vpFREE2 Forums

Stations Taking More Anti-advantage player measures?

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John F. Thomas, Jr., Esq."
<jfthomas3@c...> wrote:

>Are you saying that just because a casino is a business you are
>visiting that they can ignore all privacy issues? Hmmmm.

Nope. I'm saying that because you know you're being monitored in a

casino,

and that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in what

you're doing

out in the open on the casino floor (i.e., a casino could, if they

wanted

to, simply train an "eye in the sky" on you and your machine,

videotape you,

and analyze your play later based on what you were dealt and what

you held.

They've been doing this to blackjack players for years and years).
Furthermore, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy using

their

equipment. It's their machine, why should your use of it be secret

to them?

This sounds like you really believe casinos have the manpower (and VP
strategy knowledge of every VP game) to track your play, my play and
every little old lady that steps through their doors. This just isn't
the case. Clearly, they could monitor individual players if they so
desired and were willing to pay the training costs. Just as clearly,
this would do little to impact their bottom line. They would need a
way to monitor the majority of players. And, the only way to
accomplish this would take the help of the VP manufacturers!

Does that mean that they can listen in on the phone calls you make

from your

room, or have a camera on you when you're in the shower? No,

because you've

got a reasonable expectation of privacy when you make a phone call

or when

you're in your hotel room, and you're not told you're under

surveillance.

But I don't think that holds water when you *know* you're under all

sorts of

surveillance on the casino floor.

And I don't think it changes the analysis to move the onus to the

machine

manufacturers. They'll make them however the casino wants them (at

least,

within the boundaries of the law, for the reputable ones) to provide
whatever data the casino wants for its tracking systems. If it's

not an

invasion of privacy for the casino to monitor you, why would it be

an

invasion of privacy for IGT to build a machine that allows the

casino to

monitor you?

Now you're getting to the heart of the debate. If someone was banned
from a casino and decided to file a law suit (privacy or whatever),
then if IGT provided the information to the casino that caused the
person to be banned they could be named as a co-defendent. IGT may
not want to take that risk. They gain nothing directly from providing
the information to the casino but risk lawsuits by providing the
information.

If you remember Bill's comment it really doesn't matter whether the
lawsuit has significant merit. There's a significant cost to defend.

>> monitor your coin in and coin out and play time for that -- WHICH
>> THEY ALREADY DO,

>Well not everyone uses a players card and some folks have been

known

>to remove their cards at appropriate times. Hence, your assertion

is

>false.

Just because some players take methods to attempt to thwart a

casino's data

gathering does not mean that the casinos are not gathering data.

Hence, my

assertion is true -- they are certainly trying to gather that data.

OK, if you can give me the mechanism (without the support of the VP
manufacturers) that tracks ALL player's accurately and doesn't have
prohibitive costs, then please let me know. Just asserting it to be
true does not make it true.

And if you call yourself an "advantage" player (that term just

makes me

snicker) you're using a slot card, because you're not going to

squeeze every

last coupon for two-for-one senior citizen buffets on Tuesday out

of the

casino that way. So not using a card isn't germane to this

discussion.

Oh, but it is. Your assertion is that casinos can just look at your
win/loss and determine whether your an advantage player. This is
simply not true.

>Well, if I were running a casino I'd care a lot. If it's just luck

I

>want to keep inviting the person back. I know I'm going to make

more

>future money off bad players than good players. In fact, this is
>really what the discussion is all about. In the past there hasn't
>been enough information available for casinos to make that trade-

off.

>If the information to track your skill level was actually "easy"

to

>obtain then the casinos would use it to their advantage. It would
>increase their "hold" so why wouldn't they?

Because, again, why would they bother to go through a lot of

rigamarole to

track theoretical strategies when they can consider actual returns,

and get

the same information.

Let's say player X has visited the casino 10 times. He uses his

player

card, and plays $0.25 VP. He tends to play 4 to 5 hours a session,

300

hands an hour, and tends to play 9/6 JoB. Based on his coin in and

coin out

during each of his sessions, the casino determines that on average,

he's

playing at a 96% return level.

