vpFREE2 Forums

GUARANTEED PLAY?

#21

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

> i believe that many of this group of 90 million do not come to
casinos because they have
> no idea how long their entertainment budget (money and time) will
last at a casino.

I believe people gamble for the chance to win, losing has zero
entertainment value. If you tell someone you have a game that they can
play twice as long before they lose, I believe the response will be so
what, what's the difference? Losing is losing. Zero entertainment
value regardless of the time required to lose, in fact, if you're
going to lose, it's preferable to get it over with, rather than drag
or tease it out. The obvious solution is for casinos to losen up their
games and promotions so there are more winners, more winners creates
more buzz and more business. The casino makes its profit (the rake) by
ensuring that the losers in total lose more than the winners win.
Reducing winners creates a negative buzz that's bad for business.
Complicated promotions and deceptive practices just increases the
public perception that casinos are simply out to take all their money
rather than provide a reasonable gambling environment.

I love this response.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "yakmatt777" <yakmatt777@> wrote:

#22

*Past Performance is no indication of Future Returns. Future Returns
only depend on the payback of the game.

http://wizardofodds.com/guaranteedplay

I don't see any of them even paying close to what I would consider
playable.

dipy911

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "S.Kaskey" <skaskey10960@...> wrote:

I'm a regular player and play the GP's.
In the last three weeks I have hit 2 royals.

#23

Addressing some of yakmatt777's comments:

yakmatt777 wrote:

First, GP VP is not for existing, advantage video poker player. Bob
Dancer did not endorse the product for anyone but a casual or
newbie poker player or casino visitor ...

i believe that many of this group of 90 million do not come to
casinos because they have no idea how long their entertainment
budget (money and time) will last at a casino. I have talked to
hundreds of gamblers who are not casino visitors and I have heard
the same story, to paraphrase, 'i went once to a casino and put
$20, $40 or $100 in the machine and 5 minutes later is was all
gone, casinos are stupid and for suckers, I'm never going
back'. How to casinos get these folk back to the gaming floor ...

It is not a Video Poker innovation. It is a value product (across
the slot floor and table pit) that is attempt to grow the entire
casino market.

previously wrote:

> >This said, GP is not an unfair to players or heavily taxed game.
> >GP payback percentages come extremely close to payback
> >percentages from standard play. Yes the GP player pays a very
> >small penalty in return for the Guarantee, but this is almost
> >always less than 1%.

Neither Bill nor I have suggested that GP isn't an advantage player
game. We've maintained that it's not a game suited for gamblers as a
whole. I believe that Bill's logic is similar to mine -- a gambler's
"mentality" is strongly focused on the upside, not the downside risk.

When it comes to video poker, inexperienced players gravitate to games
with high payouts and the promise of coming away flush ... and
continue to play despite the downside risk. They manage that risk not
through an astute management of their bankroll; they just reduce
denomination to bring the swings to within their comfort level.

The "gambler" you describe, who is averse to the casino experience as
it presently exists, doesn't sound like a gambler in any sense of the
word. They may dabble in bingo, but I expect that they wouldn't be
comfortable in a game of table poker, betting on horses, actively
betting on sports, or most other forms of gaming involving a wager
putting them at risk. All of these can "break" you in short order, if
your luck runs sour. Of course, machine games in any form are quite
efficient at this, given the faster pace of play. (GP doesn't remedy
that.)

···

------

I credit all gamblers as being "value seekers" -- they gravitate to
those games that best satisfy their cravings as gamblers while giving
them a satisfactory ride for their money. To that end, a true "value
product" (using your terms) has success potential.

You cite a curious statistic: "the GP player pays a very small
penalty in return for the Guarantee, but this is almost always less
than 1%."

Now, presumably this applies to GP as it currently exists on the floor
as well as the new version that you describe, which has yet to see the
floor.

As has been discussed, GP return is a challenge to analyze. The crux
of that is putting a value on added play that you get out of GP that
extends beyond the point at which you would otherwise bust out in
standard play (during a sour streak of cards).

No one here is prepared to do that analysis. But I, and others, have
previously referenced Michael Shackleford's analysis:
http://wizardofodds.com/guaranteedplay

He's a well respected gaming consultant and I have every reason to
believe that IGT is among those that hold his expertise in high regard.

