Loss Rebate Tactics

Greetings!

I understand that this was touched on a bit in the Revel thread, but I wanted to go ahead and have a separate thread to address the following question:

When playing a loss rebate promotion on a game such as Ultimate X, is it a legitimate AP tactic to pull the player's card on certain multipliers?

My opinion is that it is not because of the very nature of a loss rebate. If you put $1,000 in the machine, and you leave with $1,000, even if you show losses in the range of multi-thousands of dollars, you haven't actually lost anything.

Furthermore, it also creates a new return on the machine less than the machine is designed to return. I used the Wizard's VP Calculator:

https://wizardofodds.com/games/video-poker/analyzer/

And input the return for 8/5 JoB (Couldn't remember what game it was in the thread) and found that, if the player were to pull the card for every multiplier, the ER on two credits bet based on Wizard's paytable (the return the player is showing) is under 50%. To be precise, 48.6492%.

The game returns 0.979671, with Optimal Strategy, on five-play, so the difference is ER is .979671-.486492 = 0.493179

If an accountant for a publicly traded company were to pull a comparable stunt with his books, he'd end up in prison, just sayin'.

I could also quote the definition of, "Loss," from an on-line dictionary, and I assure you, if you have a theoretical return of 97.9671%, and that return (or better, or slightly worse) is shown, then you did not lose 51.3508% of your money.

Although This isn't my area (bonus/promos) my view is this. I will try to gain an advantage any way I can within the confines of state and federal law. Casino policy doesn't mean much to me. I vote yes.

Quote: rainman

Although This isn't my area (bonus/promos) my view is this. I will try to gain an advantage any way I can within the confines of state and federal law. Casino policy doesn't mean much to me. I vote yes.

What about those mysterious house rules that no one ever seems to see. :-)

I voted yes. And, of course this is allowable. The casino may omit any games it wants from the promotion. This is presumably why Ultimate X is left out of so many promos at competently-run properties. But the casino may not force the player to alter their play. if there is a "best" way to play a game, it is unfair for the casino to disinclude that playing method while still allowing the game itself to be used.

Quote: 1BB

What about those mysterious house rules that no one ever seems to see. :-)

If I can't read the rules then surely I can't follow them :)

Quote: rdw4potus

I voted yes. And, of course this is allowable. The casino may omit any games it wants from the pro./motion. This is presumably why Ultimate X is left out of so many promos at competently-run properties. But the casino may not force the player to alter their play. if there is a "best" way to play a game, it is unfair for the casino to disinclude that playing method while still allowing the game itself to be used.

I agree with your position that it would be in the casino's best interest to disallow that game, in such a situation. However, this hurts the loss promotion player playing the game in the intended fashion because you are simply discluding a decent-paying, high Variance game from the promo.

My point is, with proper stop-win and stop-loss parameters, the game can still be played at a huge theoretical advantage only by playing the game the way the game is intended to be played.

I also question your use of the term, "Playing method," on the grounds that the casino is not forcing anyone to deviate from Optimal Strategy on the game proper, but is rather ensuring that the player cannot create an artificial loss.

With all due respect, the matter is very black & white to me, though I am open to further discussion and will try to keep an open mind. If you have $10,000 when you walk in, and walk out with any amount, cash, less than that, then that is what you have lost. If you walk out with an amount more than that, then you have not lost at all.

I'm also not suggesting that a player always use the card, "Off the top," in other words, if a player comes upon a machine with multipliers left behind, or a +ER Progressive and decides not to use the card, that is a different matter altogether.

Quote: Mission146

I'm also not suggesting that a player always use the card, "Off the top," in other words, if a player comes upon a machine with multipliers left behind, or a +ER Progressive and decides not to use the card, that is a different matter altogether.

Is it a different matter? I don't see much differentiating those +EV situations from the one(s) that the player creates for himself. Imagine a player sitting at a progressive slot which has just moved into positive territory. Are you saying it's "wrong" for him to remove his card at that point after having played already, but "right" for him to wait to use his card if he just happens to hit down then? You'd be asking the player in the first scenario to penalize himself for knowing the break-even point of the game.

Quote: rdw4potus

Is it a different matter? I don't see much differentiating those +EV situations from the one(s) that the player creates for himself. Imagine a player sitting at a progressive slot which has just moved into positive territory. Are you saying it's "wrong" for him to remove his card at that point after having played already, but "right" for him to wait to use his card if he just happens to hit down then? You'd be asking the player in the first scenario to penalize himself for knowing the break-even point of the game.

I believe it is a different matter because the very design and nature of a Progressive is that it be attractive to a player because the player is playing at either a real or perceived advantage. I also don't think it is wrong to remove the card from a Progressive that the player started playing at -ER and put it into +ER because it was (some) of the very money he lost at -ER that put it at +ER to begin with.

