vpFREE2 Forums

Royal Buster Strategy on Progressives

#1

Rob Singer wrote...

(actually the first paragraph below was mine, some of the quote markers got lost)

Let's think through a scenario. Let's consider a casino that
currently has no "positive opportunities", so no advantage players
visit.

Right off the bat that's not true. AP's are famous for playing -EV
games (you know, the ones they said they'd never be caught dead at)
and pretending they're +EV with slot club promo fluff--of course,
valued as-required.

This is why I very carefully used the wording "positive opportunities", not "positive games". The particulars are not important; I am merely describing a scenario where a casino previously was not attractive to "advantage players" and is now trying to attract that audience and sucker them out of their money.

(again, first paragraph is mine)

Said casino installs a

$100 FPDW machine, which causes highly bankrolled advantage players

to swarm in like flies.

A bold assumption. By AP's own admission via those ridiculous
bankroll requirement formulas they like to talk about to sound
impressive, the proper bankroll for the $100 FPDW game is around
$1.12million. No real player would risk that on VP when many other
investment opportunities with a far greater potential exist. Only the
truly addicted would take on such a machine--as we recently saw when
Caesar's put one in.

It is irrelevant to this discussion if players are "real players" or if they're "addicted". The question I'm examining is whether a casino could profitably install high-stakes +EV games.

There are plenty of highly bankrolled "advantage players" -- certainly enough to give action to the ONE machine I described. And there's always the possibility for less well-funded advantage players to form teams and pool their bankrolls.

Finally, players who are under-bankrolled would have a greater risk of ruin, which would make this situation even more desirable to the casinos.

If you've ever played a $100 machine you'd know that there's no such

thing as 600hph on them. 200 would be more realistic.

That's fine. If you accept the rest of my figures, that'd still be $120,000/yr profit to the casino off that one machine. As we've all agreed, the high limit machines are idle, and therefore unprofitable, the vast majority of the time. This proposed move should certainly increase the action and thus the casino hold.

Put in a dollar game and it

makes much more profit than the high limit games simply because of a
huge difference in action.

The high limit games are already there, they just don't get played much. I want to get them into action.

If a game is profitable for the casino, then each deal of a $100 game will make 100x the profit of the same game in $1 denomination. I contend that my $100 FPDW game would get *plenty* of action from highly bankrolled advantage players -- certainly more than 1% of the action of a $1 game. If your point is simply about W2G lockups at that high level, perhaps a compromise in denomination -- say, $25 -- would yield an acceptable rate of hands/hour while still being attractive enough to the players. Or perhaps our hypothetical casino is in another jurisdiction that doesn't have lockups on relatively small payouts, like (I believe) Canada.

So again, the underlying question: If +EV games can't be beaten by the players, why wouldn't casinos offer them at high stakes, to suck out the money from those delusional advantage players who are convinced that they CAN be beaten?

--Joe

#2

This is why I very carefully used the wording "positive
opportunities", not "positive games". The particulars are not
important; I am merely describing a scenario where a casino

previously was not attractive to "advantage players" and is now
trying to attract that audience and sucker them out of their money.

And they do a very good job at that suckering effort. Take a look at
AP Jean Scott's blog to verify that. A "positive opportunity" is
simply nothing more than a state of mind, used extensively as an
excuse by AP's to justify playing far more and far more often than
they know they should.

There are plenty of highly bankrolled "advantage players" --

certainly enough to give action to the ONE machine I described.

I disagree and there's no way you would know that assertion. Common
sense says anyone who uses over a million dollars to gamble with has
no need to be playing video poker as an "AP", and they would in fact
be very unintelligent overall in doing so.

And there's always the possibility for less well-funded advantage

players to form teams and pool their bankrolls.

Yes....very unprofessional--don't you think?

Finally, players who are under-bankrolled would have a greater risk

of ruin, which would make this situation even more desirable to the

casinos.

That I agree on, as the casinos are famous for not caring what
trouble it may cause any individual anywhere.
  

If a game is profitable for the casino, then each deal of a $100

game

will make 100x the profit of the same game in $1 denomination. I
contend that my $100 FPDW game would get *plenty* of action from
highly bankrolled advantage players -- certainly more than 1% of

the

action of a $1 game. If your point is simply about W2G lockups at
that high level, perhaps a compromise in denomination -- say, $25 --

would yield an acceptable rate of hands/hour while still being

attractive enough to the players. Or perhaps our hypothetical

casino

is in another jurisdiction that doesn't have lockups on relatively
small payouts, like (I believe) Canada.
So again, the underlying question: If +EV games can't be beaten by

the players, why wouldn't casinos offer them at high stakes, to suck
out the money from those delusional advantage players who are
convinced that they CAN be beaten?

We're down to the final point. I spent most of my corporate working
career as a businessman in charge of bringing in company revenue.
Always, you are not only required and pressured to increase profit
dollars--but more importantly, you must increase profit margin, which
turns around being the ultimate driver for short-term and 5-year
company growth plans. Casinos are no different because they are only
there to make money. And their on-going history with machines as well
as my multiple conversations with the executives confirms that. A
lower pay table will continue to be played by AP's & non-AP's alike,
and the gurus, math people, tourists etc. solidify that point.

I am not of the opinion that any FPDW machine would lose money
because in my inquiries, I've found that not to be the case anywhere.
A $100 player can be just as accurate or inaccurate as a 25c player.
It also wouldn't get much play, and if it did the margin would be
slightly less--a tabu for any business.

···

--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Joe Schober <afljoeys@...> wrote: