Read the second part of the article- bad news for advantage players if
it ever goes through.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/consumer/2006/nov/26/566687817
.html
LV Sun article
caplatinum wrote:
The link is not working, but if it is the guaranteed play thing I
would not worry about it. You are lucky the test machines are video
poker not slots, it might have worked on slots. Even bad video poker
players are a bit more sophisticated than reel players. The problem
with this program is that if you get a nice hit early, and you play
out the rest of your guranteed spin, you might lose it back. If it
were we give you 20 spins, keep everything you hit for a price it
would be different.
The link is to an article that notes NV gaming regulators may be open
to a machine concept in which payouts are variably set, dependent upon
who the player is. See 2nd part of:
http://tinyurl.com/vkw2j
The idea is to loosen up a machine (or tighten) based upon the overall
volume of play by that player (and, as a consequence, their
profitability). Earl remarked on this as potentially being bad for
"advantage vp" players.
I expect this is unlikely. I'd look for this to involve traditional
slots (not vp) and the payouts involved being the theoretical win
frequencies (not the pay for a given winning combination).
Any extension of this concept to vp involves a clear change in game
paytables and would yield ill will and inevitable player work arounds
that would make for a messy situation for all.
···
------------------
The "Guaranteed Play VP" machine discussed in the first article,
http://tinyurl.com/y3ga73
is intriguing. It has every potential of presenting an "advantage"
play as any standard vp game might ... but it will require a somewhat
unorthodox analysis to assess that advantage. (Of course, I generally
don't look for good plays to arise out of "novelty" plays.)
Resorting to a fair amount of reading between the lines in what's
available in print, it's my suspicion that you're in essence playing
an insurance wager on top of your standard play credit "buy-in". (The
game was demo'd at G2E - it would be interesting to hear details from
an attendee.)
Normally, if you pop $20 into a quarter machine, you get 80 credits
which you play either to a desired quit point, or until the credits
are burned.
In this game, my take is you pop $20 in and get xx credits plus the
assurance that if you should burn out prior to a designated time (150
hands is cited in the article), you can continue to play into the red.
If you're still in the red at the end of that minimum handspan, you
only absorb the first $20 of those losses. If you manage to make it
back into the black, the positive credits are yours to cash out or
continue to play.
------
This is vp with a loss limit in place for a set number of hands. It
has elements in common with a stock option put. The loss limit adds
value to the credits that you're provided when you "buy in".
From the player's perspective, in exchange for that loss limit, you're
willing to give up either some credits from the buy in or,
alternatively, accept a reduction in the paytable for the game.
Whether the actual trade-offs presented in a game are attractive is a
matter of analysis.
The analysis associated with any "stop loss" option that provides an
opportunity for a comeback is modestly complex. The foundation for
that calculation has been laid when it comes to the stock market --
this game would call for a considerably simplified form of it.
The intellectual charm lies in the fact that there isn't a vp tutor
that will handle the full game analysis. (If attractive versions of
the game pop up, it would only be a modest matter of time.)
------
I think the game has a sound niche in the casino. Most players put
high value on the amount of time they can look to get out of the next
bill they put in the machine and are very likely to undervalue
whatever they might have to give up in exchange for assurance of
decent play time.
- Harry
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/consumer/2006/nov/26/56668781.html
(note corrected link)
It is? I dunno, dude. They are already able to change payouts from a
master control for video reels depending on time of day, I don't know
if that's been approved yet.
While I understand the thought, the really top tier gaming talents
usually find a way to work this to their advantage.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Earl" <chadlothary@...> wrote:
Read the second part of the article- bad news for advantage players if
it ever goes through.
_________________________________________________________________________
Even if regulators were open to it (a former member of the commission
told me they were not) they can do nothing since Nevada law
absolutely prohibits discriminating against anyone by giving them
different odds.
