Anyone see this?
"In what could eventually turn out to be a very important decision, a municipal court in North Las Vegas has ruled to dismiss a trespassing complaint brought by Jerry's Nugget against a skilled video poker poker. It means that the ejected patron not only has the right to be on the premises, but also cannot be prevented from playing video poker. If so, this could challenge the whole concept of 86ing players based on skill in playing the games. You heard it here first. More tomorrow."
I think a Judge there is going to get a lecture about where his bread is buttered.
Quote: Wavy70From Anthony Curtis LV advisor
"In what could eventually turn out to be a very important decision, a municipal court in North Las Vegas has ruled to dismiss a trespassing complaint brought by Jerry's Nugget against a skilled video poker poker. It means that the ejected patron not only has the right to be on the premises, but also cannot be prevented from playing video poker. If so, this could challenge the whole concept of 86ing players based on skill in playing the games. You heard it here first. More tomorrow."
I saw it yesterday. I'm not sure that's good news. What I see is the coming of pay tables conceived in the ninth circle of hell by niggardly accountants.
Quote: JerryLoganJerry's Nugget? Who would go to a dump like that to sit for hours on end anyway? On LVA it talks about how all these "skilled" players jumped on some 2.5% theoretical promotion. I see that as totally hypocritical. They know they'll never enter what they think is the long run on it anyway, yet at the same time they claim there's no such thing as the short term. If a wild player like me joined them for it, I could have done as good as or better than all or most of them. So to ban soe player from such an event is both wrong and irrelevant.
I'm still confused by your thinking on this. Don't lots of short-runs equal one long-run? Each skilled player's experience will be different than the 2.5% average expected PA, but the houses promotional loss should approach the 2.5% loss budgeted for the promotion.
Quote: rdw4potusI'm still confused by your thinking on this. Don't lots of short-runs equal one long-run? Each skilled player's experience will be different than the 2.5% average expected PA, but the houses promotional loss should approach the 2.5% loss budgeted for the promotion.
No, I'm more with the R. Singer school of thinking on this type of thing. No one's going to play perfect even in the 1st hour, and the longer anyone plays the further from perfection they'll stray. I've been to Jerry's Nugget, and I can't believe he could handle a 2.5% loss and would never budget for one either. Plus like I said, I could have showed up and beaten the hell out of the promotion even though I'm not a skilled player by any means.
The point about all the short runs adding up to a long run: I kind of used to believe that even though I've never been an advantage player. But again I read Singer and what he says makes more sense on the subject. He says the only entities that will ever experience the long term are the casinos and the individual machines. As players, no matter how often or much we play, we only play them in little bursts during a very small portion of a machine's life-cycle. Regardless if the theoretical is 104% or 97% EV, since most AP's will play until they pass out or go broke, an extra 5 credits for FH's here and flushes there will mean next to nothing at the end of the day. So for this particular promotion, I'd say "skilled players" (which to me just means players who know how to play a poker hand) more irritated the owner than made a killing. He had to know the type of players who would show up for the challenge. He probably just got sick of looking at their faces and their bad habits as they played.
I also think Anthony Curtis gets a lot more out of this type situation than others because he SELLS advantage play. How come he had to be the one to break the news? Where was the LVRJ or the Sun?
You might want to watch it with that word. Some people might take offense to it. :-) (Kidding, kidding!)Quote: NareedWhat I see is the coming of pay tables conceived in the ninth circle of hell by niggardly accountants.
The Jerry's Nugget promotion was double pay on royals. That's a HUGE advantage for the player, and is not long-term by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure all the regular players here have gotten royals.
Quote: teddysYou might want to watch it with that word. Some people might take offense to it. :-) (Kidding, kidding!)
Back in my day, circle was a completely commonplace word. Square, now, that carried some negative connotations.
Or did you mean "accountants"? :P
So if the promotion was only available for members of the slot club in good standing, then Jerry's didn't need to 86 that player; they could have simply made it impossible for him to benefit from the promotion. And if they didn't take the simple precaution of stipulating that, then the fault is their own. I think the court's ruling might have taken that into account.
