Casino caught stealing(value)
My theory was also that maybe they can't do this on a hand-by-hand basis on certain models of machines because the functionality isn't there. It doesn't change the point that this definitely happened, and frequently, with an eye towards eliminating multipliers.
I was supporting your position, not arguing against it.
Welcome to WoV, by the way, I really appreciate you coming on here to discuss this!
When you approach a game that has a possibility of 'earned' multipliers like we are discussing, I assume the expected return percentage with optimal play includes the playing of those multipliers? And that EVEN with zero multipliers the house edge will not exceed the required minimum return (75%?)?
Any INDIVIDUAL player starting playing on a game that uses earned multipliers can achieve the EXACT EV reported to gaming by using optimal strategy and just not leaving any multipliers unused?
My point being the person leaving a multiplier has not used overall optimal strategy. The casino has no obligation to the NEXT player to present the game with extra value because the PREVIOUS player left it there. As a mater of fact, if the previous player left MONEY (credits) on the machine, you would not be allowed to take it, right?
You could argue that the EV the casino erases is "found money", and I believe (in theory) it eventually goes to charity or some such. Obviously the casinos are not doing this with the "stolen EV".
Although I think it is really low...... I don't think the casino gets in trouble for doing this. I hope I'm wrong!
Quote: PinkYes the factory reset takes forever. Using the card is super quick and easy.
Probably. I also think that the Vegas market makes a difference. At the casino I'm talking about, it would be unlikely to matter very much, nobody (except me) would be even bothering with the machines at these times, for the most part. They could go several hours without being touched.
Quote: SOOPOOTime for a devil's advocate post.
When you approach a game that has a possibility of 'earned' multipliers like we are discussing, I assume the expected return percentage with optimal play includes the playing of those multipliers? And that EVEN with zero multipliers the house edge will not exceed the required minimum return (75%?)?
Any INDIVIDUAL player starting playing on a game that uses earned multipliers can achieve the EXACT EV reported to gaming by using optimal strategy and just not leaving any multipliers unused?
My point being the person leaving a multiplier has not used overall optimal strategy. The casino has no obligation to the NEXT player to present the game with extra value because the PREVIOUS player left it there. As a mater of fact, if the previous player left MONEY (credits) on the machine, you would not be allowed to take it, right?
You could argue that the EV the casino erases is "found money", and I believe (in theory) it eventually goes to charity or some such. Obviously the casinos are not doing this with the "stolen EV".
Although I think it is really low...... I don't think the casino gets in trouble for doing this. I hope I'm wrong!
The house edge WILL exceed 25% on the first hand that is played with no multipliers, assuming a max bet is made, unless you want to absolutely assume that the player is going to play more than one hand.
It's a weird relationship. Overall, the expected value of a particular hand (at max credits) relies on the playing of the following hand. This component only ceases to be true if a player ends up with a game that results in no winning hands, then you're back to square one.
Both arguments can be made. One side would say that erasing multipliers at all artificially increases the house edge of the game (and it does) and that the casino would certainly not sit there while a player is playing and erase multipliers every time there is a winning hand:
1.) They probably wouldn't be allowed to.
2.) Nobody would ever play that game anymore.
But, if they did do that, the house edge would be well in excess of 25%.
The other side of the argument is the point that you made, which basically says that the multipliers only belong to the people who effectuated those multipliers to begin with. But, my counterpoint would be that the house edge (in this case among a few other specific cases) does not exist in a vacuum. If multipliers are erased without being played, the effective overall house edge of the machine goes up a little bit.
The Ultimate X zero multiplier game state (the main source of the casino's advantage) has already been satisfied by the previous player. The casino doesn't want the machine's, "End of the bargain," to be satisfied if they believe it doesn't have to be.
Also, you speak of, "Playing optimally," as if it is the only question here. It is possible to play Ultimate X and generate a multiplier(s), without breaking even on the bet that did that. In other words, there are occasions where a given player would simply not have sufficient money to do the optimal thing.
Finally, continuing to play Ultimate X at Max Bet is literally NEVER optimal. Bet five credits when there are multipliers and then quit. Always optimal and what vultures do. Optimal strategy, therefore, is to only play when there are already multipliers and to bet five credits per hand.
What it really comes down to is money, though, so house edges and all of that are kind of beside the point. If we strip this to the bones, then what remains is that the advantage player will play off the EV and leave with money (or at least value and is less likely than other players to, "Give it back") and the casual player is not as likely to do that. So, not only does the casino get the advantage of artificially increasing the house edge of that particular unit, but they also get the advantage of eliminating people who would seek out opportunities and leave with wins, however large or small.
