Getting backed off / 86'd / barred / restricted / etc for winning
Quote: PaigowdanTrue. Backing off players is at the very least off putting and ugly for any business, and gives opening to litigation if mishandled. But if warranted, it is done, and should be done politely and correctly. The El Cortez - notorious for back offs to the point of lunacy, seems to have no real business issues, no less the strip properties and local properties with an occasional back off or expulsion. Back offs seem to not only be okay, but less of an issue as time goes by. Keep in mind that if a player is flat-betted, barred from BJ, or even asked/told to leave, this is usually not a major issue to do when needed. If a criminal cheating event happens, then yes, police are called.
New Jersey has a rare right to play position, where BJ conditions are not desirable. If an "absolutely no back off" scenario were to come to be, it may give such global 6:5/CSM/50% penetration/flat-betted conditions that AP would be impossible. Keep in mind that in order for no AP back offs to occur, then basically few or no AP conditions to AP would be present.
If a player is winning at BJ by flat betting, the casino is smart enough to know that it's either luck or exploiting dealer sloppiness. That's why they watch. In this case, it's more advantageous to figure out the dealer is sloppy than bar the player just because they're winning. Also, as you said, back offs can be a -ve effect on business.
Universally changing the rules to the point where AP opportunities practically vanish (e.g. 6:5, 50%, min=max bet) is also bad for business because the casino, in the long run, would not make as much money.
Quote: MBIf a player is winning at BJ by flat betting, the casino is smart enough to know that it's either luck or exploiting dealer sloppiness. That's why they watch. In this case, it's more advantageous to figure out the dealer is sloppy than bar the player just because they're winning. Also, as you said, back offs can be a -ve effect on business.
yes.
Quote: MBUniversally changing the rules to the point where AP opportunities practically vanish (e.g. 6:5, 50%, min=max bet) is also bad for business because the casino, in the long run, would not make as much money.
No. They'd hold even more from the same ploppie BJ players (or they'd buy in with the same gambling allowance on other games), but no longer lose to AP play with un-AP-able games, We are beginning to see this now. One of my points is that AP conditions are relentlessly heading south as it is.
At Fallsview, I see 6:5 at the lowest limit game ($5 min). The last time I went, I noticed some $15 tables were 6:5. They were absolutely packed (a row of players waiting to play). From a business perspective, I think they're doing this not because of AP, but the cost of running a $5 game exceeds the revenue and, in this case, they can up the HE as a means to generate more profit. An AP
would not want to play at a table that gets 40 hands/hr.
If all card counting opportunities end it will end up costing the casinos more money in the long run. Especially when everyone finally realizes that there's no way to actually beat Blackjack. There won't be this illusion and mystiqueQuote: Paigowdanyes.
No. They'd hold even more from the same ploppie BJ players (or they'd buy in with the same gambling allowance on other games), but no longer lose to AP play with un-AP-able games, We are beginning to see this now. One of my points is that AP conditions are relentlessly heading south as it is.
No more dreamers who come with the best intentions but ultimately just donk off their money.
It will simply be known as a suckers game.
What will guys like KJ do? Will they stop playing Blackjack? Probably not, they will end up migrating to hole carding and other BETTER and more profitable methods.
No doubt blatant cheating will rise.
If the casinos continue to rape it's players it will destroy the casino industry. It won't affect me, so i'm not worried.
IMO Advantage Play is actually better than it was in 2004 - 2011. And it's getting better each year.
The more you guys do to foil, AP's the harder AP's work, that leads to finding better more opportunities and the more creative we get.
Many AP's and teams were happy playing progressives long ago that didn't really cost the casinos that much because the house made it's money either way.
Those people had to find other opportunities that actually cost the casinos considerably more money.
Casino's knew dam well they weren't being cheated on full pay machines, progressives, good promotions etc etc. They just didn't like anyone actually beating them.Quote: CasinodepositorWhat your telling is true about those casino. Specially on winning to much that they think you are cheating on them. About the rule it is not even our fault that some player out smart them, it just happened that some player has think a way to win more but not broke their rules.