Quote:In the United States, there have been several controversies concerning the word "niggardly," an adjective meaning "stingy" or "miserly," due to its phonetic similarity to the racial slur "nigger." However, the two words are etymologically unrelated.
Quote: NareedBack in my day, circle was a completely commonplace word. Square, now, that carried some negative connotations.
Or did you mean "accountants"? :P
I was talking to someone about the value of incumbency earlier today, and I called him an "insurgent supplier." Apparently, "supplier" has a negative connotation now, too? ;-)
Quote: DJTeddyBearFrom Wikipedia:
In the United States, there have been several controversies concerning the word "niggardly," an adjective meaning "stingy" or "miserly," due to its phonetic similarity to the racial slur "------." However, the two words are etymologically unrelated.
Yeah, this is right and it's a perfectly good word. But just because it's so doesn't mean it's a good idea to use it in your everyday vernacular. "All things are lawful but not all things are profitable." Normally, I would rail against the not-using of a word for political reasons, but this is probably a good exception to make. Maybe someday the ambient social climate will allow unfettered use of the word, but not today.
My unsolicited $0.02.
Quote: teddysYou might want to watch it with that word. Some people might take offense to it. :-) (Kidding, kidding!)
The Jerry's Nugget promotion was double pay on royals. That's a HUGE advantage for the player, and is not long-term by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure all the regular players here have gotten royals.
How exactly is that a HUGE player advantage in the short term? Lots of people have gone months or even years in-between hitting them. You mean just because the royal is doubled and you don't hit it, we're back to saying that was worth X amount of dollars to the player even though he lost? How silly is that?
Quote: JerryLoganHow exactly is that a HUGE player advantage in the short term? Lots of people have gone months or even years in-between hitting them. You mean just because the royal is doubled and you don't hit it, we're back to saying that was worth X amount of dollars to the player even though he lost? How silly is that?
I would think that especially for a short term oriented player, this type of promotion would be good. Instead of $2 in free play (which really only matters in the long term when the offers can be added up) or some other trivial offering, you get a double payout on exactly the type of big hit that you're looking for in your short-term session. If you don't hit the royal and get to take advantage of the promo, you're playing the same game you would have anyway...
Quote: JerryLoganHow exactly is that a HUGE player advantage in the short term? Lots of people have gone months or even years in-between hitting them. You mean just because the royal is doubled and you don't hit it, we're back to saying that was worth X amount of dollars to the player even though he lost? How silly is that?
Here's a hypothetical scenario:
You bet $1 and throw 10 six-sided fair dice. If they all come up 6s, you win $100,000,000. Do you take that bet? Why or why not?
Quote: rdw4potusI would think that especially for a short term oriented player, this type of promotion would be good. Instead of $2 in free play (which really only matters in the long term when the offers can be added up) or some other trivial offering, you get a double payout on exactly the type of big hit that you're looking for in your short-term session. If you don't hit the royal and get to take advantage of the promo, you're playing the same game you would have anyway...
I can see that. But AP's are going to alter the holds for pot shots at those royals, aren't they? So their game EV will dip UNLESS they hit a royal that is all-important to such players. That means they will lose quite a bit more than they normally would expect to. It's just like people who chase progressives. They hit it, they're good. They don't, they're in trouble. I don't know about you, but if I were to bet you a dollar that I would not hit a royal every time I played, you'd have paid for my new washer/dryer.
Quote: MathExtremistHere's a hypothetical scenario:
You bet $1 and throw 10 six-sided fair dice. If they all come up 6s, you win $100,000,000. Do you take that bet? Why or why not?
Yes and I'd do it maybe 1000 tries, because a dollar bet for me is peanuts and I can afford to lose that much, and the potential payoff on this pot shot is huge. I'm also not trying to pretend I'm playing a gave having any value either. AP's claim they do not gamble because everything they say they do has some kind of theoretical value to it. This bet seems to have some type of value to it.
Quote: rdw4potusI was talking to someone about the value of incumbency earlier today, and I called him an "insurgent supplier." Apparently, "supplier" has a negative connotation now, too? ;-)
Any word can be made to have a negative connotation if you try hard enough.
Still, some words are meant to be derogatory from inception, or are used in a derogatory manner despite their meaning. The way things are said matters, but what is said matters more.
Quote: JerryLoganYes and I'd do it maybe 1000 tries, because a dollar bet for me is peanuts and I can afford to lose that much, and the potential payoff on this pot shot is huge. I'm also not trying to pretend I'm playing a gave having any value either. AP's claim they do not gamble because everything they say they do has some kind of theoretical value to it. This bet seems to have some type of value to it.
It's still gambling even if you have the edge. Any AP who says otherwise isn't being accurate.
I'm realizing that may not have been a good hypothetical so here's another more related to the idea of the double-royal-flush payout:
A) You bet $1 and throw 5 six-sided fair dice. If they all come up 6s, you win $10,000, otherwise you lose. Do you make the bet?
B) You bet $1 and throw 5 six-sided fair dice. If they all come up 6s, you win $5,000, otherwise you lose. Do you make the bet?
The promo was double for Royals, and a bonus for straight flushes.
I do not know how many machines Jerry's Nugget has, but it seems very likely that several Royals would have been hit. Since "pros" would average well over 400 hands per hour, reasonable expectation that for every 10 machines, a royal would be paid less than every 10 hours, plus 12 straight flush bonuses? (Not sure of my math here, just an educated guess)
2.5%, for that weekend, and as busy as they apparently were, would add to a big loss for the casino.
Coupled with the points exchanged for eBAY stuff, or something like that, I do not know the details, but I would expect that the owner was pretty rattled at the amount being lost on his promotion, and that the winners were most likely "strange faces" who rarely, if ever, had graced his place with their presence.
His "regulars" may have found themselves unable to get a machine to play, and complained loudly and vociferously.
After all, if his "regulars" hit a big payoff, that money would remain in "his local" economy, and eventually find it's way back to him.
When the strange face wins, that money is removed from the economy, and he will not have his chance to win it back.
I wonder if the promotion was designed as a "reward" for his regulars, or as a draw for new customers.
Or whether that much thought was even given when it was approved or sent out. :)
Quote: MathExtremistIt's still gambling even if you have the edge. Any AP who says otherwise isn't being accurate.
I'm realizing that may not have been a good hypothetical so here's another more related to the idea of the double-royal-flush payout:
A) You bet $1 and throw 5 six-sided fair dice. If they all come up 6s, you win $10,000, otherwise you lose. Do you make the bet?
B) You bet $1 and throw 5 six-sided fair dice. If they all come up 6s, you win $5,000, otherwise you lose. Do you make the bet?
I'd take the bet for a couple of throws either way. Wouldn't most people...or everyone, do the same?
Quote: JerryLoganI'd take the bet for a couple of throws either way. Wouldn't most people...or everyone, do the same?
I`d not take B, but I would take A (5 sixes are 1 in 7,776 shot).
However, B was the normal game I liked to play, and A was suddenly offered on the machine next door, sure. If A was suddenly offered at a joint I hated playing in, and it was 5 miles away, I would not take it.
Quote: RoadTripAccording to a post about this topic on a different forum, when the promotion started, every "good" VP machine was in play, most by "pros".
The promo was double for Royals, and a bonus for straight flushes.
I do not know how many machines Jerry's Nugget has, but it seems very likely that several Royals would have been hit. Since "pros" would average well over 400 hands per hour, reasonable expectation that for every 10 machines, a royal would be paid less than every 10 hours, plus 12 straight flush bonuses? (Not sure of my math here, just an educated guess)
2.5%, for that weekend, and as busy as they apparently were, would add to a big loss for the casino.
Coupled with the points exchanged for eBAY stuff, or something like that, I do not know the details, but I would expect that the owner was pretty rattled at the amount being lost on his promotion, and that the winners were most likely "strange faces" who rarely, if ever, had graced his place with their presence.
His "regulars" may have found themselves unable to get a machine to play, and complained loudly and vociferously.
After all, if his "regulars" hit a big payoff, that money would remain in "his local" economy, and eventually find it's way back to him.