There's a key issue in assessing the expected return of a player:
It's extraordinarily unlikely that a player would discern optimal
Guaranteed Play strategy modifications to any appreciable extent
(particularly the casual player to whom the game is targeted). It's a
safe presumption that their play approach might more closely
approximate the best strategy for standard play.

Addressing that, Michael offers up a return analysis for play with
optimal GP strategy and standard vp format strategy.

For a game such as 9/6 DDB, where the standard format ER is 99.0%,
Michael puts the optimal GP return at 97.2%-97.5%, and the return
realized by someone playing a strategy approximating standard strategy
at 96.5%-96.9% (the percentages vary depending upon the game cost and
number of guaranteed plays).

It these numbers hold true, than the implicit game cost is something
well in excess of the "less than 1%" penalty that you suggest. No
matter how you cut it, that doesn't represent value to the player --
whether an "advantage" player or the most casual.

------

The economics of the new game version may present a better prospect to
the player (but you didn't limit you claim of "value" to that alone).
But the other objections outlined stand.

You have a strong conviction in the success prospects of this game.
You're certainly with your rights in maintain that stance. I (and
Bill) are just outlining where we see weakness.

I'll grant that to a dabbler (such as a Bingo player), these machines
might better suit their temperament. That doesn't mean that they'll
be prepared to put much more at risk than they might if they gave a
WOF a few spins. I don't expect they will -- but I could be proven
wrong and the game could prove to be a niche breakout success.

- Harry

#24

Harry,
Thanks for a well presented and very informational repsonse. i appreciate (and enjoy) the
'argument', when it is at such a high intellectual level.

I disagree with some of your point and some of the posts, but i believe they are minor
issues. I don't think the frequent/hard core video poker player plays (based on hundreds
of video taped player research sessions watching local poker players play) achieve
anywhere near 99% correct strategy nor are the GP pay tables any different than the
standard play pay tables on the same machine. But, these are trivial issues compared to
the core argument.

I believe our major philosophical difference is who is the target for GP and why. The
current video poker player and the current gambler is not the target market for GP. This
segment is already wired to gamble, to experience the exciting highs and terrifying lows
that make roller coaster rides attractive to some. The segment of the population that does
not go to casinos is wired differently. Current gamblers need to look outside themselves.
think of an aunt or a cousin or someone other than yourselves that currently does not go
to a casino and why. This segment is not interested in gambling as it exists today. My
hypothesis is that this segment would respond to a different type of gambling. One that
removes the lows but protects the highs. You can still win the jackpot with the same
frequency as with standard play but you are protected from having your entertainment
budget wiped out in less than 10 minutes. And, further, this segment could not care what
is the EV of the game. It is IGT's job to launch the GP option on multiple games formats
(Poker, Slots, tables) and provide the casino marketing group with tools such as GP tickets
and all inclusive property packages and offer it to casinos to test this radical and
disruptive innovation.

One more point. GP and standard play are not mutually exclusive. GP is an option on your
favorite games. if you don't like it, don't play. When you go to a restaurant you can pay
with cash or credit card. If i think credit cards are stupid and charge rdiuclous interest
rates, then i can pay with cash.

Metrics for GP success are not about WPU. It is not about the game. the game is just a
means to an end. The end being casinos offering peak and off-peak pricing on GP
sessions (yield management) for when their casino asset is underutilized. It is about
adding GP gaming tickets to rooms, spas, dining, entertainment offerings so they can
grow their entire property.

Regards,

Matt

···

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

Addressing some of yakmatt777's comments:

yakmatt777 wrote:
> First, GP VP is not for existing, advantage video poker player. Bob
> Dancer did not endorse the product for anyone but a casual or
> newbie poker player or casino visitor ...
>
> i believe that many of this group of 90 million do not come to
> casinos because they have no idea how long their entertainment
> budget (money and time) will last at a casino. I have talked to
> hundreds of gamblers who are not casino visitors and I have heard
> the same story, to paraphrase, 'i went once to a casino and put
> $20, $40 or $100 in the machine and 5 minutes later is was all
> gone, casinos are stupid and for suckers, I'm never going
> back'. How to casinos get these folk back to the gaming floor ...
>
> It is not a Video Poker innovation. It is a value product (across
> the slot floor and table pit) that is attempt to grow the entire
> casino market.

previously wrote:
> > >This said, GP is not an unfair to players or heavily taxed game.
> > >GP payback percentages come extremely close to payback
> > >percentages from standard play. Yes the GP player pays a very
> > >small penalty in return for the Guarantee, but this is almost
> > >always less than 1%.