---------------------------------------------------
FYI Dan I don't think casinos are evil I blame all the fear mongering from guys looking to work the darkside.
Mid level Advantage play really isn't a big threat. Obviously guys like Don Johnson, Phil Ivey are something they need to worry about. They spend all this time and money messing with the average AP meanwhile they miss blatantly obvious situations. Guess why?CASINO GREED, they see a big player and fall all over themselves.
Quote: AxelWolfIf all card counting opportunities end it will end up costing the casinos more money in the long run. Especially when everyone finally realizes that there's no way to actually beat Blackjack. There won't be this illusion and mystique
No more dreamers who come with the best intentions but ultimately just donk off their money.
It will simply be known as a suckers game.
This argument is the "if we have to play with a house edge, it's a rip off, because the casinos have no right to pay their bills via a house edge mechanism, that's why we try to defeat it."
The house edge means that you win slightly less when you win, but lose the same amount on loses, in order for the casino to pay its bills. Like in craps, roulette, UTH, Pai Gow Poker, and other self-sustaining games that get heavily patronized. A winning session that would have won $575 wins $540 instead, and the lights stay on and the dealers get paid. Like any other business that charges a fee for service, if the experience is worth the fee, it gets customers.
Quote: AWWhat will guys like KJ do? Will they stop playing Blackjack? Probably not, they will end up migrating to hole carding and other BETTER and more profitable methods.
Maybe. If hole carding is an issue, then European no hole card BJ may be seen. The Coast casinos used to deal no hole card BJ. But I doubt that would happen, dealers would just tighten up procedures. I've seen casinos change dealing procedures on UTH and Three card poker to present the community board cards and dealer's hand when it was needed, not before. The games play the same.
But that is a good question: what would some AP players do if they had to work a different job? Teliot and Max Rubin became gaming consultants. Anthony Curtis became a publisher. Mike Shackleford founded a very successful website, among other endeavors. Creative and resourceful people survive when conditions change.
Quote: AWNo doubt blatant cheating will rise.
Maybe, but that remains to be seen. I would not be surprised.
Quote: AWIf the casinos continue to rape it's players it will destroy the casino industry. It won't affect me, so i'm not worried.
Like any other business that charges a fee for service, if the experience is worth the fee, it gets the customers. Businesses that lose less via loss prevention can reduce their prices.
Quote: AWIMO Advantage Play is actually better than it was in 2004 - 2011. And it's getting better each year.
Great.
Really? Is that the reason you guys are here, and they run billion-dollar operations?Quote: AxelWolfObviously guys like Don Johnson, Phil Ivey are something they need to worry about. They spend all this time and money messing with the average AP meanwhile they miss blatantly obvious situations. Guess why?CASINO GREED, they see a big player and fall all over themselves.
Give the Ivey, Johnson, stuff a break. Please. All Ivey got out of it was the label "cheater". Johnson just won a bunch of baccarat hands. People have won more, and lost it all.
https://www.dellanave.com/you-will-never-beat-baccarat/
These are just some examples
Quote: MBThe casino is a business. Like all businesses, the purpose of a casino's existence is to make a profit for the owners (e.g. shareholders). Anyone who is consistently winning *may* represent a threat to the casino's ability to generate profits.
Although I have no inside knowledge, I am sure casinos perfectly understand the statistics of the games they offer. I'm also sure they analyze their games to look for scenarios where there are outlier events (from a statistical perspective). Some outlier events are due to Lady Luck, some are due to AP, and some are due to cheating. Although the player (likely) knows their situation, the casino may not know for sure. They can analyze betting/play history & study the player to try and assign probabilities to the 3 possibilities. Clearly, if it's Lady Luck, the casino should not intervene since allowing the player to make additional bets is in the best interest of the casino. However, in the other two situations, it's in the best interest of the casino to back off/bar the player.
This is an exercise in Bayesian probability theory. The casino knows the person is winning excessively and has to make a judgment as to the reason. Since the cost of making the correct assessment 100% of the time is too expensive and time consuming, there will be cases where the casino will incorrectly bar someone just because they are winning too much. Why? To protect the bottom line.