Now let's say player Y has also visited the casino 10 times, and

has the

same play as player X. However, player Y's coin in and coin out

determine

that, on average, he's playing at a 91% return level.

After 10 visits, you can conclude that player Y is more valuable to

the

casino than player X. You can also conclude that player X is

probably more

skillful a player than player Y. But since player Y loses more,

he's going

to get more offers.

It's all about the average losses. And they don't need "advantage

player"

strategy tracking to track average loss -- all they need is coin in

and coin

out.

After 10 visits you might be able to to get a "feel" for JOB, but it
would take over a 1 million hands to have any idea on DDB and some
other highly volatile games. Your assumptions just don't hold up
under any kind of mathematical analysis.

Look at what happened in Detroit. One casino banned players that made
money just as you have proposed. I seemed to remember several of the
banned players indicated they had just been lucky and hit one big
jackpot. You will get some of the advantage players with this
approach, but it certainly is not foolproof. It also resulted in lots
of bad publicity for the casino and I doubt had any positive impact
on the bottom line.

Now, if the casinos do get together with the game manufacturers then
they could know your skill level (whether or not you win or lose)
based on very limited play.

Dick

This sounds like you really believe casinos have the manpower (and VP
strategy knowledge of every VP game) to track your play, my play and
every little old lady that steps through their doors. This just isn't
the case.

Dick, do you have reading comprehension issues? You just made my point for
the rest of the debate in THIS sentence, while continuing to argue with me
over the rest of the letter.

IGT may
not want to take that risk. They gain nothing directly from providing
the information to the casino but risk lawsuits by providing the
information.

How do you risk a lawsuit by doing nothing illegal? Think VERY carefully
before you answer.

OK, if you can give me the mechanism (without the support of the VP
manufacturers) that tracks ALL player's accurately and doesn't have
prohibitive costs, then please let me know. Just asserting it to be
true does not make it true.

Again, I question your reading comprehension skills. It is true that the
casinos are gathering data on everyone they can. It is also true that some
players attempt to thwart that data gathering. Can you please tell me what
one has to do with the other? The point is, the casinos are gathering data,
and I don't think you can cogently argue otherwise.

Oh, but it is. Your assertion is that casinos can just look at your
win/loss and determine whether your an advantage player. This is
simply not true.

Possessive pronouns are not interchangeable with contractions. It's
"You're." Pet peeve.

Secondly, we're back to the reading comprehension point again. The debate
is about enhanced tracking of so-called "advantage" players by tracking
their strategy. My point is, the casino is more concerned with their
win/loss than they are with your playing strategy. Given that they're
tracking you, then they can determine all they need based on how much money
you're leaving there. If you're there a lot, and you're earning comps, and
not leaving a lot of money at the casino on a regular basis, then believe
me, they know about it -- without having to resort to using software
programs to determine whether you always hold 4 to a flush over 3 to a
straight.

You can continue to argue that point, if you'd like, but as I pointed out
before -- you made my argument in the first sentence of your reply.

After 10 visits you might be able to to get a "feel" for JOB, but it
would take over a 1 million hands to have any idea on DDB and some
other highly volatile games. Your assumptions just don't hold up
under any kind of mathematical analysis.

But tracking coin-in and coin-out is relevant immediately -- since the
casinos know how much you've lost on that trip. Simple. The casinos know
their long-term odds are good, and the casino isn't going to wait until
you've played 3 million hands to rate you.

Why? Because all the strategy in the world doesn't affect what cards you're
dealt -- it only affects what you do with them. Whereas, the casinos know
immediately what you've won and lost per trip.

Look at what happened in Detroit. One casino banned players that made
money just as you have proposed.

Reading comprehension again. Where did I *ever* "propose" that casinos
should ban players that make money? Now you're just putting words in my
mouth.

Now, if the casinos do get together with the game manufacturers then
they could know your skill level (whether or not you win or lose)
based on very limited play.

See the point above, and the very first point made by YOU in response to
this post.