When the strange face wins, that money is removed from the economy, and he will not have his chance to win it back.
I wonder if the promotion was designed as a "reward" for his regulars, or as a draw for new customers.
Or whether that much thought was even given when it was approved or sent out. :)
Is it reasonable to expect that someone playing 10 hours straight actually knows what they're doing even after 5 straight hours? I know I THINK I can sit a t a machine overnight at times, but 2-3 hours into it and I occasionally find myself a million miles away.
If the promotion cost the owner as much as AP people are claiming it did, then the guy is stupid. That's why I don't buy into it without knowing the facts. He's a businessman and he knows gambling. I also question the appearance of so-called "pros". Says who, how does anyone know someone else is truly a "pro", and what definition is used in that context anyway? It sounds like a lot of hype to me and hype is good for Anthony Curtis. Has anyone asked "Jerry" to report on how his promotion worked out financially? Reporters do that, and if this were a real story we'd be getting the entire spectrum of input.
EDIT: I just saw this: Bonuses for SF's? Huh? Why throw that in? Any idea what that bonus is? Do you still get in on TBPPlus games that pay 500 for SF's? Were 50-play games included?
Quote: thecesspitI`d not take B, but I would take A (5 sixes are 1 in 7,776 shot).
However, B was the normal game I liked to play, and A was suddenly offered on the machine next door, sure. If A was suddenly offered at a joint I hated playing in, and it was 5 miles away, I would not take it.
Caveats galore, c'mon. What if "B" were offered with a shot at Paris Hilton wearing a muzzle and a bag over her head? Etc. etc. These bets are both the same, only one pays more than the other. I'll take a $5000 win for a buck just as quick as I'd take $10,000.
The point is not about the value of the bonus the point is a court in a very rare instance sided with a player instead of the casino.
Quote: JerryLoganCaveats galore, c'mon. What if "B" were offered with a shot at Paris Hilton wearing a muzzle and a bag over her head? Etc. etc. These bets are both the same, only one pays more than the other. I'll take a $5000 win for a buck just as quick as I'd take $10,000.
My point is you wouldn't travel to the El Cortez to take either of them, right?
If the former was offered in the I was in casino, I'd still go play Bonus Poker. In the latter was offered, I'd play a few times. Long shot games don't interest me much.
Quote: JerryLoganCaveats galore, c'mon. What if "B" were offered with a shot at Paris Hilton wearing a muzzle and a bag over her head? Etc. etc. These bets are both the same, only one pays more than the other. I'll take a $5000 win for a buck just as quick as I'd take $10,000.
I'll offer the $5000 win for a buck to you any time you want it. I'll even give you a shot at a double payout every 20 rolls...
Quote: thecesspitMy point is you wouldn't travel to the El Cortez to take either of them, right?
If the former was offered in the I was in casino, I'd still go play Bonus Poker. In the latter was offered, I'd play a few times. Long shot games don't interest me much.
Have you ever been to the El C or seen a room?
Quote: rdw4potusI'll offer the $5000 win for a buck to you any time you want it. I'll even give you a shot at a double payout every 20 rolls...
All right, I want the chance in 15 minutes, again in 45, then in 4 days, 6 days, and on my momma's birthday.
Quote: Wavy70Have you ever been to the El C or seen a room?
Yes to the former, no to the latter.
I've won there (woohoo, security, $5 cash out for thecesspit). I wouldn't make the trip to go again, but it was more pleasant than some other places in the area. I much prefer the Main Street and Nugget downtown.
However, Mr Logan is known for not going there as he doesn't like the place. Which is my point.
Quote: JerryLoganAll right, I want the chance in 15 minutes, again in 45, then in 4 days, 6 days, and on my momma's birthday.
I rolled my 5 dice, and got [6,6,3,4,1]. You owe me $1.
Yep. And as somebody mentioned, at the time they had over 100% payback games (FPDW, Jokers, DB, others). They don't anymore. But at the time you actually would not be losing anything while you were sitting around waiting for the royal. A very good promotion for the local layabout; not so great for visitors.Quote: rdw4potusI would think that especially for a short term oriented player, this type of promotion would be good. Instead of $2 in free play (which really only matters in the long term when the offers can be added up) or some other trivial offering, you get a double payout on exactly the type of big hit that you're looking for in your short-term session. If you don't hit the royal and get to take advantage of the promo, you're playing the same game you would have anyway...
