vpFREE2 Forums

(Fwd) Re: (Fwd) Sahara LV Update

Private email to vpFae:

···

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

"vpcostsmoney" wrote:

WRONG paladingamingllc! The full pay machines are REAL FULL PAY.
There are signs above the machine that say the machines pay up to
100.2%. The Deuces, Double Bonus, and Double Double Bonus are the
over 100% schedules, and the Bonus and Bonus Deluxe are the 99+%
games.

Vpcostsmoney is right. The full pay DW mentioned above
on the 50c and $1 slants is the standard FPDW, not
LDW, not NSUD.

They also have eight uprights in 50c and $1 3/5/10
Play with 8/5 BP, NSU, 10/7 DB and 10/6/50 DDB. There
are quarters on these but they have lesser paytables
like 10/6/40 DDB, 9/7 DB, pNSU and 7/5 BP. These $1 10
Plays are getting heavy action even though some of us
haven't played 10/7 DB in awhile!!!

A slot tech was standing behind us watching us play
for awhile. He looked amused by the frenzy.

This Locals Lane is right beside the Caravan Cafe
across the aisle from the poker room.

Private email to vpFae:

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

"vpcostsmoney" wrote:

WRONG paladingamingllc! The full pay machines are REAL FULL PAY.
There are signs above the machine that say the machines pay up to
100.2%. The Deuces, Double Bonus, and Double Double Bonus are the
over 100% schedules, and the Bonus and Bonus Deluxe are the 99+%
games.

Vpcostsmoney is right. The full pay DW mentioned above
on the 50c and $1 slants is the standard FPDW, not
LDW, not NSUD.

I don't see how the machines can pay up to 100.2% and have a game that
pays back 100.76%.

>Private email to vpFae:
>
>********************************
>
>"vpcostsmoney" wrote:
>
>> WRONG paladingamingllc! The full pay machines are REAL FULL PAY.
>> There are signs above the machine that say the machines pay up to
>> 100.2%. The Deuces, Double Bonus, and Double Double Bonus are

the

>> over 100% schedules, and the Bonus and Bonus Deluxe are the 99+%
>> games.
>
>Vpcostsmoney is right. The full pay DW mentioned above
>on the 50c and $1 slants is the standard FPDW, not
>LDW, not NSUD.

I don't see how the machines can pay up to 100.2% and have a game

that

pays back 100.76%.

No concerns as it's almost a slam dunk the machine will soon
be "corrected" now that it's been outed.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:

Thanks for your clarification, and your contribution to the group .
Team play torched the play this evening, the $1 denoms are gone, and a
em was sent to Admin. It was mostly one bankroll pounding the $1 10-7
10-line FWIH. The $1 FPDW is gone too. Y'all can go back to your day
jobs now.

···

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

Private email to vpFae:

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

"vpcostsmoney" wrote:

> WRONG paladingamingllc! The full pay machines are REAL FULL PAY.
> There are signs above the machine that say the machines pay up to
> 100.2%. The Deuces, Double Bonus, and Double Double Bonus are the
> over 100% schedules, and the Bonus and Bonus Deluxe are the 99+%
> games.

Vpcostsmoney is right. The full pay DW mentioned above
on the 50c and $1 slants is the standard FPDW, not
LDW, not NSUD.

They also have eight uprights in 50c and $1 3/5/10
Play with 8/5 BP, NSU, 10/7 DB and 10/6/50 DDB. There
are quarters on these but they have lesser paytables
like 10/6/40 DDB, 9/7 DB, pNSU and 7/5 BP. These $1 10
Plays are getting heavy action even though some of us
haven't played 10/7 DB in awhile!!!

A slot tech was standing behind us watching us play
for awhile. He looked amused by the frenzy.

This Locals Lane is right beside the Caravan Cafe
across the aisle from the poker room.

Thanks for your clarification, and your contribution
to the group. Team play torched the play this evening,
the $1 denoms are gone, and a em was sent to Admin. It
was mostly one bankroll pounding the $1 10-7 10-line FWIH.
The $1 FPDW is gone too. Y'all can go back to your day
jobs now.

This is a retarded slot manager's mistake, not someone
making a post here. The quarter level version of many
of these games will still be swell for many tourists
and give people a reason to go to the Sahara.

> Thanks for your clarification, and your contribution
> to the group. Team play torched the play this evening,
> the $1 denoms are gone, and a em was sent to Admin. It
> was mostly one bankroll pounding the $1 10-7 10-line FWIH.
> The $1 FPDW is gone too. Y'all can go back to your day
> jobs now.

worldbefree22001 replied:

This is a retarded slot manager's mistake, not someone
making a post here. The quarter level version of many
of these games will still be swell for many tourists
and give people a reason to go to the Sahara.

Are you firm in your conviction that there wasn't a mistake on both
sides of the fence?

In light of the close event sequence, I'm hard pressed to see how
someone could cite the original post (much less the "clarification")
as being of benefit to the group. And, allowing fair room that those
interested in the play (recreational or otherwise) have actually been
harmed, this again draws the vpFREE "Sunshine Policy" into question as
possibly misguided in extreme situations such as this. (IMHO, of course)

As far as the longevity of the lower denom plays, I'll assert that the
Strip track record (not to mention greater LV) is such that there's a
Darwinian expectation that these will go by the wayside well within 3
mo ... the signage discrepancy suggests this as well. (That's not to
say that there's any reason not to talk up a very strong quarter game
in most instances.)

- Harry

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

> > Thanks for your clarification, and your contribution
> > to the group. Team play torched the play this evening,
> > the $1 denoms are gone, and a em was sent to Admin. It
> > was mostly one bankroll pounding the $1 10-7 10-line FWIH.
> > The $1 FPDW is gone too. Y'all can go back to your day
> > jobs now.

worldbefree22001 replied:
> This is a retarded slot manager's mistake, not someone
> making a post here. The quarter level version of many
> of these games will still be swell for many tourists
> and give people a reason to go to the Sahara.

Harry Wrote

Are you firm in your conviction that there wasn't a mistake on both
sides of the fence?

In light of the close event sequence, I'm hard pressed to see how
someone could cite the original post (much less

the "clarification")

as being of benefit to the group.

I won't dispute the likelyhood that a post here
let to the pounding, but do you really think this
play would fly under the radar for long? Being
snarky to the original poster who was simply
following the sunshine policy is counter productive.

Remember this is just my hobby not my job.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "worldbefree22001" <krajewski.sa@...>
wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@>
wrote:
>
> > > Thanks for your clarification, and your contribution
> > > to the group. Team play torched the play this evening,
> > > the $1 denoms are gone, and a em was sent to Admin. It
> > > was mostly one bankroll pounding the $1 10-7 10-line FWIH.
> > > The $1 FPDW is gone too. Y'all can go back to your day
> > > jobs now.
>
> worldbefree22001 replied:
> > This is a retarded slot manager's mistake, not someone
> > making a post here. The quarter level version of many
> > of these games will still be swell for many tourists
> > and give people a reason to go to the Sahara.
>
> Harry Wrote
>
> Are you firm in your conviction that there wasn't a mistake on

both

> sides of the fence?
>
> In light of the close event sequence, I'm hard pressed to see how
> someone could cite the original post (much less
the "clarification")
> as being of benefit to the group.

I won't dispute the likelyhood that a post here
let to the pounding, but do you really think this
play would fly under the radar for long?

I won't dispute that this play would fly under the radar for long but
do you really think that the posting here didn't shorten the lifespan
of this play?

Agreed, 100%.

C'mon, all you Chicken Littles. There was no keeping this play a secret.

Not with a brand-new locals-only slot club desk right outside the corral of
machines. Not with a brand-new separate card status just for locals. Not
with a ten foot high sign reading LOCALS' LANE. Not with machine-top signs
advertising the 100%+ status of the machines.

I know how paranoid this list is about plays being outed on here - but this
was not a single isolated machine, this was not a slot tech's mistake, this
was a concerted effort to lure locals in with a selection of well-publicized
100%+ games and additional slot benefits. This was not one slot tech
mistake in an isloated machine in the middle of nowhere.

This was something the Sahara clearly wanted publicized. a .50/$1 FPDW
machine with 100% signage? On the Strip? Come on, people, let's use a
little common sense. That play was going to get slammed the second people
found it. And its location was so high-profile that it couldn't be missed
by anyone visiting NASCAR Cafe, roller coaster, buffet, or the showrooms.

Contrary to what you all may think, slot directors know what they have on
their floor, they know where they have it on their floor. This is the
computer era, people. Assets like slot machine RNG chips are inventoried
fastidiously. This was a deliberate move on Sahara's part, not an overlooked
mistake. This was a concerted effort.

And of course they realize that when they offer a high-demon positive game
plus .25% CB + .25% free play + 1% comps, it is going to be played heavily.
Honestly, do you think casinos don't anticipate this? Do you think that
they don't run all kinds of financial models and evaluate the impact on
business before they change up their machine mix?

Seriously, people! Think about your own jobs. Do you throw new products
out on the market without running pro formas on their profitability first?
Do you execute a new plan without planning for its consequences? Do you
think in the computer age, in a business as numbers- and technology-driven
as gaming, that "throw a bunch of shit against the wall and see what sticks"
is honestly anyone's business plan?

Casinos are businesses, just like any other. And management at most casinos
are not ignorant rubes to be fleeced by smart players. Mostly, it's the
other way around.

And if a week of Sahara having the best-paying slots on the Strip is what it
takes to get their publicity, kickstart their business and give people a
reason to go into the building, so much the better for the casino, for the
market and for the business.

We all know that this is a constant game of cat and mouse between player and
house. It's just important to keep in mind sometimes that while the mouse
may be clever, the cat doesn't always have its head all the way up its own
ass. How much mileage do you think Sahara is going to get out of their
Locals' Lane slot machine mix just in terms of PR?

A play like this has a limited shelf life by sheer value of the competitive
market conditions. No reasonable person would assume that machines of that
sort would last. Deal with the knowledge by either resigning yourself to
the fact that plays like these will not survive in the long term, and get in
on them while the getting's good.

It's one thing when a long-term, dependable play bites the dust, like the
FPDW at Silverton. It's something clearly different in this case, which was
obviously meant to provoke a certain response and generate a certain amount
of buzz.

There's so much bellyaching on this list about the consequences of the
sunshine policy. Consider the following:

Not all plays are meant, by casino management, to be long term.
Sahara's promotion of these games' availability indicates they had no desire
to keep it on the downlow.

Let's get real here. If you want to point fingers, might I suggest the
following worthy targets of your blame, rather than those altruistic souls
who choose to share a good play with the group IN ACCORDANCE with group
policy. Word gets out on good games. Any slot director worth his paycheck
knows this intuitively. Deal with it.

If you're looking for someone to blame. blame the economic slump that's
tossing Vegas' salad right now. Blame the short-sightedness and greed of
private equity investors who bought highly leveraged gaming companies at top
dollar at the peak of the market, and now have to scramble to cut costs.

Understand that the very nature of the casino industry right now will result
in limits the "loss leaders" that casinos can afford by offering positive
play opportunities. In more profitable times, casinos can afford a few
machines with lower hold - but in bad economic times, they're going to try
to squeeze every last drop of juice out of their players.

Seriously, people. Paranoia and finger-pointing are pointless. Complain
about it if it makes you feel better, then vote with your feet and your
dollars if you don't like the changes your favorite casino makes.

Be grateful that places like the Sahara have the brass cojones to even
experiment with something like this when every single trend in the whole
market is going in the exact opposite direction.

Jay Fenster
Open Road Publishing
* * *
Author, Open Road's Best of Las Vegas

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

···

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 8:18 AM, worldbefree22001 <krajewski.sa@pg.com> wrote:

I won't dispute the likelyhood that a post here
let to the pounding, but do you really think this
play would fly under the radar for long? Being
snarky to the original poster who was simply
following the sunshine policy is counter productive.

worldbefree22001 wrote:

I won't dispute the likelyhood that a post here
let to the pounding, but do you really think this
play would fly under the radar for long? Being
snarky to the original poster who was simply
following the sunshine policy is counter productive.

Remember this is just my hobby not my job.

Just to clarify, the "snarky" bit of the thread that you cited would
appear to be offered up by me, given the manner in which you quoted
it. It was posted by Paladin. I hope there didn't seem to be a snide
slant in what I added.

- H.

Jay Fenster wrote:

Contrary to what you all may think, slot directors know what they
have on their floor, they know where they have it on their floor.
This is the computer era, people.

... Do you think that they don't run all kinds of financial models
and evaluate the impact on business before they change up their
machine mix?

Seriously, people! Think about your own jobs. Do you throw new
products out on the market without running pro formas on their
profitability first?

FWIW, let me clarify my intent in commenting on this thread. I'm not
trying to censure anyone into adopting a Masonic secrecy oath where it
comes to very strong machines. But, I have a particular perspective
when it comes to sharing info on such machines and I merely look to
offer it up to others to weigh against their existing perceptions.

I'll put out two things in reply here:

-- First, I don't think casinos are run with the efficiencies and
insight that a highly tuned business such as P&G is. Casinos operate
in an environment where 99% of their decisions re management of the
floor will be profitable -- it's typically a can't miss proposition.
(That's not to say that the decisions are necessary optimally
profitable.)