In that scenario, you're not winning the casino's money, but you are rather winning the money of other players that was added to the Progressive(s). The House always has the same edge on the machine, which is simply 100% less the ER of the Base Pays less the amount (per play, or theoretical on Progressives that only accumulate on the win) that gets added to the Progressive(s).

Simply put, in my opinion, one amounts to fraud and the other doesn't. If a machine is set to return 94% and 1% of every play is added to the Progressives, the House Edge (from the standpoint of the casino) is always 5%, never more or less. It's not a variable.

With the Ultimate X, an artificial variable HE is created based on the way the player is playing combined with the promotion.

I voted "yes" to the poll, although I could see myself playing UX with the intention of doing this and totally forgetting to!

It would be interesting to know whether the machine/reader is counting every bet and every win or just bill/ticket in and ticket out info on your "session." In other words, do the presence of credits keep the session open regardless of the card's location with respect to win/loss? I doubt you would earn points, though, so it really makes me wonder... Could you imagine trying to play such a promo with a faulty card reader? Even more frustrating than usual!


By the way, "disallow" and "exclude" are English words; however, I do not believe that either "disclude" or "disinclude" are. I'm jus' sayin' :P

The description of the Revel promotion (and I would assume most loss rebate promotions) begins: "Play slots, video poker and electronic table games with your Revel Card. We’ll pay back your losses beginning in August! "

If you intentionally pull your card for some plays and intentionally insert your card for other plays then you're clearly not "playing with your card". You're gaming the system to the point of cheating on the promotion.

Quote: Mission146

Furthermore, it also creates a new return on the machine less than the machine is designed to return.

Could you clarify this please?

Whether or not a player's card is in the machine makes no difference to the theoretical return or actual, measured return of the machine or any of its games.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Could you clarify this please?

Whether or not a player's card is in the machine makes no difference to the theoretical return or actual, measured return of the machine or any of its games.

On Ultimate X with a player's card inserted at the appropriate times, and removed at appropriate times, the player's card will record you playing video poker an average return of much less than ~98%.

This is because you can pull the card before playing a hand that have a large rate of return, say 200% or more, and it won't be recorded since it is a separate hand. Hands with no multipliers on board have an expected return of ~98%/2 = ~49%. So you need these 200%+ return hands to make the overall return to approach the expected ~98%. If you don't let the card record those hands, the expected return as recorded by that card will average much less than ~98%.

It's a hell of an angle.

Quote: camapl

By the way, "disallow" and "exclude" are English words; however, I do not believe that either "disclude" or "disinclude" are. I'm jus' sayin' :P

You're absolutely right, but I often use disclude because it should be a word. There's absolutely no reason for it not to be a word.

I voted no.

While not legally cheating I view it as morally cheating. By card pulling the player is basically overstating his loss, and requesting more money then he is entitled to. If I were in charge of the Revel, then I wouldn't pay any card pullers the rebate as the card pullers obfuscated the actual loss.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?

Quote: onenickelmiracle

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?

It makes the sound of one hand clapping.

Quote: Mission146

You're absolutely right, but I often use disclude because it should be a word. There's absolutely no reason for it not to be a word.

You are verocious - your words are both true and bare teeth!

Quote: Wizard

It makes the sound of one hand clapping.

Ding! Survey says: #1 answer!

I was thinking more about the idea of pulling and reinserting the card and whether or not leaving the credits would pose a problem. You could determine the answer by asking at the slot counter what your losses were so far (if that is something that they could and would tell you). If they match your actual losses, then there is another way this could be pulled off.

Find an UX machine with your desired denomination(s). If there are any remaining multipliers on any of the available games, play each of them off for 5 coins without your slot card and cash out. Now, insert your card and cash (keep the previous ticket separate) and play each game at max bet until any multiplier is created for the next hand. Pull card and collect ticket (which you will only use with card). Re-insert first ticket and play each of the multipliers off as before and collect ticket (which will be used only for "hawking"). Continue alternating play by hawking, or vulturing, each game at your denomination without your card, then max betting without multipliers with your card. If there are a decent number of games on your menu, this would reduce the frequency of card pulls. Cashing out every time would be a hassle, so be sure to test by asking the slot club as above. If they show your losses to be different from actual, then perhaps leaving the credits in the machine do not affect the pulling of the card and you could dispense with that part of the procedure.

When I practice on my computer filling all games with at least a cumulative 20x multiplier then playing through without my card I usually only barely double my actual loss. Eg coin in 1500 with a precieved loss of 2800. Is this normal? Seems I should be showing a much larger loss.


Thanks!

Let me double check what you mean exactly. You play with your card at all times EXCEPT when the total multiplier is 20X or greater on a 10-play game?

The numbers sound reasonable because most of the time you still have the card in tallying. These 20X+ opportunities only come up so much. Unfortunately, to get more precise results will require a lot more work.