Want I want to do is write a California initiative for limiting the
amount casinos can rape from the public. What I want is a 10 percent
limit on horse racing, 99.5% minimum payback for video poker, 95%
minimum payback for slot machines, 99.3% payback for blackjack and
table games. If we can get like 100,000 signitures it will be on the
ballot.
Bill
You forgot the lottery with it's return of 51.9%
Out of the remaining 48.1, only 34.9% ever ends up in the schools, of which much of that ends up as administrative expenses once allocated to the schools.
ADR
At 07:12 PM 12/5/2003, you wrote:
Want I want to do is write a California initiative for limiting the
amount casinos can rape from the public. What I want is a 10 percent
limit on horse racing, 99.5% minimum payback for video poker, 95%
minimum payback for slot machines, 99.3% payback for blackjack and
table games. If we can get like 100,000 signitures it will be on the
ballot.Bill
adr wrote:
>Want I want to do is write a California initiative for limiting the
>amount casinos can rape from the public. What I want is a 10 percent
>limit on horse racing, 99.5% minimum payback for video poker, 95%
>minimum payback for slot machines, 99.3% payback for blackjack and
>table games. If we can get like 100,000 signitures it will be on the
>ballot.
I don't live in California and am not likely to visit, so I don't care what you all do out there; just don't get your initiative started in any state close to Arkansas. I'd hate to see your efforts backfire and you screw up what we already have.
Example 1: The anti-gambling crowd gets fired up and you have a fight on your hands just to keep gambling legal in your state. Or maybe other gambling-related issues start getting attention, like taxes; maybe you'd get a tax break, but on the other hand, maybe you'd regret the changes. In 2002, Mississippi apparently cut their state taxes for gambling income from around 5% down to 3%; sounds good until you find that they also changed the law so that you can no longer deduct ANY of your gambling losses. I haven't read the law -- just a post about the change -- so I'm wondering how it's supposed to work. You see, I might take a $100.00 session-stake and reach perhaps $5,000.00 coin-in by replaying my winnings over and over until the stake is gone. Now, if I managed to $5,000.00 coin-in with only a $100.00 starting stake, it sounds to me like I won $4,900.00 there; of course, I lost it all, including my original $100.00 stake, and that's what my records would show and how the IRS would apparently see it (assuming they believed my records). But if all winnings are taxable and no losses are deductible in Mississippi, do I owe tax on the $4,900.00? Regardless of that little bit of puzzlement, my point is that we were better off with the higher 5% tax rate on winnings less losses, than we are with the lower 3% rate and no deduction of losses. I'm not going to spend the time now showing you the math; anyone reading this out to be able to figure that one out in their head.
Example 2: Your initiative passes and while the casinos can still make a profit, they decide to yank out ALL of their VP games and replace them with your minimum 95% payback slots. GREAT JOB! Plus the comps go out the window, along with most of the cash-back and bounce back. The places get dirty and run down looking, and the air conditioner is set a little higher in the summer to conserve electricity. I'm exaggerating a little, but frankly I'm pretty darn happy with the way things are around here, although I'm sure they're not as good as they once were before so many people started become skilled at VP.
Cheers.
Bill Velek
At 07:12 PM 12/5/2003, you wrote:
This may not be possible. Other than horse racing and the State
lottery, the other games you mentioned are only available in Indian
casinos, and Indian casinos here are under no obligation to even
reveal to the public their "wins" or "holds", their games are
regulated by their own individual tribal councils (fox watching the
henhouse), and there are no uniform codes or enforcement guidelines.
Indeed, unless you are playing machines (IGT. Balley's, Williams,
etc) that are also licensed in Nevada or New Jersey, or visit Indian
casinos (Rincon, Thunder Valley) that are managed by companies that
have casinos in other well regulated jurisdictions, Indian casinos
in California don't even need to guarantee the integrity of their
games, and they can cheat with impunity if they want to. In fact,
some of them do: Stanford Wong's Blackjack news reported a case
where a Southern California Indian Casino was proven in court to
have used marked cards in it's blackjack games (why use marked cards
unless you want to cheat--deal seconds, preferential shuffling,
etc?) But there was absolutely no negative impact to the casino.