I appreciate that this may seem unjust to some. But, in my opinion, it's just good business sense. If casinos knew that no one was cheating or trying to get an advantage, then they would never back anyone off. We all know that cheaters exist and AP exists.
The reason they back off losing players who "win too much" is the #1 qualification of middle management in many casinos is dumbass with a high school diploma who's dealt/supervised casino games for thirty years because they're too stupid to do anything better, the smart ones were in a college frat.
I have no idea what you're asking or saying.Quote: TheGrimReaper13Really? Is that the reason you guys are here, and they run billion-dollar operations?
Give the Ivey, Johnson, stuff a break. Please. All Ivey got out of it was the label "cheater". Johnson just won a bunch of baccarat hands. People have won more, and lost it all.
https://www.dellanave.com/you-will-never-beat-baccarat/
I'm not sure how it is that I'm saying anything derogatory about them. I'm all for them beating the casinos.
I was just saying casinos spend too much time and money sweating the average AP. Meanwhile they are missing big stuff that's fairly obvious due to their greed and looking in the wrong direction and messing around with mid level and small AP's. Any numbskull probably could have seen something wasn't right. Darksiders are not needed, it's almost always too late. Darksiders get their new information AFTER THE FACT once the Advantage Players already made their money.
Quote: PaigowdanIt's legal, but it is arguably a legal form of theft of services if it undermines/eliminates the casino's service fee business mechanism, which is the house edge.
It would be a stupid argument, because as you pointed out, if the casino didn't like it, they would simply tell the player they aren't allowed to play any more.
Quote: PaigowdanSome Casino execs see it as theft of service fees, which I can see and agree with in that light.
Yet it's those very same executives that are allowing people to play games that have a negative house advantage.
Quote: PaigowdanListen to what they tell you: "Welcome to Marriott" versus "You need to leave. Security will escort you out."
There are blackjack players who earn over $500 per hour who never hear that. There are people playing machines earning between $50,000 and $100,000 who hear that only a few times per year. What they hear most often from casino employees is "Good Luck." Yet when they actually follow that advice you somehow rationalize that they've now turned themselves into thieves
Quote: PaigowdanThis argument is the "if we have to play with a house edge, it's a rip off,
Correct
Quote: Paigowdanbecause the casinos have no right to pay their bills via a house edge mechanism, that's why we try to defeat it."
Incorrect
Some people choose to only play games with a house edge. Others choose to only play if they're able to overcome the house edge. All of them believe the casino should definitely to pay whatever debts they accrue.
Quote: TomGIt would be a stupid argument, because as you pointed out, if the casino didn't like it, they would simply tell the player they aren't allowed to play any more.
And they do, if needed.
Quote: TGYet it's those very same executives that are allowing people to play games that have a negative house advantage.
Players are supposed to play games that include a business/service fee mechanism or a house edge as we know it. Most people are fine with it. It is a "pay to play" fee, - same as any other business has a cover charge, service charge or revenue source.
Quote: TGThere are blackjack players who earn over $500 per hour who never hear that["You're done for the night, sir/too good for us."]. There are people playing machines earning between $50,000 and $100,000 who hear that only a few times per year. What they hear most often from casino employees is "Good Luck." Yet when they actually follow that advice you somehow rationalize that they've now turned themselves into thieves.
No, Most winners are happily paid, and may even be displayed on the Winners wall of fame, and I'm happy for them. We all go to get lucky, get some great hands, and win. Hit a progressive, and balloons come out, and there's a photo op with the manager holding a big check, one big "good for you." Buy in for $500 and leave with a couple of thousand after hitting Five Aces on Pai Gow Poker, and get a "good for you" with the cash. Most winners go to the cage with the winnings without issue, and I am happy for the winners. But try for winnings from AP or a suspect method, there may be pushback, and that's to be expected.
Quote: TGSome people choose to only play games with a house edge. Others choose to only play if they're able to overcome the house edge. All of them believe the casino should definitely to pay whatever debts they accrue.
Actually, just about all casino patrons play games with a house edge, having no problem with it. If you only play games with no disadvantage, do you also go to the movies only if it's free? Or eat only free food at a restaurant? These are businesses. Is this a reasonable expectation or demand to expect free goods and services? No.
The casinos are billion-dollar operations. They didn't get that way by overlooking stuff. Like, "If you beat God, he let you win (the battle)."Quote: AxelWolfI was just saying casinos spend too much time and money sweating the average AP
Do you really believe that people around here are more knowledgeable about gambling than the people the casinos hire?
Quote: TheGrimReaper13Do you really believe that people around here are more knowledgeable about gambling than the people the casinos hire?
Some of them, yes. A dealer fresh out of dealer's school probably doesn't know a fraction of what other people know. Many suits aren't very sharp, and gaming people will be the first to tell you this. Like anything else, it's a mixed bag.
Quote: PaigowdanPlayers are supposed to play games that include a business/service fee mechanism or a house edge as we know it.
Actually of the millions of customers who go to casino's, you're the only one who thinks that. The rest of us only know that we're supposed to play the games as they're offered, however they're offered
Quote: PaigowdanBut try for winnings from AP or a suspect method, there may be pushback, and that's to be expected.
And there may not be any push back at all. There are still blackjack teams out there that are able to spread $500 to $10,000 a few times per year on the strip and never asked to leave. In fact, the casino comps all their meals and hotel rooms. . .
Quote: PaigowdanIf you only play games with no disadvantage, do you also go to the movies only if it's free? Or eat only free food at a restaurant?
There are some things I will pay for, including movies and meals (though vast majority of restaurant meals come from buffet comps). One thing I won't pay for is to go work at a job. For that I require them to pay me. Casino games included.
When it comes to AP 1000% yes.Quote: TheGrimReaper13The casinos are billion-dollar operations. They didn't get that way by overlooking stuff. Like, "If you beat God, he let you win (the battle)."
Do you really believe that people around here are more knowledgeable about gambling than the people the casinos hire?
I was in a 4-Card poker game this month. A young African-American man sat down and lost $300 in a few minutes, making horrendous bets. I remember his last bet that busted him: he bet 3X and, at showdown, his hand was revealed to be a J-9 high! I mean, oh my God, a Jack-Nine high.
I felt sorry for him. He had no idea what he was doing.
And despite all their self-righteous claims about wanting people to gamble responsibly, no casino employee operating the game backed off this young man and said "sir, you need to become a bit more knowledgeable about the games you are playing." They simply allowed him to ruin himself.
Because the age-old rule of gambling is: the player is allowed to bet however he wants (within the posted limits) -no matter how foolish - on any action in the game.
So, its the stink of hypocrisy that chokes us all when casinos back off skillful players.
And Dan - do you deny that the Nevada gaming industry, and the U.S. gaming industry in general, is experiencing a major financial decline? And that it coincides with the rise of the "game protection industry?" People are voting en mass with their pocketbooks. If the casino industry positions itself as a completely witless way for the public to automatically and irresistably lose their money, then expect it to go the way of horse racing tracks. People will turn to Draft Kings and also to online games of all kinds. So many of us here are tired of your sanctimonious arguments, Dan. We think you are on the losing side of history and we laugh at your little gods.
Quote: TomGActually of the millions of customers who go to casino's, you're the only one who thinks that. The rest of us only know that we're supposed to play the games as they're offered, however they're offered.
No. Casino customers know there are house edges, and that it's normal for them to be there, and to be small enough for it to be a non-issue for them. They also know that the casinos are not evil empires, but their gambling service providers and outlets, and they are used as such. The Wizard of odds casino game repository, describing all house edges and strategies, has had enough Internet hits to be worth millions, apparently. People know.
Quote: PaigowdanBut try for winnings from AP or a suspect method, there may be pushback, and that's to be expected.
Quote: TGAnd there may not be any push back at all. There are still blackjack teams out there that are able to spread $500 to $10,000 a few times per year on the strip and never asked to leave. In fact, the casino comps all their meals and hotel rooms.