Neither Bill nor I have suggested that GP isn't an advantage player
game. We've maintained that it's not a game suited for gamblers as a
whole. I believe that Bill's logic is similar to mine -- a gambler's
"mentality" is strongly focused on the upside, not the downside risk.

When it comes to video poker, inexperienced players gravitate to games
with high payouts and the promise of coming away flush ... and
continue to play despite the downside risk. They manage that risk not
through an astute management of their bankroll; they just reduce
denomination to bring the swings to within their comfort level.

The "gambler" you describe, who is averse to the casino experience as
it presently exists, doesn't sound like a gambler in any sense of the
word. They may dabble in bingo, but I expect that they wouldn't be
comfortable in a game of table poker, betting on horses, actively
betting on sports, or most other forms of gaming involving a wager
putting them at risk. All of these can "break" you in short order, if
your luck runs sour. Of course, machine games in any form are quite
efficient at this, given the faster pace of play. (GP doesn't remedy
that.)

------

I credit all gamblers as being "value seekers" -- they gravitate to
those games that best satisfy their cravings as gamblers while giving
them a satisfactory ride for their money. To that end, a true "value
product" (using your terms) has success potential.

You cite a curious statistic: "the GP player pays a very small
penalty in return for the Guarantee, but this is almost always less
than 1%."

Now, presumably this applies to GP as it currently exists on the floor
as well as the new version that you describe, which has yet to see the
floor.

As has been discussed, GP return is a challenge to analyze. The crux
of that is putting a value on added play that you get out of GP that
extends beyond the point at which you would otherwise bust out in
standard play (during a sour streak of cards).

No one here is prepared to do that analysis. But I, and others, have
previously referenced Michael Shackleford's analysis:
http://wizardofodds.com/guaranteedplay

He's a well respected gaming consultant and I have every reason to
believe that IGT is among those that hold his expertise in high regard.

There's a key issue in assessing the expected return of a player:
It's extraordinarily unlikely that a player would discern optimal
Guaranteed Play strategy modifications to any appreciable extent
(particularly the casual player to whom the game is targeted). It's a
safe presumption that their play approach might more closely
approximate the best strategy for standard play.

Addressing that, Michael offers up a return analysis for play with
optimal GP strategy and standard vp format strategy.

For a game such as 9/6 DDB, where the standard format ER is 99.0%,
Michael puts the optimal GP return at 97.2%-97.5%, and the return
realized by someone playing a strategy approximating standard strategy
at 96.5%-96.9% (the percentages vary depending upon the game cost and
number of guaranteed plays).

It these numbers hold true, than the implicit game cost is something
well in excess of the "less than 1%" penalty that you suggest. No
matter how you cut it, that doesn't represent value to the player --
whether an "advantage" player or the most casual.

------

The economics of the new game version may present a better prospect to
the player (but you didn't limit you claim of "value" to that alone).
But the other objections outlined stand.

You have a strong conviction in the success prospects of this game.
You're certainly with your rights in maintain that stance. I (and
Bill) are just outlining where we see weakness.

I'll grant that to a dabbler (such as a Bingo player), these machines
might better suit their temperament. That doesn't mean that they'll
be prepared to put much more at risk than they might if they gave a
WOF a few spins. I don't expect they will -- but I could be proven
wrong and the game could prove to be a niche breakout success.

- Harry

#25

If you are a knowledgeable player, find better machines as you

return will be higher. Guaranteed play is only good for those who have
no idea of how to play video poker and have only a limited gaming
budget.