Indian casinos can always hide behind their sovereignties. You'll
also see plenty of slot machines whose manufacturers are banned from
doing business in Nevada: these machines are not "random" --- there
are switches inside to set the hold percentages.
Take a look at yesterday's Sacramento Bee, an ad for Thunder Valley
Casino showed a very happy customer: "William Won $7,200!". Why was
William so happy? Well, he is holding 6 stacks of c-notes (totaling
$12,000) on his left hand, pointing to it with his right index
finger. So did William really got paid $12,000 for a $7,200 jackpot?
Another Thunder Valley ad in the Sacramento Bee : 2 eggs, 2
beacons/2 sausages/ham, for $2.99, BUT the picture showed 3 eggs AND
2 beacons AND 2 sausages And ham AND a New York steak! Now this is
from a non-cheating casino with an average daily win approaching $2
million managed by Stations Casinos, can you imagine what other
lesser casinos are doing?! And they do it with impunity because they
can get away with it.
So an initiative limiting gaming holds is not only unrealistic, it's
probably impossible. I sympathize with you, and it chills my soul
when I see people literally standing in line to play $1/$5 7-5-4
double bonus or an off the wall brand 25c 5-coin vp game that has a
$20,000 royal flush progressive jackpot. In other states, gaming is
a cash cow, for politicians, it's like a crazy uncle in the attic
that you don't what to talk about because it's the most regressive
form of taxation. Here in California, it's regressive non-taxation.
There are only two solutions, either repeal the State Lottery or
completely legalize gaming and make it our crazy (but HONEST) uncle
in the attic.
L. Wluiki
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "billberggren" <bill.berggren@p...>
wrote:
Want I want to do is write a California initiative for limiting the
amount casinos can rape from the public. What I want is a 10
percent
limit on horse racing, 99.5% minimum payback for video poker, 95%
minimum payback for slot machines, 99.3% payback for blackjack and
table games. If we can get like 100,000 signitures it will be on
the
ballot.
Bill
Bill Velek wrote:
... but frankly I'm pretty darn happy with the
way things are around here, although I'm sure they're not as good as
they once were before so many people started become skilled at VP.
A big AMEN to that. Don't screw with a situation that, as it stands,
is still an incredibly good opportunity for the smart player.
Let's get real here. Player advocacy groups don't hold, and aren't
likely to hold, any real sway with legislators. Any legislator who
goes on record as trying to protect the interests of gamblers is
likely to get clobbered by much more powerful constituencies who view
gambling as a huge social ill.
Leave well enough alone for now. Let the casinos discretely operate
in our favor to the extent that it's also in their favor.
- Harry
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "billberggren" <bill.berggren@p...>
wrote:
Want I want to do is write a California initiative for limiting the
amount casinos can rape from the public. What I want is a 10
percent
limit on horse racing, 99.5% minimum payback for video poker, 95%
minimum payback for slot machines, 99.3% payback for blackjack
Gosh, some of these "minimums" exceed what's permitted in Nevada!
(For example, I
believe the NVG allows slot paybacks down to 75%.) Sure, the Indian
casinos give a
pretty poor return, but no one is forcing people to play there. In
Nevada it's
competition that forces the casinos to offer better returns. Seems to
me that an
economic response (i.e., don't play if you don't like the odds) will
be more
appropriate and more effective than a political response.
Just, as they say, IMHO.
By the way, I live in Sacramento near Station Casino's evil empire
(Thunder Valley).
Beautiful place; terrible play. The only reason to go is to play the
"dancing monkeys"
(video slots). You're likely to lose, but at least the points are
good in Vegas.
Kate
Thanks all for your responses, but IMHO they are inaccurate. There
are no lobbiests in Sacramento or Washington to support the gamblers.
The goal of the casino is to maximize profits. I read somewhere the
average casino in CA takes $300 per gambler a day. This is
outrageous. In California, indian casinos and all casinos are
regulated by the State. I am sure this is probably true in most
states. The problem is they don't regulate they take campaign
contributions and tax revenue from them. They are in bed with them.
Leave it up to the voters to decide whether things are alright the way
they are. At minimum each machine and game should be labeled on their
payback. What could possibly be bad about that.
Word of advice to casino bettors. 1 line, one nickle or better 1 line
one penny. Until they are labeled on payback.
My only gripe is casinos should be like the palms. The palms is a
model on the way casinos should be. And casino that does not have a
least 10 100% payback poker machines should be banned.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "billberggren" <bill.berggren@p...>
wrote:
Want I want to do is write a California initiative for limiting the
amount casinos can rape from the public. What I want is a 10
percent
limit on horse racing, 99.5% minimum payback for video poker, 95%
minimum payback for slot machines, 99.3% payback for blackjack and
table games. If we can get like 100,000 signitures it will be on
the
ballot.
Bill
Yeah, and gas can't cost more than a dollar, and no fees for bounced
checks. Sheesh. Don't be such a California commie. You already
have rights. You have the right not to partonize establishments that
don't offer a fair game. You have the right to right about and
publicize establishements that don't offer a fair game. To try to
make a law about hold %'s is bound to have scads of unintended
consequences. Hell, you might end up with some former action star as
your state gaming commsioner!
Bill,
For arguments sake, let's take your suggestion to one of its logical
conclusions.
First, the state of Nevada mandates that every casino provide a minimum of
ten video poker machines that return 100% payback (a theoretical return over
a theoretical long term).
Second, customer A plays said machine(s), but does not achieve a 100%
return. Customer B plays said machine(s) and achieves a 100% return.
Customer C plays said machine(s) and achieves a greater than 100% return.
Third, a law suit is filed by customer A against the state and the casino
for deceitful marketing practices; customer B files a law suit against
customer C, the state and the casino for unfair gain/profit by another.
Meanwhile, tax dollars are being spent to sort all of this out.
Fourth, the state mandates all video poker machine manufacturers to develop
hardware and software that will ensure an exact 100% return after "x" amount
of time playing. This amount of time must reflect optimum conditions for
each player (one player can only play for an hour at a time due to a bad
back, another can only play for 30 minutes at a time due an eye strain
condition, yet another can only play for 45 minutes at a time due to this,
that or the other thing).
Meanwhile, tax dollars are being spent to sort all of this out.
Fifth, casino operators (including the Palms in your example) and machine
manufactures close shop in the U.S. Millions of citizens (affected directly
and indirectly by the gaming industry) are out of work. Tax revenues drop
by 50%. Legal costs supported by tax dollars soar by 50%. Ooops.
Elected officials, administrators, lobbyists all huddle around and spend
millions more in tax dollars to figure out what went wrong and how to
correct it. I, for one, would rather take my chances in a casino than be
subject to the will of politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists.
Fast forward to some date in the future...
Casinos and machine manufacturers are back in business and none of them
offer anything close to 100% payback on any game. And, business is booming.
Moral of the story: If you feel casinos are ripping you off, don't play
(don't stay, don't eat, don't shop, etc.). Asking the government to ensure
you go through life with a 100% return on your efforts is asking for trouble
you or I can't even imagine (the above scenario is only the tip of the
iceberg).
I admire you're passion on this issue and I support your right to vocalize
your opinion. May I suggest you start your lobby efforts by addressing
state lotteries. I'm sure the government (in fairness/under lobby pressure)
will be the first to amend the huge discrepancy in payback percentages
associated with the very lottery they voted in and manage.
