A.P., I agree that Bob was probably just trying to illustrate that you
need to look at the "whole package" in assessing a play. However, he really
did use a bad example. If you employ what he described at South Point, you
will have your players club card pulled and the associated privileges revoked.
What I find rather amusing is how he gets a free pass on this....he
teaches a course at the casino to show their customers how to beat them. The
teacher gets paid but the students get tossed. Isn't there something wrong with
that picture?
There were much easier ways for SP to handle this situation. The most
basic would have been to stop mailing to real or perceived AP's. IMO, they
overreacted.
If you decided to only shop at Macy's on a sale day, do you think that
they wouldn't accept your purchase at the register? The casino's make the
rules but if the player is too smart, they tell them they can't play anymore. I
know all the crap about their "private property" status but it's really a
chicken shit response on their part.
Just my opinion...
Dan
"Albert Pearson" _ehpee@rogers.com _ (mailto:eh…@…com?Subject=
Re:%20South%20Point) _ehpee123 _ (http://profiles.yahoo.com/ehpee123) wrote:
Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:07 pm (PDT)
Just because you are barred from playing a certain way doesn't mean that
the method employed doesn't net you a profit. It just means that the
opportunity may not last too long.
It's the old story of a pro burning down a play. In this instance the
player is fuel for the fire.
The smart player knows how to fleece the sheep, not slaughter them.
The smart player will play at SP on double point and single point days. On
single point days the player can still be playing positive E.V. machines,
although not too positive.
If I was a Vegas local I'd give them heavier play on the DP days, but I'd
play close to the same number of days on SP maybe even more. If you look
at the DP days as Icing, you won't have a problem.
As a recreational player I am happy to see the way South Point is handling
the advantage player situation. They aren't cutting back on the quantity
of good machines, or the good promotions, or the comps, or the points
required to earn the goodies. They are targetting the people who they don't want
as customers. Let's face it, if you owned a casino would you wnat any Pro
as a customer ?
Bob could have mentioned this as a caveat to all advantage players, but I
would be willing to bet that the majority of them know this already.
I think the objective of the article was to let people know that you have
to look at the whole package when determining if a play is worthwhile. He
should have made the example more generic.
Regards
A.P.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]