Some APs are skillful. Many are not.
Quote: TGThere are some things I will pay for, including movies and meals (though vast majority of restaurant meals come from buffet comps). One thing I won't pay for is to go work at a job. For that I require them to pay me. Casino games included.
For most people, gambling is a recreation, not a job.
Quote: WizardofnothingYes , then can , have, and will
I actually slogged through a terms and services of one just now. Not only do they reserve the right the to ban you based on background checks based on whatever criteria they see fit from any source including but not limited to themselves, 3rd parties, or even what you post on social media. They also have a prohibited use clause that says you cannot bet or wager systemically or using techniques...Then to top it all off they say they will withhold all funds and winnings unless you get Mr. Lawman to say otherwise.
If it wasn't for this site I wouldn't have ever guessed they would actually have terms like that.
Quote: DiscreteMaths2they reserve the right the to ban you based on background checks based on whatever criteria they see fit from any source including but not limited to themselves, 3rd parties, or even what you post on social media.
Ban us based on what we post on social media? Such as the WOV forum?
Uh-oh.
Um . . . Mr. Shackleford, sir - do you provide the identities of WOV forum members to any casinos or game protection entities?
Quote: PaigowdanThe social media is to nominally protect against bashing their good name
That was a separate clause. This was specifically to bar people they didn't want action from, they let you know the various sources they could base their decision from.
"Actually, just about all casino patrons play games with a house edge, having no problem with it. If you only play games with no disadvantage, do you also go to the movies only if it's free? Or eat only free food at a restaurant? These are businesses. Is this a reasonable expectation or demand to expect free goods and services? No."
Actually many people do. I know if a movie theater is offering free movies on Thursdays, I will go on Thursdays. I certainly would not say, "well, I don't want to take advantage of their offer so I am going on Friday when I have to pay."
Free cheeseburgers at McDonalds? Why not? They are offering it.
Certainly you have seen those programs with shoppers who cut out coupons all day from newspapers so that their thousand dollar shopping list comes out to twenty bucks? In fact on one of those shows, the supermarket actually owed the purchaser money. They reached in and removed cash from the register to give to her while she walked off with a shopping cart of their products.
Are these people reprehensible and taking advantage of the poor stores who have to make a living?
I can understand he side for some things but the card counting is OUT OF LEFT FIELD - as well as the promotion
If a casinon offers 6x jackpots should I not play- or play. A game that I can't hit one- Blackjack is countable and its legal so why shouldn't I.....:
Quote: WizardofnothingImo Dan is just not open minded- it's like putting someone on the jury for a rape trial that has been raped- he can't be unbiased because not only did he work for the casino but he created a game
I can understand he side for some things but the card counting is OUT OF LEFT FIELD - as well as the promotion
If a casinon offers 6x jackpots should I not play- or play. A game that I can't hit one- Blackjack is countable and its legal so why shouldn't I.....:
Part of this is because I had worked for years a dealer, and got to see the other point of view. Here I saw the business side, as well as players good and bad. This is in addition to being a gambler. I was open-minded to both sides, and in the end I felt gaming is a business that offers gambling services to a difficult general population that has a right to its service fee house edge. they also have a right to implement loss prevention measures and to limit play against those whose goals are indeed business threats, and not genuine customer gambling.
I also feel that many AP players are oftentimes retreated into a bit of a cult or a "guild of members," a club where AP-ing is not strictly a business decision, but a passionate cause that is defended at all costs and by all arguments, including labeling as closed-minded those who may disagree, or as evil empires - if loss prevention/game protection techniques are applied to the business model or seen as a normal business response.