Good playing and good luck to all.
on 12/10/03 10:42 AM, billberggren at bill.berggren@padobe.com wrote:
Thanks all for your responses, but IMHO they are inaccurate. There
are no lobbiests in Sacramento or Washington to support the gamblers.
The goal of the casino is to maximize profits. I read somewhere the
average casino in CA takes $300 per gambler a day. This is
outrageous. In California, indian casinos and all casinos are
regulated by the State. I am sure this is probably true in most
states. The problem is they don't regulate they take campaign
contributions and tax revenue from them. They are in bed with them.
Leave it up to the voters to decide whether things are alright the way
they are. At minimum each machine and game should be labeled on their
payback. What could possibly be bad about that.Word of advice to casino bettors. 1 line, one nickle or better 1 line
one penny. Until they are labeled on payback.My only gripe is casinos should be like the palms. The palms is a
model on the way casinos should be. And casino that does not have a
least 10 100% payback poker machines should be banned.vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/Links.htm
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
I have to disagree with the posters that are against the following
point made by the original poster below. All of the responses have
brought attention away from the idea of having people address the
issue made by the original poster. I believe the following is the
minimum a casino should be required to do (and you and I know why the
casino doesn't want to). Second, if there was a way for a casino to
hide a VP payback %, are you going to honestly tell me, you believe
they would not do it, given the point, if they could get away with it
(hey, look at 6:5 Blackjack).
Yes, I'm all in favor of the following, would sign such a petition to
get it on a ballot, and laugh at all the phony baloney ad campaigns
from the casino, trying to convince people its a bad idea, and not in
the public's best interest (yea, right).
I don't live in California, but if I did, I would say, sign me up.
Better yet, I would like to see this in every state where there is
gambling. So now, let's see how posters say this is a bad idea for
you and me regarding the following, and can you really buy it?
I don't intend to be nasty here, and it may sound that way, but
people need to take some control over corporate America (and the
like), or they will be rapped of their money by laws that benefit
high profit seeking organizations. The original poster has posted:
Leave it up to the voters to decide whether things are alright the
way
they are. At minimum each machine and game should be labeled on
their
payback. What could possibly be bad about that.
Word of advice to casino bettors. 1 line, one nickle or better 1
line
one penny. Until they are labeled on payback.
I don't live in California, but if I did, I would say, sign me up.
Better yet, I would like to see this in every state where there
is gambling. So now, let's see how posters say this is a bad idea
for you and me regarding the following, and can you really buy it?
What, exactly, is wrong with a high profit? Isn't that what you're seeking
by going into the casino?
You'd like to throw a $20 into a machine and get $1000 out, right? Sounds
like "high profit" to me. That's bad, then, right?
Perhaps you should be limited in how much profit you can take out of the
casino as a gambler? After all, it just isn't fair to the rest of the
players who don't win if you're benefitted (by luck, or by picking a good
paytable) and they haven't.
In fact, why not guarantee a win to everyone who walks in the door!
Because, of course, you have *NO CHOICE* but to gamble, and when you spend
your gambling dollars, you have *NO CHOICE* but to do so in a California
casino with a poor paytable, because you're chained to the stool at a VP
machine that only pays 95%... There's just *NO WAY* you could, say, drive to
Las Vegas or Lake Tahoe. Nope. You're stuck.
Are you such a hopeless addict that you need the GOVERNMENT to tell you when
a game is bad?
I don't intend to be nasty here, and it may sound that way, but
people need to take some control over corporate America (and the
like), or they will be rapped of their money by laws that benefit
high profit seeking organizations.
You don't sound nasty. You sound foolish. You, and every other consumer,
have the ultimate measure of control over "corporate America" -- you can
choose whether or not to buy their products. Period.