From: Steve & Paula Hamilton <Shamilton5@...>
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] GUARANTEED PLAY?
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, September 15, 2008, 10:59 AM

It would be a fairly simple (at least for the game designers
who presumably know the actual game ER) task to find a balance that
can fleece the sheep without killing them.

If one examines the video poker market, I expect one would discover
an "optimum" machine return for the casino. Casinos might think
it would be great to have nothing but 7/5 JOB and such for as far
as the eye can see, but they are wrong. Even morons who don't
know a pay table from a hockey puck know what it means to lose
their ass on a regular basis. Beat players bad enough and they
will go down the street.

Probably the most popular VP variant among clueless locals is
9/6 DDB. This returns about 99% with optimal play and the actual
casino win is probably 2-3%. This game sheers the sheep without
slaughtering them. It is at or near the proper balance. Video
Poker Games far below this balance are doomed to fail.

As has been mentioned previously, optimum play for this game is far
too complex to learn (though I suspect there are probably a few
approximations that would give a significant boost to ER at the
cost of a relatively small portion of the optimal play.

And yet those approximations would NOT be known to many players.

This is one GOOD thing about this game for the casino. Players
will be totally clueless about proper strategy and most will not
even realize their normal bad play is now even worse.

About the only thing I think might help is to add a fast
RF progressive meter to the game.

The game could offer 100% payback with optimal play and still
make tons of cash for the casino. Heck, it could probably
do very well at 101% return on optimal play.

But the actual games I have seen offer pay tables.

yakmatt777 wrote...

"GP is for new and existing casino patrons who are looking for
time on device, aka entertainment, a place to spend their leisure
time and budget."

Just curious.... What casino game is NOT for new and existing
patrons. Or for players seeking entertainment. I'm pretty sure
this was quoted out of some sort of marketing literature. I'd be
embarrassed to send such drivel to a customer. The next paragraph
or so was just as bad.

Not too many folks are there for "time on device". Those that are
are going to play penny slots or nickel VP.

yakmatt777 wrote...

"First, GP is not for everyone, certainly not for advantage video
poker player. If you can play expert strategy and have excellent
bankroll management skills, GP is not for you."

Translation... This game has a high house advantage and we
expect most of the people who play it do so because they are
morons.

It doesn't take people very long to figure out that
their money goes bye bye way too quickly on this game.

Here is a scenario that people DO NOT LIKE.

They sit down and play a more or less normal, but
a bit above average VP session with a few modest wins and
maybe a four of a kind. Normally they would cash out about even,
but on this game, they wind up a heavy loser. They had above
average luck and got slaughtered.

Players, especially the fish the game is supposedly tailored to,
like to switch games, switch machines and so forth. We know this
matters not, but they don't!! Tell them they have to play one
game for several hundred hands and they suddenly feel like all
their "skills" are no longer available.

And they NEVER win MORE than on a regular game. Even the dullest
rube usually figures this out.

The chance to lose less is never going to be as appealing as
the chance to win more, at least not to many and certainly
not to the unskilled player.

Quad Zilla

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, pesach kremen <royalflush2222@...> wrote:

--- On Mon, 9/15/08, Steve & Paula Hamilton <Shamilton5@...> wrote:

#26

Current gamblers need to look outside themselves.
think of an aunt or a cousin or someone other than yourselves
that currently does not go to a casino and why.

OK.... So this game is for all the people who never go to casinos.

I hope you realize this is the null set.

That would only change if this game somehow teleported grandma
out of her bible study AND got her to play

Marketing to people who are not currently interested in gambling
may be possible, but it will have little or nothing to do with a
video poker variant. Such things are much broader in scope and
rarely have anything to do with the games themselves.

Getting more people in the casinos is probably never going to be the
job of a game designer. His or her job is to create games that
EXISTING casino patrons will play and will play more. He should be
cautions about creating games (especially video poker games) with a
very high house return.

This segment is not interested in gambling as it exists today.

Poker created new players. Although it existed, the TV and internet
brought it into awareness as if it were new. But that was a cultural
phenomenon of a grand scale.

My hypothesis is that this segment would respond to
a different type of gambling.

