage to discourage one or more other players from visiting the
casino in question, so much the better (especially if they play
negative games).

I gather that you've pretty much thrown in the towel on having any
chance of exerting influence on Coast Casinos to reconsider. I
suppose most people have. For myself, I prefer to take what action
is available to me and hope for the best.

If after allowing adequate time (which I'd judge to be 6 months or so)
things don't change, then I'd reassess the likelihood that continuing
to stay away has any potential positive effect.

- Harry

#6

I don't know where you got the impression that I've "pretty much
thrown in the towel on having any chance of exerting influence on
Coast Casinos to reconsider".

In the post that you are replying to, I said:

···

On 7 Apr 2003 at 7:10, Harry Porter wrote:

I gather that you've pretty much thrown in the towel on having any
chance of exerting influence on Coast Casinos to reconsider. I
suppose most people have. For myself, I prefer to take what
action is available to me and hope for the best.

                                 ****************

'My only solution and recommendation for saving positive VP has
been that "I continue to feel that the best way to preserve positive
video poker is to educate the masses to demand positive games, and
then have the masses play those games poorly." Incidentally, I'm now
working on a couple of projects to further this solution.'

                                 ****************

As to the rest of your post, which I've appended below along with my
"Casino Patronage Disclaimer", rather than counter the
generalizations that you employ to "advocate avoiding Coast
properties", I'm going to present you with a somewhat hypothetical
situation, and ask you to square this situation with your call for a
Coast boycott.

I intend that this will be my last personalized input on the subject
of misguided boycott efforts. I'll continue to post my boiler plate
"Casino Patronage Disclaimer" when I deem it appropriate, but any
further discussions by me will take place on FREEvpFREE.

vpFREE Administrator

                                 ****************

                          Hypothetical Situation

There are 100 Las Vegas residents who can play any video poker game
with perfect strategy.

Since Casino XYZ opened a few years ago, each of these 100 players
has played 25c FPDW at XYZ everyday for six hours. These players
have also accepted all comps that were available at XYZ and the 0.25%
cash back offered by XYZ. They (or any friends or relatives) haven't
patronized XYZ in any other way, and the only money they have spent
at XYZ has been tips on the beverages and other comps that they have
received from XYZ.

These 100 players have decreased the bottom line at XYZ at a rate of
$21,900 each per year from winnings and cash back. In addition, they
have decreased XYZ's bottom line by the value of bounce back
promotions and discretionary comps received.

All of a sudden XYZ downgraded their 25c FPDW but retained their
25c/50c 10/7 DB.

50 of our group of advantage players decided to boycott XYZ because
of the FPDW downgrade, and they are now playing at Casino ABC, where
25c FPDW are available, and where their overall return is similar
to what they had been getting at XYZ. These 50 are now decreasing
ABC's bottom line rather than XYZ's.

The other 50 decided to remain at XYZ and to play their 50c 10/7 DB,
which will decrease XYZ's bottom line by about $18,400 each per year,
plus comps. They decided to sacrifice some ER, from what they could
get at ABC, rather than boycotting XYZ, as XYZ wants them to do.

Question: How does this square with your call for a Coast boycott,
and which group of 50 is sending XYZ the stronger, clearer message?

                                 ****************

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@verizon.net>
Date sent: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 07:10:47 -0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Boycotts

vp_FREE wrote:

My point was, and remains (sans any recommendation or solution):
"Advantage play on positive situations hurts the bottom line of the
casino that receives that play."

I'm chiming in late on this, having returned from LV only this
evening.

I won't argue this point, but I would add my voice to those who
advocate avoiding Coast properties. The issue here is the
desirability of sending a clear message, not looking to get one last
lick in while some positive opportunities still exist at a property.

Frankly, continuing to play at a property that has taken actions
which adversely affect opportunities does nothing to motivate that
property to restore the good plays.

Reducing the number of bodies sitting at the machines and eating in
their restaurants is a visible indicator that, in sufficient numbers,
management will sit up and take note of. It's unlikely that they'll
say, "well, those that left we don't want here anyways". And, if you
manage to discourage one or more other players from visiting the
casino in question, so much the better (especially if they play
negative games).