Because (being a gambling man myself) I'd wager that "corporate America" is
what built the car you drive, the house you live in, made the clothes you
wear, and more importantly, gives you a *JOB* so that you can have money to
go blow at the casinos -- even though you're obviously not able to tell what
a good game is and what isn't, and want the government to do so for you.
No, my friend, what we need to rein in are the doo-gooders who, in the name
of "protecting children" or "taking back from corporate profiteers" or some
such touchy-feely crap, want to remove every last bastion of individual
liberty left to us in this country.
Add to the below that a casino may not refuse service unless you have
committed some kind of crime.
Blackjack players should not be barred
Video poker players should not be barred, etc
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:10:11 -0600, you wrote:
The only changes in the gambling laws that I would like to see are:
1. Legalized gambling in jurisdictions where it is currently illegal
(won't happen for a long time in some jurisdictions);
2. Regulation and enforcement of laws to prevent on-line casino fraud
(probably next to impossible, but who knows...);
3. Discontinuation of all taxes on gambling winnings (which isn't going
to happen); and
4. Repeal of laws which prohibit casinos from having games which pay
over 100% (which I understand is the case someplaces)Other than that, I'm happy the way things are. Becareful you don't rock
the boat so much that you turn it over. There are lots of people in
this boat who don't feel like going swimming.Bill Velek
billberggren wrote:
Thanks all for your responses, but IMHO they are inaccurate. There
are no lobbiests in Sacramento or Washington to support the gamblers.
The goal of the casino is to maximize profits. I read somewhere the
average casino in CA takes $300 per gambler a day. This is
outrageous. In California, indian casinos and all casinos are
regulated by the State. I am sure this is probably true in most
states. The problem is they don't regulate they take campaign
contributions and tax revenue from them. They are in bed with them.
Leave it up to the voters to decide whether things are alright the way
they are. At minimum each machine and game should be labeled on their
payback. What could possibly be bad about that.Word of advice to casino bettors. 1 line, one nickle or better 1 line
one penny. Until they are labeled on payback.My only gripe is casinos should be like the palms. The palms is a
model on the way casinos should be. And casino that does not have a
least 10 100% payback poker machines should be banned.vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/Links.htm
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Terry wrote:
I have to disagree with the posters that are against the following
point made by the original poster below. All of the responses have
brought attention away from the idea of having people address the
issue made by the original poster. ...
The original poster had made several 'issues'. I don't have near as much trouble with the one you now focus on, as I had had with the other ideas he proposed.
... I believe the following is the
minimum a casino should be required to do (and you and I know why the
casino doesn't want to).
Labeling machines with their payback?? ... so that folks start wandering around the casinos comparing labels trying to find the best paying machines? Sure, that sounds fair. Of course, we'll all need to stand in line in the VP section from then on, because most folks don't have a clue that VP pays so much better than regular slot machines, on average. Yep, I can hear them calling out to one another now: "Hey, Mary, look at this; these pay 99.54%, and all of those over there pay just 95% (or whatever) ..."
and while we stand in what will probably be a guaranteed line, waiting for our turn to play, we can be entertained by the clueless folks who will drop their money into a VP machine just like it were a slot machine, knowing practically nothing about strategy.
But what's that I hear them well-meaning folks murmuring now?? ... that the casinos need to also tell folks that the VP percentages are associated with long-term play with perfect strategy?? ... that the labels need to explain what is meant by long-term play?? Maybe we could get the law to require a Help Screen that would include some of the better posts from VPFree and a short-course in statistics. Hey, I have an idea; I will provide all of the labels for free for the machines, if they will tell people that they can purchase perfect strategy cards from me. 
Second, if there was a way for a casino to
hide a VP payback %, are you going to honestly tell me, you believe
they would not do it, given the point, if they could get away with it
(hey, look at 6:5 Blackjack).
Aren't they hiding it now? Isn't that exactly your point? Or are you suggesting that they are _tampering_ with the machines so that they payback less than what is statistically expected long-term? I am highly skeptical that tampering can occur today.