There is a sense of entitlement as to the "right to AP" against a gaming business, and where any business countermeasure is an act of declared warfare (as opposed to simple loss prevention/profit seeking, with added game protection), all in keeping with the "us versus the evil empire" mentality. Arguments are made that "if it is legal, then it must be good or ethical to do - or at least mandatorily allowed!," which is not true. Other arguments are "Where is it WRITTEN that....?" as in if the "No card counting" signs are absent, then it must mandatorily be sanctioned and tolerated. This is malarkey. And: "They MUST offer all 3:2 BJ shoe games or else they'll lose so much business instantly that all casinos will close overnight and suffer - as they deserve," which is also not true, as 6:5 seems to be spreading far and wide with very little pushback. To mention or allude that AP is not gambling per se but that a great part of the juice is in the illicit "getting away with what you can against the evil empire with gusto, camouflage and cover plays while they're against you!" - using an angle to defeat a game instead of to just play it - is the cat-and-mouse allure and narrative. This is both unpopular to say, but I believe it's of merit as an observation about the AP community and mindset.
I see these things and the slow trends that make it more difficult to AP, but more so as to mention and discuss them (thereby to disturb the AP viewpoint with such observations and opinions), I get label radical or out of left field. Personally, I think they're fair and accurate and that these views are hit with angry denial or backlash of that view point, and of a slowly changing AP landscape.
Somebody mentioned no hole card BJ. Talk to average BBJ player and OMG I would never play BJ under those rules.
But not a whisper of complaint when dealers started to hit soft 17
No hole cards adds 0.11 % to HE Hit soft 17 is 0.22 %
Quote: darkozDan said:
"Actually, just about all casino patrons play games with a house edge, having no problem with it. If you only play games with no disadvantage, do you also go to the movies only if it's free? Or eat only free food at a restaurant? These are businesses. Is this a reasonable expectation or demand to expect free goods and services? No."
Actually many people do. I know if a movie theater is offering free movies on Thursdays, I will go on Thursdays. I certainly would not say, "well, I don't want to take advantage of their offer so I am going on Friday when I have to pay."
Free cheeseburgers at McDonalds? Why not? They are offering it.
Certainly you have seen those programs with shoppers who cut out coupons all day from newspapers so that their thousand dollar shopping list comes out to twenty bucks? In fact on one of those shows, the supermarket actually owed the purchaser money. They reached in and removed cash from the register to give to her while she walked off with a shopping cart of their products.
Are these people reprehensible and taking advantage of the poor stores who have to make a living?
Let's say you get free cheeseburgers at McDonalds for 1 year and then McDonald's informs you that you can no longer have free cheeseburgers. They're not asking you to pay for the cheeseburgers you have consumed. To me, this is somewhat similar to someone being backed off for AP.
I'm not seeing how McDonalds is at fault here.
Quote: MBLet's say you get free cheeseburgers at McDonalds for 1 year and then McDonald's informs you that you can no longer have free cheeseburgers. They're not asking you to pay for the cheeseburgers you have consumed. To me, this is somewhat similar to someone being backed off for AP.
I'm not seeing how McDonalds is at fault here.
No successful business would ever do that to a customer though. Casinos do this because of their special market status granted through regulation; its not like the more skilled or knowledgeable players have an alternative to go to instead.
Quote: DiscreteMaths2No successful business would ever do that to a customer though. Casinos do this because of their special market status granted through regulation; its not like the more skilled or knowledgeable players have an alternative to go to instead.
How is a person who has (only) consumed free cheeseburgers categorized as a "customer"?
Quote: MBLet's say you get free cheeseburgers at McDonalds for 1 year and then McDonald's informs you that you can no longer have free cheeseburgers. They're not asking you to pay for the cheeseburgers you have consumed. To me, this is somewhat similar to someone being backed off for AP.
I'm not seeing how McDonalds is at fault here.
No, you have to have McDonalds do the same as a casino would to see how it looks.
After eating for free using their own coupons, they send six security guards up to you while you are eating your free cheeseburger and demand you come with them for taking advantage of their own offers. Other people in the restaurant are still allowed to use their free coupons but you are being warned not to or risk being taken to their backroom and trespassed.
When you ask what it is you did wrong, they tell you the offers they sent you were not actually meant to be used by smart people who might actually try to get hamburgers for free but only for ploppies who spend money on meal deals that when added up cost more than the individual items.
Quote: MBHow is a person who has (only) consumed free cheeseburgers categorized as a "customer"?