When it comes to the other 1% that involves risk of a loss, I think
management is somewhat blasé and resorts to an empirical "let's try
this and see what happens" management style. The frequency with which
games and promo sometimes pop up only to be suddenly pulled attests to
this. So, no, in this case I don't think that there was a
quantitative assessment of exactly what results to expect from the
addition of these games to the floor.

-- Second, re posting an attractive play here for the benefit of
members: I view among the purposes of this group the sharing of
information for the good of recreational players. I don't think pros
are intended beneficiaries.

Citing one play offering here, my "finger in the wind" guess is that
there were at least 5 times as many pro lurkers who were in the
position to benefit from the $1 10-play game info than there were rec
members. And I have no doubt that it was pro play that killed the
play for those rec members.

I feel very confident in saying that as things played out, the rec
members here benefited little from the sharing of the info. It can't
be said with certainty whether the hard hitting pros learned of it
here or the grapevine (both are harshly efficient at disseminating
info). Personally, I choose to err on the side of caution where the
potential harm greatly outweighs possible good (and experience leads
me to find that prudent).

Whatever the perspective on the subject, I very much favor an acid
test that was, in essence, put forth by Paladin a short while ago: If
there's a good play that you're bankrolled for and actively play, it's
your business if you choose to bandy it about to others. However, if
it's out of your league, you really should leave broadcasting to others.

- Harry

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

worldbefree22001 wrote:
> I won't dispute the likelyhood that a post here
> let to the pounding, but do you really think this
> play would fly under the radar for long? Being
> snarky to the original poster who was simply
> following the sunshine policy is counter productive.
>
> Remember this is just my hobby not my job.

Just to clarify, the "snarky" bit of the thread that you cited

would

appear to be offered up by me, given the manner in which you quoted
it. It was posted by Paladin. I hope there didn't seem to be a

snide

slant in what I added.

- H.

Appologies, I did not mean to intimate that. You are
a consumate gentleman. My reference was to Paladin's
"thank you" for the contribution statement. My poor
editing is to blame.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...>
wrote:

worldbefree22001 wrote:
> I won't dispute the likelyhood that a post here
> let to the pounding, but do you really think this
> play would fly under the radar for long? Being
> snarky to the original poster who was simply
> following the sunshine policy is counter productive.
>
> Remember this is just my hobby not my job.

Just to clarify, the "snarky" bit of the thread that you cited

would

appear to be offered up by me, given the manner in which you quoted
it. It was posted by Paladin. I hope there didn't seem to be a

snide

slant in what I added.

- H.

Appologies, I did not mean to intimate that. You are
a consumate gentleman. My reference was to Paladin's
"thank you" for the contribution statement. My poor
editing is to blame.

Ummm....Duh. Thanks.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:

Citing one play offering here, my "finger in the wind" guess is that
there were at least 5 times as many pro lurkers who were in the
position to benefit from the $1 10-play game info than there were rec
members. And I have no doubt that it was pro play that killed the
play for those rec members.

I feel very confident in saying that as things played out, the rec
members here benefited little from the sharing of the info. It can't
be said with certainty whether the hard hitting pros learned of it
here or the grapevine (both are harshly efficient at disseminating
info). Personally, I choose to err on the side of caution where the
potential harm greatly outweighs possible good (and experience leads
me to find that prudent).

Whatever the perspective on the subject, I very much favor an acid
test that was, in essence, put forth by Paladin a short while ago: If
there's a good play that you're bankrolled for and actively play, it's
your business if you choose to bandy it about to others. However, if
it's out of your league, you really should leave broadcasting to others.

paladingamingllc wrote:

Ummm....Duh. Thanks.

I'm sure I merit that.

- H.

paladingamingllc wrote:

Thanks for your clarification, and your contribution to the group .
Team play torched the play this evening, the $1 denoms are gone,
and a em was sent to Admin. It was mostly one bankroll
pounding the $1 10-7 10-line FWIH. The $1 FPDW is gone too. Y'all
can go back to your day jobs now.

I must say that paladingamingllc jumps to hasty conclusions more
easily than an Olympic class high jumper clears a five foot bar.

It is my belief that paladin's interpretation of events is colored
by his desire to keep certain situations unpublished and his
penchant for sensationalistic commentary.

There were husband/wife and boyfriend/girlfriend "teams" there.
Every other 10-7 player that I saw there was definitely independant.
They are perhaps perceived as a team due to the co-operation
of sharing information and the camaraderie. The FPDW may have
had some more closely affiliated players.

G'luck all,
Gamb00ler