Maybe, but this is like comparing two similar breeds of dogs, not
like a "different type of gambling". If this, or any other video
poker variant succeeds, it will do so because EXISTING players like
it. In Japan there is a game called Pachinko. That is more like
a different type of gambling. And who knows, maybe that will be
the wave of the future.

removes the lows but protects the highs. You can still win the

jackpot with the same

frequency as with standard play but you are protected from having

your entertainment

budget wiped out in less than 10 minutes.

Actually, the gambling budget usually lasts MUCH longer on a game
with a decent return. Most often your money goes a long way playing a
game like 9/6 JOB. It is not unusual to put in $50 on quarter JOB and
play an hour and walk away ever or close to it. On your game, that
same $50 would usually be gone before the hour was up.

It is IGT's job to launch the GP option on multiple games formats

(Poker, Slots, tables) and provide the casino marketing group with

tools such as GP tickets

and all inclusive property packages and offer it to casinos to test

this radical and

disruptive innovation.

Used in this way, it is, ultimately, a ruse to get
people to think they are getting value when, in fact, they are
getting screwed. People figure these things out. When they do,
they resent the companies that do them. Even as a promotional
vehicle, this is likely to do little more than create angst.

By the way....
"radical and disruptive innovation"
Somebody get me a barf bag.
I wonder if this was actually published.
Good ideas speak for themselves and do not need such pablum.

One more point. GP and standard play are not mutually exclusive. GP

is an option on your

favorite games. if you don't like it, don't play. When you go to a

restaurant you can pay

with cash or credit card. If i think credit cards are stupid and

charge rdiuclous interest

rates, then i can pay with cash.

I disagree. Sheep don't like getting killed. More importantly,
they tend to stay dead.

Metrics for GP success are not about WPU. It is not about the game.

the game is just a

means to an end. The end being casinos offering peak and off-peak

pricing on GP

sessions (yield management) for when their casino asset is

underutilized.

I think I need a higher pair of boots, or at least a BS degree.

It is about
adding GP gaming tickets to rooms, spas, dining,
entertainment offerings so they can
grow their entire property.

This already exists. It is called a match play or free play or
a free buffet when you sign up for the player's club. I know one
thing.... If I get an offer for $100 free play and when I arrive at
the casino I find out it is one of these, I will be PISSED OFF.
I will feel like I have been misled. And I will be right. At best
this devolves into a clever scam for the clueless who are too
stupid to realize the actual value of what they are getting.

Useful in the short term...... maybe, but I'd bet against it.
Good for long term business... no way.

I believe expanding this into other parts of the casino is a very
bad idea. But your are right about one thing, it may very well
prove to be disruptive.

But then I thought 6 to 5 blackjack would fail miserably
and would annoy players so much that they would play elsewhere.

Quad Zilla.

#27

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "what7do7you7want"
<what7do7you7want@...> wrote:

. In Japan there is a game called Pachinko. That is more like
a different type of gambling. And who knows, maybe that will be
the wave of the future.

>A Pachinko Story...

About 10 years ago , a friend & I were in Toyko on business. We
stopped at a Pachinko parlor. As I remember this game used ball
bearings and the idea was to "capture them as they were fed to you.
Kinda like the small games we all had as kids. You bought a certain
no. of balls & were paid based on how many you captured. That's not
exact, but close enuff. It's definately gambling per say, & I think
a certain amount of skill mite be involved, not unlike our beloved VP.

Well we both bought $10 or $20 worth. We were only doing it to
experience this Japanese game. Sitting side by side, I lost mine in
short order, but Jim hit some kinda Jackpot & had alot of balls. The
little ole lady next to him was going crazy. Good deal, I thought.
The next time he "shot" damned if it didn't happen again. We kinda
figured the machine was screwed up or he was extremely lucky. We
didn't have time to analyze what was going on cuz the floor person
came over & told us in no uncertain terms to cash out....we were
being escorted out of the establishment. Having a small language
problem we tried to explain they cud keep their stickin balls & we'd
move to another machine or something, but they'd have non of this. I
think they thought we were "ringers". He took us outside with our
bucket of balls & pointed about 100 yards down an alley where we were
to cash in. It was a little frightening making that walk. Picture
the movie 21 & getting back roomed. I think he cashed in for $30 or
$50. I think we ended up with a small profit.