How is that even relevant ? You can go to a casino and pay for parking, rooms, food and drink, spa, shows, etc and they will still give you the boot if you AP regardless if your a net profit customer for them. On the non-casino side I have gone to many a business to cash in a free deal and they have never taken issue with it as long as you follow the terms on the coupon or what have you, regardless of what else you buy or don't buy from them.
Quote: DiscreteMaths2What about online casinos ? Will they do the equivalent to you electronically for AP?
Yes.
I exploited an advantageous promotion at my favourite online casino. It was stupidly generous and I just vultured it. I played totally within the rules and restrictions of that promotion.
They did not 86 me or flat bet me, but they AND a sister casino under another brand, sent me emails advising me that . . .
Quote: online casinoThis email is to inform you that we have made a decision to deny you from obtaining any promotional bonuses from us in the future.
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/2/
They also withheld £150 of bonus funds that I had been awarded within the rules.
I already added him to my no, "would you like some?" list. They are my privately owned chips and I don't have to offer them to anyone.Quote: mcallister3200If casinos treated their buffets like they did their games no one who weighed over 210 pounds would be able to eat the buffet. And certainly if they got info on the last mcnugget challenge poker grinder would be flyered to buffets all over the country.
I think this is the best analogy I have heard on this topic so far. They are parallels. Casinos have their HE to make profits, grocery stores have their product margins. Occasionally, through promotions and/or cleverness, customers can legally overcome the HE/product margins within the published rules. There are even nationally broadcast TV shows documenting such folks.Quote: darkozCertainly you have seen those programs with shoppers who cut out coupons all day from newspapers so that their thousand dollar shopping list comes out to twenty bucks? In fact on one of those shows, the supermarket actually owed the purchaser money. They reached in and removed cash from the register to give to her while she walked off with a shopping cart of their products.
Are these people reprehensible and taking advantage of the poor stores who have to make a living?
And how does each industry react? Personally, I'm a grocery store ploppy, but still, I have never heard anyone getting backroomed at the Kroger for using coupons!
Too late!Quote: IbeatyouracesLet's not have another 20 page thread about this please.
Quote: darkozNo, you have to have McDonalds do the same as a casino would to see how it looks.
After eating for free using their own coupons, they send six security guards up to you while you are eating your free cheeseburger and demand you come with them for taking advantage of their own offers. Other people in the restaurant are still allowed to use their free coupons but you are being warned not to or risk being taken to their backroom and trespassed.
When you ask what it is you did wrong, they tell you the offers they sent you were not actually meant to be used by smart people who might actually try to get hamburgers for free but only for ploppies who spend money on meal deals that when added up cost more than the individual items.
I'm not condoning the style of how casinos treat AP. I'm just saying that they have the option of telling people they are not allowed to play.
Going back to the business angle, let's say you were FORCED to run a casino. How would you offer your blackjack game (if at all)? Would AP exist? What would you do about it?
Wawa for example offers surcharge free atm withdraw..... Why? To encourage you to buy something else in the store, a lot of peoe Let walk in and use the arm and leave, should they be banned?
The answer is no- the casino creates the rules - they are free to change them but I should be free to use the rules to my advantage-just like bankruptcy laws
Quote: MBI'm not condoning the style of how casinos treat AP. I'm just saying that they have the option of telling people they are not allowed to play.
Going back to the business angle, let's say you were FORCED to run a casino. How would you offer your blackjack game (if at all)? Would AP exist? What would you do about it?
Truthfully, I am not certain I can answer that. Probably, it would be determined by the success of my casino. If I was facing chapter 11 and I saw a bunch of AP's taking me for more money I would probably have a crap-storm.
I'm not faulting the casinos from trying to protect their bottom line. That's understandable. What's reprehensible is the manner most all of them go about it. While a lot of people were angry in the Plaza thread because they removed their $5 denom games, people understood what was their motivation and even though the Plaza understood a bunch of AP's were going to be hitting them (assuming people on here are correct about them following this board) they STILL went ahead and had their tax day promotion unabated for the entire day as stated.
