anita walker wrote:
Aren't BJ and VP the only games offered where the player has a
chance to gain a slight edge over the house? I certainly
consider card counting a skill that only FEW can do successfully.
However, doesn't the casino go to great lengths to curtail the
card counters? They seem to take measures to prevent the player
from gaining any edge over the house in all the other games, yet
let a FPDW sit on the floor?
A lot of variables involved here ...
If you're talking about small fry quarter stuff (which is what we're
pretty much talking about when looking at FPDW), the equivalent BJ
play (say an average bet of around $10) doesn't get much heat (ok, so
maybe it's a different story at Barbary Coast 
At higher stakes, there's one thing that distinguishes an advantage BJ
player from a vp one ... the BJ player is going to jack up their bet
significantly when the deck count is favorable. It takes a LOT of
finesse to avoid that flag -- particularly if mid-shoe entry is
restricted.
Advantage vp play has few immediate flags (other than presented by the
most awkward of players, who likely present no threat in actuality).
You might, over time, look for very regular, active play and a play
win/loss that is considerably more favorable than average. But, if a
casino were aggressive in weeding out players who fit that profile,
it's a strong bet that they'd likely err in discrimination and end up
cutting out more play favorable to the casino than unfavorable.
Most advantage play is on such a thin edge that it only takes the
inaccurate cut of a few profitable players to negate any benefit to
the exercise. Plus, most other players get wary of a casino when
adverse actions by the casino are in the wind (whether they're
targeted or not) and can be encouraged to move desirable action elsewhere.
When you consider that video poker, as a whole, is more profitable to
the casinos than blackjack - given it's thinner hold - casinos make
the right decision in restraining themselves and dealing with the vp
situation through inventory decisions made on a big-picture basis.
Back to... GOOD advertisement for the casino. I still contend
that their bottom line would suffer little, if any, at all if the
positive games were gone.
I get where you're coming from on this. Certainly there are a good
number of casinos that side with your sentiment - consider Coast.
However, I see strong arguments why a limited number of strong plays
are profitable for a casino.
I firmly believe that the majority of "advantage" players are
profitable to the casino. Call it my belief in human nature. You
have some players who will come into a casino that has very strong vp
and will play a diverse number of games, including those of less
attractive ER's.
In addition to this consideration, you have the impact of players
being willing to allocate more of their budget to gambling if they're
getting good value for the money -- the same as with most any other
products. This can be a particularly effective strategy when it comes
to a semi-skilled player who's giving up at least 1%-2% theo return
due to strategy errors.
That said, an inventory of good games presents the hazard of
attracting poorly profitable players to the casino (relative to the
costs of hosting their play). This has been compared by others to the
threat that some consumers pose on the Wal-Marts (and other low margin
businesses) of the world.
Business models exist to deal with such consumers and you can look for
casinos to adopt them more aggressively -- particularly once IS is/are
in place that can economically identify those consumers with an
efficiency that justifies the effort. The response won't necessarily
be to eject such players, but to effectively manage what's offered to
them. It would be fair to suggest that Harrah's is at the forefront
of this venture, although there's little question it's been awkwardly
handled in many respects.
It's my expectation that well within 5 years we'll look back on the
last 10 years as being the halcyon years of vp.
- Harry