True, and a lesson hard learned for many people. However, with a big enough edge, and an adequate bankroll, at some point you will reach the threshold where you are not really "gambling" anymore so then you are gambling with your life when you step out on the street, or buy a mutual bond fund.Quote:It's still gambling even if you have the edge. Any AP who says otherwise isn't being accurate.
To sum up Edge ^ x Bankroll ^ ==> Gambling V
Quote: rdw4potusI rolled my 5 dice, and got [6,6,3,4,1]. You owe me $1.
Give me a name and address here and I'll send you the cash. Now let me propose a bet: $2 says you won't peek out of your shield of anonymity.
Quote: JerryLogan
Is it reasonable to expect that someone playing 10 hours straight actually knows what they're doing even after 5 straight hours? I know I THINK I can sit a t a machine overnight at times, but 2-3 hours into it and I occasionally find myself a million miles away......
......EDIT: I just saw this: Bonuses for SF's? Huh? Why throw that in? Any idea what that bonus is? Do you still get in on TBPPlus games that pay 500 for SF's? Were 50-play games included?
Only repeating what was written on another forum about this topic.
No idea what the bonus on SF's was, or whether the info was accurate. The promo alleged to be the weekend of April 2, 2010.
I've often played live cash game poker for much longer sessions than 10 hours. Once went 37 hours without sleep. Of course, I also take a break every so often to refresh, stretch, etc. Whether the players were able to lock the machine while they took a break during this promotion would, of course, impact their personal "alert" factor. I'm reasonably certain I could easily handle a 10 hour+ session, provided I get my breaks as "needed". And, knowing that I intended to play the promotion would allow me to prepare for the rigors well ahead of time.
Quote: JerryLoganQuote: rdw4potusI rolled my 5 dice, and got [6,6,3,4,1]. You owe me $1.
Give me a name and address here and I'll send you the cash. Now let me propose a bet: $2 says you won't peek out of your shield of anonymity.
Roll 2 [6,4,4,2,1]. Another $1 win for me. You now owe me $4. Please send that $$ (and any optional forward payment on future rolls) to:
Ross Weber
C/O U.S. Energy Services
605 North Highway 169
Suite 1200
Plymouth, MN 55441
Quote: rdw4potusQuote: JerryLoganQuote: rdw4potusI rolled my 5 dice, and got [6,6,3,4,1]. You owe me $1.
Give me a name and address here and I'll send you the cash. Now let me propose a bet: $2 says you won't peek out of your shield of anonymity.
Roll 2 [6,4,4,2,1]. Another $1 win for me. You now owe me $4. Please send that $$ (and any optional forward payment on future rolls) to:
Ross Weber
C/O U.S. Energy Services
605 North Highway 169
Suite 1200
Plymouth, MN 55441
Two problems with that, already. First, you didn't wait until the 45th minute for the second roll, so it has to be disqualified. Now we're at $3. All I require now is proof of roll. Did you YouTube it, and who was your witness?
Quote: MoscaOh, hell yes. Who here hasn't tossed five 6s at Yahtzee, at least once?
ME!
btw: What's "Yahtzee"?
:)
Quote: JerryLoganI'd take the bet for a couple of throws either way. Wouldn't most people...or everyone, do the same?
No. I'd never make bet B, but I'd mortgage my house for bet A if I knew I could get it consistently. *That* is real advantage play. Here's what you're missing:
The EV of bet B is -35.6%, but the EV of bet A is +28.6%. This is a fast game, so let's assume 240 rolls/hour (every 15 seconds). If I can bet 240 times/hour, my EV is +$68.67/hour. How many people do you know that make $65/hour or better?
At full-time hours (40 hours/week, 50 weeks/year) that translates into an expected annual "salary" of $137,345.68. If I can make the bet for even $5/throw, my expected gain jumps to over $680,000/year or over $340/hour. A green-chip player could make 3.4M/year. Do you see why paying attention to the EV is important if you actually care about making money?