···
At 08:08 PM 11/26/2006, you wrote:
caplatinum wrote:
> The link is not working, but if it is the guaranteed play thing I
> would not worry about it. You are lucky the test machines are video
> poker not slots, it might have worked on slots. Even bad video poker
> players are a bit more sophisticated than reel players. The problem
> with this program is that if you get a nice hit early, and you play
> out the rest of your guranteed spin, you might lose it back. If it
> were we give you 20 spins, keep everything you hit for a price it
> would be different.The link is to an article that notes NV gaming regulators may be open
to a machine concept in which payouts are variably set, dependent upon
who the player is. See 2nd part of:
http://tinyurl.com/vkw2jThe idea is to loosen up a machine (or tighten) based upon the overall
volume of play by that player (and, as a consequence, their
profitability). Earl remarked on this as potentially being bad for
"advantage vp" players.I expect this is unlikely. I'd look for this to involve traditional
slots (not vp) and the payouts involved being the theoretical win
frequencies (not the pay for a given winning combination).Any extension of this concept to vp involves a clear change in game
paytables and would yield ill will and inevitable player work arounds
that would make for a messy situation for all.------------------
The "Guaranteed Play VP" machine discussed in the first article,
http://tinyurl.com/y3ga73
is intriguing. It has every potential of presenting an "advantage"
play as any standard vp game might ... but it will require a somewhat
unorthodox analysis to assess that advantage. (Of course, I generally
don't look for good plays to arise out of "novelty" plays.)Resorting to a fair amount of reading between the lines in what's
available in print, it's my suspicion that you're in essence playing
an insurance wager on top of your standard play credit "buy-in". (The
game was demo'd at G2E - it would be interesting to hear details from
an attendee.)Normally, if you pop $20 into a quarter machine, you get 80 credits
which you play either to a desired quit point, or until the credits
are burned.In this game, my take is you pop $20 in and get xx credits plus the
assurance that if you should burn out prior to a designated time (150
hands is cited in the article), you can continue to play into the red.
If you're still in the red at the end of that minimum handspan, you
only absorb the first $20 of those losses. If you manage to make it
back into the black, the positive credits are yours to cash out or
continue to play.------
This is vp with a loss limit in place for a set number of hands. It
has elements in common with a stock option put. The loss limit adds
value to the credits that you're provided when you "buy in".From the player's perspective, in exchange for that loss limit, you're
willing to give up either some credits from the buy in or,
alternatively, accept a reduction in the paytable for the game.
Whether the actual trade-offs presented in a game are attractive is a
matter of analysis.The analysis associated with any "stop loss" option that provides an
opportunity for a comeback is modestly complex. The foundation for
that calculation has been laid when it comes to the stock market --
this game would call for a considerably simplified form of it.The intellectual charm lies in the fact that there isn't a vp tutor
that will handle the full game analysis. (If attractive versions of
the game pop up, it would only be a modest matter of time.)------
I think the game has a sound niche in the casino. Most players put
high value on the amount of time they can look to get out of the next
bill they put in the machine and are very likely to undervalue
whatever they might have to give up in exchange for assurance of
decent play time.- Harry
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bill Coleman wrote:
Even if regulators were open to it (a former member of the
commission told me they were not) they can do nothing since Nevada
law absolutely prohibits discriminating against anyone by giving
them different odds.
Good point. Out of curiosity, do you think this would extend to a
hypothetical situation of a casino dealing bj to a high roller at a
private table and reducing the number of decks in the shoe or
increasing penetration in a manner not otherwise extended to other
players? (No doubt I'm stretching a bit for the sake of an example.)
In any case, the article smacks of being a misrepresentation of what
might actually be proposed. I can't envision any casino variably
setting the reel probabilities of a machine on the floor based upon
the rating of the player at the machine.
The mere suggestion of this scenario would send most casual players
fleeing to another casino. The underlying suspicion is that if a
casino is able to take additional advantage of a player, they will.
(Conventional wisdom that rarely proves false.)
- Harry
Harry,
In fact I understand that a losing faction made that argument when
they approved private rooms for high rollers. It's never reached the
courts. However, if they tried this I'd bet someone would file suit
right quick.
B
···
At 06:50 AM 11/27/2006, you wrote:
Bill Coleman wrote:
> Even if regulators were open to it (a former member of the
> commission told me they were not) they can do nothing since Nevada
> law absolutely prohibits discriminating against anyone by giving
> them different odds.Good point. Out of curiosity, do you think this would extend to a
hypothetical situation of a casino dealing bj to a high roller at a
private table and reducing the number of decks in the shoe or
increasing penetration in a manner not otherwise extended to other
players? (No doubt I'm stretching a bit for the sake of an example.)In any case, the article smacks of being a misrepresentation of what
might actually be proposed. I can't envision any casino variably
setting the reel probabilities of a machine on the floor based upon
the rating of the player at the machine.The mere suggestion of this scenario would send most casual players
fleeing to another casino. The underlying suspicion is that if a
casino is able to take additional advantage of a player, they will.