I gather that you've pretty much thrown in the towel on having any
chance of exerting influence on Coast Casinos to reconsider. I
suppose most people have. For myself, I prefer to take what action
is available to me and hope for the best.

If after allowing adequate time (which I'd judge to be 6 months or
so) things don't change, then I'd reassess the likelihood that
continuing to stay away has any potential positive effect.

- Harry

                                 ****************

                  Casino Patronage Disclaimer

As a general rule, casinos make changes in their video poker
inventory hoping/expecting that the changes will enhance the casino's
bottom line.

Winning/advantage video poker players who play positive situations in
a casino decrease that casino's bottom line.

Most other patronage tends to increase a casino's bottom line.

If video poker players wish to send a message to a particular
casino whose actions have displeased the players, they should
categorize their own skills and intended forms of patronage, and act
accordingly.

vpFREE Administrator

#7

VFA - (less of a mouthful than vpFREE Administrator ...)

I'm probably missing your point due to being a little fatigued from my
trip.

I don't know where you got the impression that I've "pretty much
thrown in the towel on having any chance of exerting influence on
Coast Casinos to reconsider".

I deemed that you've thrown in the towel inasmuch as I don't quite
grasp how continuing to play at a casino that has devastated it's FPDW
inventory has a chance at influencing them to restore it.

I seem to read that you feel that by adversely affecting the bottom
line at that casino through playing the remaining positive games you
expect to achieve some result in pursuit of that objective.

Given my confusion, I'm sure I'm not getting your point correctly.

'My only solution and recommendation for saving positive VP has
been that "I continue to feel that the best way to preserve positive
video poker is to educate the masses to demand positive games, and
then have the masses play those games poorly." Incidentally, I'm now
working on a couple of projects to further this solution.'

No arugment with that. I'm just suggesting that a few more empty
seats can't hurt either. If you're still holding a seat, it's kind of
difficult to convince another member of the masses to leave theirs
citing the fact that it's ok for you to continue to play there because
you're playing a positive game while they're playing NSUD. That type
of reasoning goes over like a lead balloon.

I'm going to present you with a somewhat hypothetical
situation, and ask you to square this situation with your call for a
Coast boycott.

                          Hypothetical Situation

There are 100 Las Vegas residents who can play any video poker game
with perfect strategy.

Since Casino XYZ opened a few years ago, each of these 100 players
has played 25c FPDW at XYZ everyday for six hours. These players
have also accepted all comps that were available at XYZ and the 0.25%
cash back offered by XYZ. They (or any friends or relatives) haven't
patronized XYZ in any other way, and the only money they have spent
at XYZ has been tips on the beverages and other comps that they have
received from XYZ.

These 100 players have decreased the bottom line at XYZ at a rate of
$21,900 each per year from winnings and cash back. In addition, they
have decreased XYZ's bottom line by the value of bounce back
promotions and discretionary comps received.

All of a sudden XYZ downgraded their 25c FPDW but retained their
25c/50c 10/7 DB.

50 of our group of advantage players decided to boycott XYZ because
of the FPDW downgrade, and they are now playing at Casino ABC, where
25c FPDW are available, and where their overall return is similar
to what they had been getting at XYZ. These 50 are now decreasing
ABC's bottom line rather than XYZ's.

The other 50 decided to remain at XYZ and to play their 50c 10/7 DB,
which will decrease XYZ's bottom line by about $18,400 each per year,
plus comps. They decided to sacrifice some ER, from what they could
get at ABC, rather than boycotting XYZ, as XYZ wants them to do.

Question: How does this square with your call for a Coast boycott,
and which group of 50 is sending XYZ the stronger, clearer message?

I'm actually a little keen on what your take is on this question since
I suspect I'm not getting your focus. I see the 50 who stay at XZY as
sending the message that everything is just fine with them since they
continue to play in the casino, irrespective of what they play. Those
that defect send the message that they don't expect to return until
FPDW is restored. A simplistic interpretation, but I consider
management to be rather simplistic in their outlook.

As you appear to suggest, the issue's not likely worth kicking around
much further. It's gotten a little tired and bottom line the
situation is simply frustrating. However, the question is what do you
do when Stations or others follow suit?

- Harry