And people on here commended their actions. I bet (and hope) that when these AP's are looking to have a good time (even if its just to buy drinks at the bar or a cheeseburger in their restaurant) and they have a choice of the Plaza or some other casino as they pass by, they will pick the Plaza because of that and that is good casino business IMO.
EDIT: Okay, I am a degenerate AP who takes pride in taking the casinos for lots of cash. I live well because of them but I would freak out if people were taking my casino like that but oh well, life isn't fair and casinos don't hand back money from the degenerate gamblers who lose so they can pay their employees and the execs can live in their mansions so for those same reasons I don't sweat it or feel guilty.
MY HONEST ANSWER!
Quote: darkozTruthfully, I am not certain I can answer that. Probably, it would be determined by the success of my casino. If I was facing chapter 11 and I saw a bunch of AP's taking me for more money I would probably have a crap-storm.
I'm not faulting the casinos from trying to protect their bottom line. That's understandable. What's reprehensible is the manner most all of them go about it. While a lot of people were angry in the Plaza thread because they removed their $5 denom games, people understood what was their motivation and even though the Plaza understood a bunch of AP's were going to be hitting them (assuming people on here are correct about them following this board) they STILL went ahead and had their tax day promotion unabated for the entire day as stated.
And people on here commended their actions. I bet (and hope) that when these AP's are looking to have a good time (even if its just to buy drinks at the bar or a cheeseburger in their restaurant) and they have a choice of the Plaza or some other casino as they pass by, they will pick the Plaza because of that and that is good casino business IMO.
EDIT: Okay, I am a degenerate AP who takes pride in taking the casinos for lots of cash. I live well because of them but I would freak out if people were taking my casino like that but oh well, life isn't fair and casinos don't hand back money from the degenerate gamblers who lose so they can pay their employees and the execs can live in their mansions so for those same reasons I don't sweat it or feel guilty.
MY HONEST ANSWER!
I appreciate your honest answer. I don't fault you for trying to take advantage of the promotions or for any aspect of your AP (assuming it's legal, of course). My point is that the game has two sides. In fact, I'd say that AP can only benefit from recognizing the other side is a business (well, not casinos owned by a tribe).
Quote: MBGoing back to the business angle, let's say you were FORCED to run a casino. How would you offer your blackjack game (if at all)? Would AP exist? What would you do about it?
I would have high limit 3:2 with standard rules under higher surveillance, and 6:5 or variants or CSMs. I would instruct personal to flatter the players as they politely back them off: “You just so awesome, and your play is so good! Here, have a Buffet comp and a nice day…” No Joe Pesci or Robert De Niro with brass knuckles in a back room.
Quote: darkozEDIT: Okay, I am a degenerate AP who takes pride in taking the casinos for lots of cash. I live well because of them but I would freak out if people were taking my casino like that but oh well, life isn't fair and casinos don't hand back money from the degenerate gamblers who lose so they can pay their employees and the execs can live in their mansions so for those same reasons I don't sweat it or feel guilty.
The Robin Hood rationalization: “I’m just fleecing Rich Fat cruel evil bastards who live in mansions so it’s righteous. Life isn’t fair and I’m taking what’s mine. (There isn’t any other effects like reduction in comps or other player benefits or job loses that I’m not responsible for, of course not.) I don’t feel guilty.”
Now, a part of me also feels that if casino management can’t properly and professionally protect their games, they served themselves up, which they did: if it’s there for the taking it’s gonna get taken, and any moron knows this. I guess if I had a sponging source of revenue (feeding of off card room businesses in this case) I’d have to justify it with the standard Robin Hood rationalization and that casinos are evil people who made their own beds also. It’s not like being a teacher (“I taught 35 kids today about the war of 1812…”) or a cab driver (“I got 17 people where they needed to go…”) and what have you. It’s “I took $4,000 from a casino today and it wasn’t luck or gambling – it was the suits with their heads in there #sses! Awesome – and Serves ‘em right!” If it makes money and you take the money, you’d be a fool to feel guilty.