Yes, I'm all in favor of the following, would sign such a petition to
get it on a ballot, and laugh at all the phony baloney ad campaigns
from the casino, trying to convince people its a bad idea, and not in
the public's best interest (yea, right).
We have a big election campaign going on right now ... yet again ... over whether to legalize gambling in Arkansas; yeah, the do-gooders who feel they need to protect us from ourselves are putting lots of ads on the air scaring people by telling them how bad gambling and "Video Poker" will be for our children -- very specifically and pointedly mentioned "Video Poker" by name -- not mentioning roulette or craps or blackjack, but rather "Video Poker". Just heard the ad on the radio again tonight on the way home and it made me think of this very thread, and the thought occurred to me that I'll bet that half the people in this state probably don't even really know what video poker is. Maybe you're pretty safe from the repeal of legalized gambling where you live, but I can tell you that we have had, within the past ten years, communities vote to go from 'wet' (legalized sale of alcohol) to 'dry' (illegal to sell alcohol), ... so I am well acquainted with how tenuous 'morals' laws can be. If we manage to somehow legalize gambling in Arkansas (beyond the horse-racing and dog-racing that we have), the last thing we would need would be somebody bringing the issue up again because they want labels on the machines, etc.
I don't live in California, but if I did, I would say, sign me up. Better yet, I would like to see this in every state where there is
gambling. So now, let's see how posters say this is a bad idea for
you and me regarding the following, and can you really buy it?
Please keep your good intentions away from Arkansas; see my reasons in my above paragraph.
I don't intend to be nasty here, and it may sound that way, but
people need to take some control over corporate America (and the
like), or they will be rapped of their money by laws that benefit
high profit seeking organizations. The original poster has posted:
Corporate America?? Oh, you mean the vast majority of shareholders ... like pension plans, insurance companies, and small investors, etc. ... right?
> Leave it up to the voters to decide whether things are alright the
way
> they are. At minimum each machine and game should be labeled on
their
> payback. What could possibly be bad about that.
>
> Word of advice to casino bettors. 1 line, one nickle or better 1
line
> one penny. Until they are labeled on payback.
So that voters can be swayed by whichever 'interest' group has the most ad money or the best mis-information? I haven't seen a campaign yet where both sides didn't seem guilty of gross exaggerations, false insinuations, misleading statistics, half-truths, etc. And that includes campaigns by the anti-gambling groups, too -- and I don't care whether they are church-affiliated or not.
Cheers.
Bill Velek
Thanks for all the posts again. But, there should be a way for the
consumer to judge the quality of the machines. Video slots are
impossible to determine payback. If a casino does not have a certain
payback (say 95 percent payback) on a machine they should label it.
The State could care less, they only care how much they can tax out of
the machine. In California, we are allowed to choose to allow the
casinos, we can also choose the paybacks. Put it up for vote. One
thing I have learned is politicans care less about gambling, Gray
Davis once sat on the horse racing board for gosh sakes. If they
don't cooperate, they can go out of business. Who cares. We all know
they won't. The only thing they will lose is the 6-7 figure salaries.
In California the average person entering loses $300 a day. Why not
lower that to $50 per day. That would still be 5X the amount as a
movie. It would save lives.
Yes, I would go for the lotteries too. But lotteries are based on a
hugh payback so no one cares about the high takeout. Scatch-ems
should have the pay-back on them, I think they do. But it costs more
to make all those little tickets.
Here is how the ballot will go vote yes or no:
Do you agree to blackjack payouts of min 99.5% if played perfectly?
Do you agree to min 100 percent return on video poker if played perfectly?
Do you agree to min 95 percent payback on video slots?
Do you agree to min 92 percent payback on horse racing and all the
simulcasts?
Do you agree to 85 percent return on lotto and lotto games?