(Conventional wisdom that rarely proves false.)- Harry
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You know, maybe it's a good thing for casino to be able to fiddle with
with the odds at a managers whim. At least these guys who control
things may be able to become advantage players themselves. They can
take advantage with nice skims(send in house players, most usefull for
smaller local joints) or just let their friends in on "special deals" --
- "the machines will be set at... say... 3pm..to..5pm." Much like a
happy hour for insiders.
Special deals for losers? What's to prevent a host from scanning the
accounts of losers and making losers cards for insiders. This casino
idea could be a great bonus plan for casino workers; with little risk.
Another great idea on loosening up the machines for losers. I can see
the slot fleas now; watching the little old ladies and waiting to
pounce on the ladies players card. They will surround the players and
make them leave by making them uncomfortable and nervous; causing them
to forget players cards. Sort of stalking players cards.
In fact while casinos are at it, I think they should change all 9/6 JOB
to 6/5 and lower all the other games too. Then when I go to Vegas I
will swim all day and hang out at a bowling alley in evening. (I've
only bowled about 10 times in my life, but might be fun to do regular)
There is something to be said for getting a promo room with some free
food and not gambling the usual $100 or less the average family spends
gambling. How nice it would be to pay a C note for a show and not have
in the back of my mind, "I can't wait to get back to the machines." I
might even be able to relax in Vegas. The ultimate advantage might be
to not gamble at all. By the way, I think I read somewhere the average
gambling drop is less than a $100. but I might be wrong on that.
Just a few thoughts.....Jeep
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "paladingamingllc"
<paladingamingllc@...> wrote:
···
It is? I dunno, dude. They are already able to change payouts from a
master control for video reels depending on time of day, I don't know
if that's been approved yet.While I understand the thought, the really top tier gaming talents
usually find a way to work this to their advantage.
________________________________________________________________________
_
I had same thought. Do not casinos currently refund large
percentages of loss to big, I mean big, losers? If so, how does that
become legal?
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
Bill Coleman wrote:
> Even if regulators were open to it (a former member of the
> commission told me they were not) they can do nothing since Nevada
> law absolutely prohibits discriminating against anyone by giving
> them different odds.Good point. Out of curiosity, do you think this would extend to a
hypothetical situation of a casino dealing bj to a high roller at a
private table and reducing the number of decks in the shoe or
increasing penetration in a manner not otherwise extended to other
players? (No doubt I'm stretching a bit for the sake of an example.)
When did Nevada law start influencing the NV Gaming Commission? I
thought it was only the casinos who held that power. 
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coleman <vphobby2@...> wrote:
Even if regulators were open to it (a former member of the commission
told me they were not) they can do nothing since Nevada law
absolutely prohibits discriminating against anyone by giving them
different odds.
Discriminating in comps is not illegal in Nevada, that's how higher
tier players get better stuff
···
At 07:27 PM 11/27/2006, you wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:
>
> Bill Coleman wrote:
> > Even if regulators were open to it (a former member of the
> > commission told me they were not) they can do nothing since Nevada
> > law absolutely prohibits discriminating against anyone by giving
> > them different odds.
>
> Good point. Out of curiosity, do you think this would extend to a
> hypothetical situation of a casino dealing bj to a high roller at a
> private table and reducing the number of decks in the shoe or
> increasing penetration in a manner not otherwise extended to other
> players? (No doubt I'm stretching a bit for the sake of an example.)
>I had same thought. Do not casinos currently refund large
percentages of loss to big, I mean big, losers? If so, how does that
become legal?vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You know, maybe it's a good thing for casino to be able to fiddle with
with the odds at a managers whim. At least these guys who control
things may be able to become advantage players themselves. They can
take advantage with nice skims(send in house players, most usefull for
smaller local joints) or just let their friends in on "special deals" --
- "the machines will be set at... say... 3pm..to..5pm." Much like a
happy hour for insiders.
They do that with tables at some very big name casinos in town. It's
called "dumping", or as they say in the current parlance, "the new
skimming".
Special deals for losers? What's to prevent a host from scanning the
accounts of losers and making losers cards for insiders. This casino
idea could be a great bonus plan for casino workers; with little risk.
How's this one? One Strip casino once offered $10 50-play FPDW-with
.5% cb, to a guy they assessed as a very good customer. At least
that's the story. If it's the casino I think this was, no wonder they
went into 11 within 6 months of the casino's opening. They couldn't
figure out how they were losing money at Bac and BJ as well.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "whitejeeps" <whitejeeps@...> wrote:
_______________________________________________________________________