3c. Re: Poker machines
Date: Mon Oct 8, 2007 4:58 pm ((PDT))Above you wrote that the house takes more, below you wrote that the
dealers get less. So the house gets $10 and the dealers get $5
instead of the house getting $5 and the dealers getting $10. Wow!
That's a savings to the player of....of....of....NOTHING!!!
My point was NOT that there was a difference in the net cost to the player, but that IF the house is getting most of it, the savings to the player by getting rid of dealers will not be as great.
On all your other contentions regarding cost of play, my experience is ALL with tournaments with $500 and less entries, and I haven't played a tournament in Vegas since early August, so it's possible my experience is not consistent with very recent changes -- but as recently as August, the figures I was quoting were accurate from my personal experience.
My experience in Indiana (that's the state, not the kind of casinos) is similar.
I spoke from my own experience, and NOT from reports from casino personnel.
I think the bottom line is, and we'd agree on this if nothing else, players in poker tournaments should take into account ALL the money that might get taken out of the prize pool and not be available to the players, as that reduces the player's equity in the tournament -- and that it might be the case that what has been customary in the past is seeing recent changes, so stay alert.
And don't forget potential tips that are voluntary, too, at figure them in at the level that you plan to tip, regardless of what level of tipping is "requested".
As for your point that shorter rounds is not favorable to the player, you are absolutely correct. Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but my point was that computerized dealing might be a win-win situation, since the house DOES like shorter rounds -- in that, if live play generates 30 hands an hour, and computerized play generates 60 hands an hour, it's possible to cut 20 minute rounds to 15 minutes, and the players still get more hands per round.
I think too many VP players also fail to consider the effect on EV of tips (the ones related to hand-pays, not the ones that are related to cocktail service, as those have nothing directly to do with the game), and even moreso, of taxes. In my opinion, if one reports wins and losses in accordance with IRS regs, it's pretty much impossible to have a true after-tax positive EV game anymore -- if it ever was -- unless there's some spectacular cash-back, which is ordinarily not considered taxable, or unless one is qualified to file as a professional gambler, which helps.
You are correct that the dealers' withhold for low entries doesn't amount to much - and that's why you'll often hear, or pick up on your own, that the dealers of those tournaments don't much like dealing for them; they do much better at the cash games, where even the small stakes one generate $.50 or $1 per hand usually, and if they keep their own tips, their performance can actually be rewarded if they provide good service and deal a lot of hands (in tournaments, the tips are almost always pooled and divided in proportion to time spent dealing, even if all other tips are NOT shared).
And these financial considerations that we are considering are only one of many factors to consider in deciding whether a tournament is reasonable to participate in.
I will still stand strongly by my contention that the casinos will not be able to afford very-low-stakes games even if they get rid of dealers and replace them with machines - the house return is just not enough to justify using the floor space for these games, assuming they can fill games at their customary stakes.
There is probably an ongoing cost to these machines, just as there is with dealers. The article I read about a year ago, when they were new, was that they would be rented, and I don't know if the rent would have been at a level that was more or less profitable for the manufacturer than selling them outright, and I also don't know if they are still ONLY available by rental, or if purchase is now an option too. Either way, there's capital going into the use of them, and there's going to be some level of management still needed to assure that there are players, and that the players are happy, and that the machines are functioning properly.
Don't forget, in most casinos, the cost of the dealers is mostly shouldered by the players, as they are tip-dependent and therefore are often excluded from minimum-wage requirements. While it is certainly the case that the players pay for the dealers one way or another, regardless of their wages from the casino, the casino may have different perceptions of the value of getting rid of dealers and replacing them with machines, depending on much each costs the casino directly, and depending on how smart their management decisions are.
In fact, it's entirely possible that there will be two completely different groups of players, some of whom prefer the machines, and some of whom prefer the live dealers, and casinos may need to choose which group they want to serve, or provide a mix of both live and computerized dealers.
--BG
···
==============