Match play dispute

I asked the complainant about the T&C on the match play offer itself. Here is what he said:

Quote:

Here is what it says on coupon:

Redeem this credit voucher at bjs west during printed date range only. You must be logged in and the gaming machine must have credits equal to the amount of this voucher. The bartender then will exchange this voucher with valid ID for it's credit value. Bartender must put the credits in the gaming machine for your playing enjoyment. Management reserves the right to cancel or modify this promotion at any time. Not redeemable for cash.

On the date of the incident it was only my 3rd time in the establishment. The first time I was there about 3 hours and lost about 280 on the machines. That's what generated these offers. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Sounds like they played this card:

Quote:

Management reserves the right to cancel or modify this promotion at any time.

Even so, this 'offer' is somewhere between lame and ridiculous.

To pay the devil's advocate, if you use a match play in a casino and win, you get to keep the winnings, but the match play itself is forfeited. Likewise, the bar might argue that the player is entitled to winnings from the match play, but not the principle.

Another argument the bar might use is that if they intended to just give the player $20 then they would have called it conditional free play, not a match play.

Your "match play" reasoning is OK, except that they demand that you LOSE your original $20. It should be that they simply want you to PLAY the entire $20 thru at least once.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Your "match play" reasoning is OK, except that they demand that you LOSE your original $20. It should be that they simply want you to PLAY the entire $20 thru at least once.

Yeah. Kind of like a double match play. If this were an Internet casino bonus I would have called it a 1x Phantom Bonus with 1X pre-wagering requirement.

My true opinion is that I think this should go to the player because the bar previously honored such coupons by letting the player keep the principal on the free play and that the T&C were vague. There is a legal doctrine that if a contract is vague it should be interpreted against the party that wrote it.

I also marginally think this will go the player's way. Gaming seems to have been tougher on the casinos the last year or so.

You'd think after almost two years reading the Wizard's sites and all I'd understand match play. Truth is I haven't really tried. Anwyay, I think I get it now.

It would be ebst to see match play as a free loan. That is a loan you don't need to pay back if you lose, but the money loaned does not belong to you. So, you bet $20, the casino matches with another $20, and you pull the lever, push the button, roll the dice or turn the card. If you lose the casino takes everything, but doesn't ask you pay back the $20 it put up (free loan). If you win, you get paid for a $40 bet, but the casino takes back its $20. Essentially you get paid double for your $20 bet. That's not bad at all.

Assuming I got this right, then the complainant in this thread should have been given $20 to match his $20 and not been reuired to first lose his money. Anything else is not real match play, but more like a rebate in match play terms.

Well, I probably would be willing to use a match play coupon now, should I run into one.

Quote: Nareed

It would be ebst to see match play as a free loan. That is a loan you don't need to pay back if you lose, but the money loaned does not belong to you. So, you bet $20, the casino matches with another $20, and you pull the lever, push the button, roll the dice or turn the card. If you lose the casino takes everything, but doesn't ask you pay back the $20 it put up (free loan). If you win, you get paid for a $40 bet, but the casino takes back its $20. Essentially you get paid double for your $20 bet. That's not bad at all..

That's a good way to look at it. Another way to look at it is as a loss rebate.

Quote: teddys

That's a good way to look at it. Another way to look at it is as a loss rebate.

I'm not so sure. A loss rebate is money you can use for further play (it's always given in free play, right?). There are similarities, beacuse you can't cash the free play you're given. But the crucial difference is that for a rebate you first do have to lose money first.

Let me illustrate:

Match play: you risk $20 of your money on a $40 bet.

Loss rebate: you lose, let's say, $200 and get $20 back in free play.

Either case it's a good deal if you were going to risk that much money. I see match play more useful and a better deal in tabel games, while free play is a better deal for slots and VP (especially VP).

BTW This thread has me thinking of a new Vegas Law: Beware casinos bearing gifts.

Of course I need to expound on it. Perhaps something as simple as "ask about the terms of the match play coupon before setting any money down." Perhaps something more sarcastic and complicated.

I thought match play was just a way to increase the EV for the one hand (or however long) the coupon lasts.