Rebating losses = Player advantage?

Just mulling the story about the "the blackjack player who beat the Trop for $6 million, Borgata for $5 million and Caesars for $4 million" over , it has occurred to me that getting rebated for your gambling losses must equate to Player Edge if the HE is low, AND they go about it in a liberal way.

Let's say a casino agreed to this, and you played a game where you might go ten games winning $1000 each time, and this would typically be matched by 11 losing sessions of $1000 each. $10k up and $11k down, that can't be too unusual. If you got rebated for 20% of your losses *each time* immediately upon losing, for each session, you would indeed have the Golden Goose on your hands. Your losses would be cut to $8800 vs your $10k wins every 21 sessions. I'm sure somebody can make a better math example than that, but...

So I guess they don't do it that way? But the story seems to suggest they do.

edit: PS, it occurs to me the casino would only want to rebate theoretical expected losses unless they were crazy.

Yes, if you are smart, disciplined player you can exploit loss rebates very efficiently. That's probably why Mr. Tropicana has found himself banned/not welcome at many properties. He's a good player.

By the way, Terrible's in Las Vegas will give you a 5-10% loss rebate on $500-$1000 losses.

Quote: odiousgambit

Just mulling the story about the "the blackjack player who beat the Trop for $6 million, Borgata for $5 million and Caesars for $4 million" over , it has occurred to me that getting rebated for your gambling losses must equate to Player Edge if the HE is low, AND they go about it in a liberal way.

Let's say a casino agreed to this, and you played a game where you might go ten games winning $1000 each time, and this would typically be matched by 11 losing sessions of $1000 each. $10k up and $11k down, that can't be too unusual. If you got rebated for 20% of your losses *each time* immediately upon losing, for each session, you would indeed have the Golden Goose on your hands. Your losses would be cut to $8800 vs your $10k wins every 21 sessions. I'm sure somebody can make a better math example than that, but...

So I guess they don't do it that way? But the story seems to suggest they do.

edit: PS, it occurs to me the casino would only want to rebate theoretical expected losses unless they were crazy.

I'm pretty sure at that level, it is done on a "per trip" basis, and on actual losses, not theoretical. However, we do have some former hosts who participate on this board who should be able to confirm the details.

.....

too bad some hosts didnt pipe in and give us the lowdown on this.

I think it is too easy to think that actual losses are better than theoretical losses, but that can't be right can it?

It's fascinating to think that these AC casinos might have really gotten stupid about this! IMHO you would have to rebate only theoretical losses based on the Expected Value of your bets, otherwise the casino could find itself rebating expected negative variance on, well, a game like blackjack where the HE is too low for that [so I disagree with some other posts]. See the first post to see what I mean, and feel free to point out where I am all wet.

Quote: odiousgambit

I think it is too easy to think that actual losses are better than theoretical losses, but that can't be right can it?

Rebating actual losses is better to the casino, because they still get to keep a portion of your money (they won't rebate your entire loss, so, you will still lose, just less than you otherwise would), while if they rebated theoretical losses, they would have to pay you more when you win.
In the long run, it would all even out, of course, because the total actual losses would converge to theoretical, but short term, the casino could easily find itself paying out way more than getting in if it rebated theoretical losses.


Pretty much any time I heard about loss rebate, it was about total losses per day or something like that, not immediate rebates after a loss. If they wanted to do the latter, I think, a better way would be to simply lower the house edge (like that promotion in Connecticut when they'd let you triple down in black jack) ... this would btw, be equivalent to rebating theoretical losses.

Quote: weaselman

In the long run, it would all even out, of course, because the total actual losses would converge to theoretical, but short term, the casino could easily find itself paying out way more than getting in if it rebated theoretical losses.

No no no.

Actual loss rebates don't even out to theoretical loss rebates - because you cannot "rebate" winnings.
Losing $800 instead of $1000 is not equalized by winning $800 instead of $1000.

Aren't normal comps effectively a small rebate of theoretical loss?

Quote: thecesspit

Aren't normal comps effectively a small rebate of theoretical loss?

Exactly. This is why expecting the casino to give you better comping when you lose big is so disappointing. Whether you win or lose, it is the theoretical that matters. In the case of carefully only rebating losses, I can see that being done in a wise way that makes sense... or not. Surely the EV of your betting, always theoretical, has to play a role.

.....