Leaving credits on the machine is totally different, and what you said is also not always true. While most casinos would frown on it, I'm sure, especially as a primary means of getting money...taking abandoned credits is not itself illegal in every jurisdiction.
Quote: PinkIt's the same as a progressive. Let's say you have a must pay. When player A began playing the major was at 250. When they abandoned the machine it was at 499. Must pay at 500. It is illegal for the casino to remove the progressive from the casino floor because a player earned it. The next player did not earn it. So gaming's argument was that the new player did not earn the multiplier. But my argument is that it is part of the game and it is the way the manufacturer intended the game to be played. How much money did the casino collect? An extra five coins per hand. This is player equity as much as any progressive. I requested a callback from his supervisor to further discuss the issue. I did not get a call. And my guess is it's because the gaming agent gave away info he should not have. Like Gaming allows the casinos to protect themselves against advantage players. Which is BS. They are also screwing over any player who goes to play that game next. Not just advantage players. And the advantage player is not taking anything from the casino. If the machine is left alone as the manufacturer intended this is the money anyone could win. They are STEALING
That might be true for Nevada, but it's not true in every jurisdiction. Or, if it is, I know of at least one casino that does it anyway. The relationship between casinos and gaming is an interesting one, without casinos, many people in gaming enforcement would not have jobs. I think this notion is more of a consideration that gaming (in general) makes in some states than others. Gaming enforcement is really more about preventing the players from doing stuff, in many cases.
If that is true, I believe that it breaks the law, if the law states a given game cannot have a house edge that exceeds 25%.
There should be NO WAY that I be required to continue playing a game to have the game fall into line with legally established house edges.
Quote: SOOPOOJust to be clear, Mission, if I go to play one of these machines and play maximum coins with no multipliers,and only plan to play one hand no matter what, the house edge exceeds 25%?
If that is true, I believe that it breaks the law, if the law states a given game cannot have a house edge that exceeds 25%.
There should be NO WAY that I be required to continue playing a game to have the game fall into line with legally established house edges.
That is absolutely correct. The base pays of Ultimate X are predicated upon what the pays would be if you bet five coins, but you're betting ten coins if you max bet. You can take literally any Ultimate X paytable, plug the pays into the WoO calculator, but put in a bet of ten units and the house edge will exceed 50%. Alternatively, you could just cut the pays in half for all of them and it does the same thing, but I don't know if it will allow you to put in 0.5 for the lowest winning hand.
If everyone did what you suggested AND the multipliers were always eliminated, the machine would (long-run) hold over 50% of all monies bet.
I'm definitely not advocating that the game should be illegal because, uh, yeah...I definitely wouldn't want that.
Quote: SOOPOOJust to be clear, Mission, if I go to play one of these machines and play maximum coins with no multipliers,and only plan to play one hand no matter what, the house edge exceeds 25%?
If that is true, I believe that it breaks the law, if the law states a given game cannot have a house edge that exceeds 25%.
There should be NO WAY that I be required to continue playing a game to have the game fall into line with legally established house edges.
Soopoo,
the abandoned credits argument is apples and oranges
UX multipliers are a SERVICE purchased (a payment is made to achieve the multipliers so ie a service is procured.)
Lost credits are the opposite. they are pre- purchase items. A player can leave with his credits if he chooses. a player cannot decide to cash out his multipliers.
A casino has an obligation to deliver on a paid service.
Now gambling is a unique sort of business and as pointed out with must-hits or progressives, its the nature of these games that one players losses fund future players wins so any argument that the casino is only obligated to deliver a paid service to the person who "paid" for it, could have a hugely detrimental impact on gaming of multiple areas.
As far as the ultimate x is concerned five coins is NOT optimal play. And the casino does not make their money off of the multipliers As a matter of fact some ultimates have a zero hold on multipliers. They get people out of the chairs faster. That's all. If they play less time they get less in comps. Less in free play. So if you max bet the UX you are playing longer and as long as you end the play when you have no multipliers you are still at an advantage. It is also hard to find plays so if it keeps going you earn better cash back and comps as well Of course, your bankroll requirements would be much higher. Playing one and done on your card looks really bad to hosts. And free play can be very lucrative.
Now, on the x I saw them delete it was on five dollars and four x on five hands. So you are looking to make nearly 400% on every hundred you put through over the long run. So the casino esssentially stole five hundred from the player pool. And that payback is built into the he machine. It should not matter if the player on we the advantage or of the player is the same player who built the multiplier.
