What you say is true, they will likely make more profit by replacing AA with other profitable pay tables. As long as they are played. My point was this: Those machines are there taking space on their floor no matter what. They can either accept better profit from the majority of the players and less profit from the minority, or they can make just the better profit from the majority of the players. If I was running this operation right now, I would be more concerned that I was consistently losing play to the other two big operations in town, which they are.
If these were dollar AA plays (and they used to have them), and an more normal casino, I would agree with you that there would be a fair amount of knowledgeable players making a good profit. From what I know of the bounce back and published cashback, and the fact that there are not really any places to use comps in this casino since they 86'ed the Farradays restaurant, I really doubt there are many quarter players that represent actual losses for them. I played AA (with a small amount of PE included) for two years on a once or twice a week basis and I'm still down over the two year period, including bounce and cash back. That is due to being underserved on the SF, which is pretty critical to long term success in this game, but that is the way the variance ball bounces. And lot's of time in the casino's favor because they are really the long term players.
I also still say if it was good play (meaning less for them) they were intending to discourage, they would have been better off taking down the PickEm instead. I believe from watching players around me there were more people playing that game accurately than AA.
···
--- On Mon, 2/2/09, Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net> wrote:
From: Harry Porter <harry.porter@verizon.net>
Subject: [FREEvpFREE] Re: Isle of Capri Kansas City Update
To: FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 2, 2009, 6:23 PM
rreid0859 wrote:
I guarantee they were making money on the All American,
relatively few people really knew the strategy well enough to get
close to the theoretical 100.72% payout.
I find that a common argument made when a casino removes a strong game
.... coming most frequently from those who themselves aren't a
profitable prospect for the casino.
I can't attest to the circumstances of this removal. However, such a
removal tends not to happen where the bulk of play on the game is of a
casual sort. It's more frequent that well-versed players are playing
aggressively and crowding out a good share of the casual play the
machines once received.
I don't question that the casino was "making money" on the
machines,
nonetheless. I just find it very plausible that the casino will make
more money by deterring play from unprofitable players and diverting
play of other players to less attractive games ... where it's often
the case that many players will seek out the best game available, but
will eat from the trough no matter what's served up.
- Harry
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]