If the casino or tracks can't cut it, go out of business. We would
probably be better off without them! And we all know, casino gambling
would grow and the number of casinos would increase anyway with these
paybacks!
snipped his anti-gambling campaign and preface to wishful thinking about a voter ballot with the following:
Do you agree to blackjack payouts of min 99.5% if played perfectly?
Do you agree to min 100 percent return on video poker if played perfectly?
Do you agree to min 95 percent payback on video slots?
Do you agree to min 92 percent payback on horse racing and all the
simulcasts?
Do you agree to 85 percent return on lotto and lotto games?
Well, if you put something like _that_ on the ballot, what would you expect to happen? ... it is more than likely, in my opinion, will pass ... barring an exceptionally successful campaign by the _pro_-gambling group (notice I did not say 'pro-CASINO' group, because I really think that any _SENSIBLE_ gamblers who would logically think about your proposal would be opposed to it). Why do I think it would pass? ... because most voters seldom really analyze a situation, but rather are moved by emotion ... which is exactly what I think you are pandering to.
If the casino or tracks can't cut it, go out of business. We would
probably be better off without them!
snip
AHAAAA! I think I finally understand where you are coming from. If you can't get gambling outlawed, then use the backdoor and make it so difficult and unprofitable that it all closes down anyway. There have been quite a few posts which have told it like it is -- essentially: "If you don't like the odds, then don't play the game ... but quit trying to shutdown the game for those of us who DO like it."
A new day ... a new quota!
Bill Velek
bill.berggren@padobe.com wrote:
You most likely work for the casino industry. I just want to limit the
amount of revenue a casino can make from the average patron. To allow
the players of California casinos to have information on the takeouts,
to make choices. The make it so the smart gambler has a chance to win
in the long term on cetain games. To allow senior citizens to go
to the casino without blowing their SS check every time. To make
gambling a form of recreation rather than a game of losing. It would
be a 100 percent pro-gambler initiative. It would also be pro-good
casino. The churches and tax collectors would be the only losers. No
casino will go out of business at these levels. They most likely will
increase business. I would also like to add "no tipping" rules to
casinos. It would be nice to play blackjack games where you were not
expected to tip.
I support gambling 100 percent. I mistakenly voted for Prop 1A.
Prior to that we had some joker pokers that paided back 40-100 for the
fh-four of a kind, and 25-35-45-125 for jacks or better. The casinos
still racked it in.
I would also like to reduce takeouts on sports bets to 1980 levels.
Every year the casino takes more and more. Why not. In Nevada you
have competition, in California we don't! 20 percent takeout on horse
racing, what a joke, it is an embarrassment to democracy and capitalism.
I am not out to shut the game down I am out to limit profits to
realistic levels. The casino should make no more than a movie house
or ballgame per patron. Lowering the limits will allow good casinos
to expand, rather than give their profits way to the ripoff joints,
the strip. This happens when patrons travels from casino to casino.
In this scenario, the good casino loses and the bad casino takes the
money.
Voters would vote for it becasue it makes sense. The State gambling
board have failed to do their job.
bill.berggren@p... wrote:
snipped his anti-gambling campaign and preface to wishful thinking
about
a voter ballot with the following:
> Do you agree to blackjack payouts of min 99.5% if played perfectly?
> Do you agree to min 100 percent return on video poker if played
perfectly?
> Do you agree to min 95 percent payback on video slots?
> Do you agree to min 92 percent payback on horse racing and all the
> simulcasts?
