--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John F. Thomas, Jr., Esq."
<jfthomas3@c...> wrote:
>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.
Actually, I don't have a reading comprehension problem, but you seem
to have a real problem with logic. Your point I was responding to was
that the casinos could watch us with their "eye in the sky" and
examine our skill level. It usually helps to reread the sentence
right above a response. This does nothing to validate any point you
think you may have made.
>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.
Hmmm, you mean something like the McDonald's law suit for hot coffee.
>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.
So? They can gather all the data they want. I didn't nor would I ever
argue that point. However, if they want to do anything "useful" with
any data they need "good" data. Your point all along is that they can
collect "useful" data by simply tracking your wins. My point is that
it isn't as easy as you assert. Remember it costs them money if they
make bad decisions.
>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.
Good grief.
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.
Assertions mean nothing. And, I did not validate any of your
assertions.
>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.
Exactly my point. Someone could be terrible player but get dealt 4
aces and a kicker on a DDB triple play. So, by your logic that player
is considered a skillful player.
How do I use this wonderful information to improve the bottom line.
Since this person is "really" a poor player the casino should do
everthing to get them back.
So, how useful was the tracking of win/loss in this case?
>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.
I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth. If you're not going to ban
them then you might reduce their comps. If collecting win/loss
information as you propose is all the casinos need to do, then they
must be going to do "something" with it. What DO you "propose"?
In any event, it would be the wrong action since it has nothing to do
with the player's actual abilities.
>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.
I see them clearly, try again.
Dick