That means on 10,000 rolls, your expected value is $2,861 +/- $10,000 (1 S.D)
After 100,000 rolls, $28,613 +/- $31,623 (1 S.D).
Enjoy.
Quote: MathExtremistNo. I'd never make bet B, but I'd mortgage my house for bet A if I knew I could get it consistently. *That* is real advantage play. Here's what you're missing:
The EV of bet B is -35.6%, but the EV of bet A is +28.6%. This is a fast game, so let's assume 240 rolls/hour (every 15 seconds). If I can bet 240 times/hour, my EV is +$68.67/hour. How many people do you know that make $65/hour or better?
At full-time hours (40 hours/week, 50 weeks/year) that translates into an expected annual "salary" of $137,345.68. If I can make the bet for even $5/throw, my expected gain jumps to over $680,000/year or over $340/hour. A green-chip player could make 3.4M/year. Do you see why paying attention to the EV is important if you actually care about making money?
From what I see you just contradicted yourself. You begin by providing the expected value, which is 100% theoretical. I don't disagree at all. You then claim you are making $68.67/hour from the get-go, and that's just nonsense unless and until you actually hit the winner at least once. And since there is no guarantee that you ever will, claiming you're making an hourly salary doing this is very disingenuous.
I cared about making money in my last 3 sports bets. If there was + or -EV involved, it mattered not. What mattered, and the ONLY thing that mattered, is whether I won or lost the bets after the results were known. Now if we go to my job, that's a different story because I know I will get money for my time. Gambling, no matter how juicy the theoretical, simply provides pretend money until the winner is actually realized...IF it ever does.
In a mathematical game, I both agree and disagree with your statement.
The EV (and variance) as it tells us something about the game and what the general shape the results will take. So it's useful to know the EV per hour of a game.
However, I agree that playing a game for 10 hours at +$28 per hour EV and claiming a theoretical win of $280 isn't useful. It'll buy you a theoretical dinner. Knowing on average that I'll be up $280 is (did I have a good day or a bad day? Is this game going to suck my wallet dry or give me some action? whats my shot at getting a decent return?).
Before the session starts, model the system.
Once the session is over, look in your wallet.
Quoted for posterity.Quote: JerryLoganOK I'll accept that.
Quote: thecesspit
However, I agree that playing a game for 10 hours at +$28 per hour EV and claiming a theoretical win of $280 isn't useful. It'll buy you a theoretical dinner. Knowing on average that I'll be up $280 is (did I have a good day or a bad day? Is this game going to suck my wallet dry or give me some action? whats my shot at getting a decent return?).
And of course, the casino's edge is only "theoretical", but it sure seems to be reliable for the casino.
I never said or meant to imply theory doesn't matter, or reality doesn't match the theory.
Quote: thecesspitCasino checks its wallet as sure as I do. Casino plays hundreds of games a day, so its results are easier to predict. I'm sure wynn doesn't report theoretical take to the shareholders.
I never said or meant to imply theory doesn't matter, or reality doesn't match the theory.
No, YOU never said or implied that. In fact, the casino rates players on "theo", not on actual results, so aside from periodically checking its wallet, as you say, the casino doesn't really care about anything BUT "theoretical" results.
I've found that a good way to illustrate this is to think about the bell curve, with the EV determining the arithmetical value of the mean. You can still wind up anywhere under the bell curve no matter what, but the more positive (or the less negative) your EV is, the more of your results are going to be >0.
Quote: JerryLoganFrom what I see you just contradicted yourself. You begin by providing the expected value, which is 100% theoretical. I don't disagree at all. You then claim you are making $68.67/hour from the get-go, and that's just nonsense unless and until you actually hit the winner at least once.
No, I said my EV was $68.67/hour. Big, big difference.
Quote: MathExtremistNo, I said my EV was $68.67/hour. Big, big difference.
Not when you say that immediately before saying this: "How many people do you know that make $65/hour or better?" Are you now saying that does not imply the gambler is "making" ~$68.67/hr.?