> Do you agree to 85 percent return on lotto and lotto games?Well, if you put something like _that_ on the ballot, what would you
expect to happen? ... it is more than likely, in my opinion, will pass
... barring an exceptionally successful campaign by the _pro_-gambling
group (notice I did not say 'pro-CASINO' group, because I really think
that any _SENSIBLE_ gamblers who would logically think about your
proposal would be opposed to it). Why do I think it would pass? ...
because most voters seldom really analyze a situation, but rather are
moved by emotion ... which is exactly what I think you are pandering to.> If the casino or tracks can't cut it, go out of business. We would
> probably be better off without them!
snip
AHAAAA! I think I finally understand where you are coming from. If
you
can't get gambling outlawed, then use the backdoor and make it so
difficult and unprofitable that it all closes down anyway. There have
Casinos or tracks will not go out of business. Presently, casinos may
be going out of business, losers will never return. Thats is what
happened to horse racing. The racetracks kept wanting more and more,
the state wanted more and more, and the attendence just went down and
down. It is all caused by the high takeout. A 5-10 percent takeout
in horse racing will cause an explosion in attendance. Most horse
players could care less about $1,000,000 races, they would much rather
have lower takeouts and $5000 claimers.
There is no talk of me wanting to shut down the game. I just want a
fair game. A winnable game. A game that should be regulated by the
state, but isn't.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:
been quite a few posts which have told it like it is -- essentially:
"If you don't like the odds, then don't play the game ... but quit
trying to shutdown the game for those of us who DO like it."A new day ... a new quota!
Bill Velek
To give an indication of what i mean:
jacks or better use to be:
20-30-45-125 with progressive at many. Now it is
20-25-40-100 at most, some even pay 2000 for the royal.
The State is nowhere. I realize there has been inflation, so the
quarter, might have to make more than they use to. But, come on even
on the dollar machines. I am only talking about CA. Nevada has
competition.
Slot clubs have ruined gambling in a way too. I hate them, knowing we
are paying for those employees to sit in their booths all day and have
the casino keep track of my play.
We as the consumer (yes, us with the $$ and the discretionary income)
have the ultmate say in how much revenue a casino takes in. If we as
informed players don't like the VP pay schedules or the published
slot payback %,.....then don't play! If you're willing to play 7/5
JOB or 8/5 DDB, then that is your choice. Don't blame the casino.
It's groups like this that try to "inform" and educate the massess
about full pay VP. If pay schedules get so bad and the player is not
willing to make the ultimate decision of "hey, it's so bad, I'm not
going to play any more", than shame on us. Take your valuable
descretionary income and find a different type of entertainment.
I live 4 hours from Tunica. That is where I do my playing. However,
there is only one casino in town that has the games and comps/cb that
is playable to me. As soon as they shorten their pay schedules or
reduce comps to where I no longer have the edge, I will no longer
play there. This informed "consumer" will find something else to do
with his $$$.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "billberggren" <bill.berggren@p...>
wrote:
You most likely work for the casino industry. I just want to limit
the
amount of revenue a casino can make from the average patron.
Slot clubs have ruined gambling in a way too. I hate them, knowing
we
are paying for those employees to sit in their booths all day and
have
the casino keep track of my play.
This is the problem with the internet; any moron, nut job can post a
blow hard diatribe that makes no sense and then ignore reasoned
feedback. Do you see people jumping up to agree with you? Have you
read -- I mean really read -- their responses to you? We're always
better off when Uncle Sugar leaves us alone. Morons like you would
protect me from myself, yet you won"t accept that even with legal
limits the ignorant will still be fleeced. My guess is you"re wool
free.
Want a simple example? Have a look at the pay-day loan sharks that
have proliferated in poor neighborhoods. This happens even though
there are laws governing userious interest in almost ever state.
As so many people have told you and I'll repeat yet again, vote with
your feet. You can't legislate nirvana. If you could, CA would
already be heaven.
Here's a novel test to give you some context. Take the subject from
your original post, and share it with someone who"s opinion you
value. Well, let me modify that a little, someone's opinion you
value who isn't in your stroke rehabilitation classes. Ask them
their opinion of your brilliant idea. Ya Commie.
Morons like you would protect me from myself ...
Posts are more effective (and nicer) if they address the
message, rather than attacking the messenger.
Critical comments on vpFREE should usually be impersonal.
vpFREE Administrator