When they agreed to have these machines on the floor they were told how they work and they knew their hold. Now they want to cheat. And that's exactly what this is. It's cheating. And gaming is assisting them in their theft from players. Disgusting.
I realize you said both sides but I only debated the side I felt was theoretically flawed. ;)
Quote: Pink
As far as the ultimate x is concerned five coins is NOT optimal play.
Five coins is optimal play if you do not intend to play off the multipliers.
Quote: DRichFive coins is optimal play if you do not intend to play off the multipliers.
I was saying that five coins is optimal if you DO intend to play them off and it is possible on that machine with a five coin bet. No other possible play is optimal. Only five coins, only when multipliers.
Quote: WizardAnon E. Mouse asked me to post this picture as well.
Doesn't this prove tringlomane's point? it's the exact same hands, different denominations. Maybe the play was on nickels and it got played off.
First, I did not know that about the cards displayed on an unplayed machine are the last cards played at any denom. That tends to not be the case with reeled slots.
Second, the return for playing one hand on a machine with no multipliers would be around 50%. However, I don't think that is especially relevant to the discussion at hand. The 50% is true whether or not the casino is removing multipliers. It seems reasonable to me that the minimum return of 75% is based on playing a game a very large number of hands using optimal strategy, which is what the standard is, I believe.
Third, legally, I think the casinos are not breaking any regulation I'm aware of in Nevada.
Fourth, morally, this bothers me. I would equate it ethically to skimming money off a progressive meter. The following story is what I would compare the current situation to.
Once I passed by a lemonade stand and purchased drinks for my family and I. When I opened my wallet and asked how much to pay, the teenager manning the stand said "Nothing, the previous customer paid for the next person to come by." I would view leaving multipliers for the next player in the same kind of light, although the motives are probably different. Nevertheless, I would compare the casino erasing the multipliers to the proprietor of that lemonade stand quietly pocketing the extra money the previous customer to me paid and then charging me the full way.
Quote: PinkIt's the same as a progressive. Let's say you have a must pay. When player A began playing the major was at 250. When they abandoned the machine it was at 499. Must pay at 500. It is illegal for the casino to remove the progressive from the casino floor because a player earned it. The next player did not earn it. So gaming's argument was that the new player did not earn the multiplier. But my argument is that it is part of the game and it is the way the manufacturer intended the game to be played. How much money did the casino collect? An extra five coins per hand. This is player equity as much as any progressive. I requested a callback from his supervisor to further discuss the issue. I did not get a call. And my guess is it's because the gaming agent gave away info he should not have. Like Gaming allows the casinos to protect themselves against advantage players. Which is BS. They are also screwing over any player who goes to play that game next. Not just advantage players. And the advantage player is not taking anything from the casino. If the machine is left alone as the manufacturer intended this is the money anyone could win. They are STEALING
I think Pink has the definitive, and winning, legal argument here. They are charging additional coin for the multipliers. There are 2 pots of money, not 1. The Game Itself allows the option of playing only within pot 1, with its published odds.
For Pot 2, it's a separate calculation, and the only crossover is both pots are using the same cards to determine results and pays. Pot 2 is stacked on top of pot 1, but is a separate accumulation with different odds of payment. Their HE model assumes appropriate multiplier carryover on EVERY hand to calculate the edge.
So with the casino intervening in erasing earned multipliers, they are lowering the HE, and depending on how often they do it (with ANY regularity, really), they are almost certainly lowering the HE of Pot 2 below the floor allowed by law.
Doesn't matter who generated the multipliers, or who plays them. They MUST carry over to maintain the integrity of the game.
In addition, since you are required to MAXIMUM bet pot 1 in order to access pot 2, when playing pot 2, if its odds have been lowered through cancellation of earned multipliers, that could easily take the total return of the game below the base payout HE. I believe this is a separate regulation, at least in LV, that any add-on can only raise or equal base game return, not lower it. And so a second at least supporting argument for illegality, perhaps the primary argument where that regulation is in effect.
Quote: WizardLet me get caught up here.
First, I did not know that about the cards displayed on an unplayed machine are the last cards played at any denom. That tends to not be the case with reeled slots.
It's the nature of Ultimate X which is why that has to be the case. Same thing with, "Vulturable," slot machines, most of the time. At least true with non-progressive variable state machines.
