vpFREE2 Forums

Is JoB REALLY 99.54%?

#1

If there's anything to that 91% figure (doubtful), it could mean that
players on average lose 9% of the money they insert in the machine. This could
include more than one "run through" of that money. A different way of
looking at "total payout."

···

====================================

In a message dated 8/8/2012 5:56:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bobbartop@yahoo.com writes:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, S Merrian <sauronsboy@...> wrote:

He
said that the JoB games in AC do not pay out the full 99.54% but closer

to

91% in total payout.

Impossible.

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

#2

When I dealt in Las Vegas, I was surprised to see that in BlackJack etc, the execs were always concerned about the "hold" in terms of what percent of the buy-in was retained by casino. Say someone buys in at the BJ table for $100. They place $5 bets on 100 hands, then cash out for $95. In mathematical terms, the player lost 1% on his entire amount wagered. The casino execs never cared about that; they cared that the player had lost 5% of the money he bought in with.

This might be because the casino's definition of "hold" gives them results that more closely relate to casino profits. Or it might be because it's much much much easier for the casino to track results of a table game using their definition of "hold." (Think of how easy it is for casino to track the cash going into the BJ table slot and how many chips go out of the dealer's tray... vs how difficult it would be to track the total amount wagered.)

So perhaps they talk about video poker "hold" in the same way. And it might make sense from a business perspective. If someone comes into a casino with $100 and sits down at a VP machine, perhaps the most meaningful metric for the casino to track is how much of that $100 will be left whenever the player leaves.

Stuart (RandomStu)
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

#3

All I know is that my play statistics likely look quite favorable if measured as net loss as a % of machine "buy in". I tend to play long sessions and frequently lose all my credits.

Of course, that statistic would be cast in a more sober light if set along side my promotional cash, expressed as a % of machine "buy in".

What this thread likely highlights, if anything, is that much of casino management suffers from a degree of statistical blindness. This general phenomenon has been termed "innumeracy" (i.e. mathematical illiteracy) by Douglas Hofstadter, and was the topic of a book by the same name by John Allen Paulos (an excellent read).

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, bjaygold@... wrote:

If there's anything to that 91% figure (doubtful), it could mean
that players on average lose 9% of the money they insert in the
machine. This could include more than one "run through" of that
money. A different way of looking at "total payout."

#4

When slot operations unlinked the flush attacks at the Pioneer Hotel & Gambling Hall in late 1999 there was a hard core bunch of mini-pros who hammered the game religiously. These Sigma machines were 8/5 flush attack with a theoretical of 101.83% playing straight through. The card was .3333% comp, .16666% cashback. There was a promotion every day, either quad of the day, double cashback, or double comp. And sometimes there was a promotion on top of the regular promotions. We were all using Tom Ski strategy.

This play went on for about 2 1/2 years. It wasn't all pro action. Tourists and ploppies played the game too. The total action was probably about 75% pro, 25% recreational (just my guesstimate). Recreational players undervalue flush cards at this game....and they short coin alot.

By 2001 we were all concerned about how much longer the play was gonna last, because at one time or another we were all getting a look at the actual payback screens when mechanics worked on the machines. These screens were not listing the theoretical payback. Rather they recorded the actual coin-in/coin-out. And showed in big characters what the actual payback on each machine was according to the coin-in/coin-out.

Seven of the machines showed right around 101%, one machine showed 99.9%. Which to me accounts for the recreational action on the bank. Slot operations changed the game out in May 2002.

#5

Didn't their diminutive size tip management that something strange was going on?

Chandler

···

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

When slot operations unlinked the flush attacks at the Pioneer Hotel & Gambling Hall in late 1999 there was a hard core bunch of mini-pros who hammered the game religiously.

#6

The term wasn't coined by me. Mini-pro means low bankroller. I guess that makes Bob a maxi-pro. A $5000 bankroll could easily make a sharp flush attacker $40,000 a year.

···

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

Didn't their diminutive size tip management that something strange was going on?

Chandler

#7

I have no doubt. I just had a vision of a bunch of garden gnomes running around Laughlin, taking down scores.

Chandler

···

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Chandler" <chandler_re@> wrote:
>
>
> Didn't their diminutive size tip management that something strange was going on?
>
> Chandler
>
>
The term wasn't coined by me. Mini-pro means low bankroller.

#8

The use of "hold" dates back to the days of
the mob. It was created by these knuckle
draggers because they had NO CLUE about
anything to do with the games other than
they expected to win.

It is a useless concept.
  
For table games the method makes a bit more sense
because now the casino only needs to track
buy in and cash out and tracking actual volume
is a lot of work. But these guys were too dim
witted to understand that it should not be used
with games on machines.

QZ

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "RandomStu" <sresnick2@...> wrote:

When I dealt in Las Vegas, I was surprised to see that in BlackJack etc, the execs were always concerned about the "hold" in terms of what percent of the buy-in was retained by casino. Say someone buys in at the BJ table for $100. They place $5 bets on 100 hands, then cash out for $95. In mathematical terms, the player lost 1% on his entire amount wagered. The casino execs never cared about that; they cared that the player had lost 5% of the money he bought in with.

This might be because the casino's definition of "hold" gives them results that more closely relate to casino profits. Or it might be because it's much much much easier for the casino to track results of a table game using their definition of "hold." (Think of how easy it is for casino to track the cash going into the BJ table slot and how many chips go out of the dealer's tray... vs how difficult it would be to track the total amount wagered.)

So perhaps they talk about video poker "hold" in the same way. And it might make sense from a business perspective. If someone comes into a casino with $100 and sits down at a VP machine, perhaps the most meaningful metric for the casino to track is how much of that $100 will be left whenever the player leaves.

Stuart (RandomStu)
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/