Quote:Second, the return for playing one hand on a machine with no multipliers would be around 50%. However, I don't think that is especially relevant to the discussion at hand. The 50% is true whether or not the casino is removing multipliers. It seems reasonable to me that the minimum return of 75% is based on playing a game a very large number of hands using optimal strategy, which is what the standard is, I believe.
Third, legally, I think the casinos are not breaking any regulation I'm aware of in Nevada.
Fourth, morally, this bothers me. I would equate it ethically to skimming money off a progressive meter. The following story is what I would compare the current situation to.
Once I passed by a lemonade stand and purchased drinks for my family and I. When I opened my wallet and asked how much to pay, the teenager manning the stand said "Nothing, the previous customer paid for the next person to come by." I would view leaving multipliers for the next player in the same kind of light, although the motives are probably different. Nevertheless, I would compare the casino erasing the multipliers to the proprietor of that lemonade stand quietly pocketing the extra money the previous customer to me paid and then charging me the full way.
No major disagreement with any of this, love the analogy. My only minor disagreement with the second part is that the casino is artificially causing a state of no multipliers where there would be multipliers. The result is that the overall expected return to player drops at least slightly. It has to. They are taking away some of the conditions that make the return what it is in the first place.
Quote: PinkThat made no sense since five coins does play off the multiplier. So if you only want to make minimal money you play five coins. I found a five play. Dollars Max bet. Got dealt a straight. 8x next hand. Then another straight. I wound up making 1400 instead of 140 and you can always play five coins to end it if you like.
I didn't realize it was your intent to sit and play it. I thought you were straight up vulturing. Straight up vulturing is the only possible optimal play.
Quote: beachbumbabsI think Pink has the definitive, and winning, legal argument here. They are charging additional coin for the multipliers. There are 2 pots of money, not 1. The Game Itself allows the option of playing only within pot 1, with its published odds.
For Pot 2, it's a separate calculation, and the only crossover is both pots are using the same cards to determine results and pays. Pot 2 is stacked on top of pot 1, but is a separate accumulation with different odds of payment. Their HE model assumes appropriate multiplier carryover on EVERY hand to calculate the edge.
So with the casino intervening in erasing earned multipliers, they are lowering the HE, and depending on how often they do it (with ANY regularity, really), they are almost certainly lowering the HE of Pot 2 below the floor allowed by law.
Doesn't matter who generated the multipliers, or who plays them. They MUST carry over to maintain the integrity of the game.
In addition, since you are required to MAXIMUM bet pot 1 in order to access pot 2, when playing pot 2, if its odds have been lowered through cancellation of earned multipliers, that could easily take the total return of the game below the base payout HE. I believe this is a separate regulation, at least in LV, that any add-on can only raise or equal base game return, not lower it. And so a second at least supporting argument for illegality, perhaps the primary argument where that regulation is in effect.
pretty sure you mean "raising the HE", not lowering it.....
Quote: beachbumbabsNever played Wynn. Likely never will. Isn't he the guy who put in the triple zero roulette and capped craps odds at 2x, both in the last couple years? Or am I remembering wrong, and one of those was Venetian?
I seem to remember Wynn interviewed on 60 Minutes several years ago and his opinion was that "no players ever beat the House". I remember thinking, "Then why did you just downgrade some of your video poker?"
Quote: bobbartopI seem to remember Wynn interviewed on 60 Minutes several years ago and his opinion was that "no players ever beat the House". I remember thinking, "Then why did you just downgrade some of your video poker?"
To make even a bigger profit.
Not to get technical, and I'm not even 100% sure this is the case. It's to my understanding they can't have a video poker machine/game with a 75% Payback that's based on optimal play. It must have a 75% Payback based on how the average reasonable person would play. I'm talking about Nevada, of course. That makes sense, or they could come up with some game that was technically 75% but the strategy is so difficult it would only average about 20% back to the players.Quote: WizardLet me get caught up here.
First, I did not know that about the cards displayed on an unplayed machine are the last cards played at any denom. That tends to not be the case with reeled slots.
Second, the return for playing one hand on a machine with no multipliers would be around 50%. However, I don't think that is especially relevant to the discussion at hand. The 50% is true whether or not the casino is removing multipliers. It seems reasonable to me that the minimum return of 75% is based on playing a game a very large number of hands using optimal strategy, which is what the standard is, I believe.
Third, legally, I think the casinos are not breaking any regulation I'm aware of in Nevada.
Fourth, morally, this bothers me. I would equate it ethically to skimming money off a progressive meter. The following story is what I would compare the current situation to.
Once I passed by a lemonade stand and purchased drinks for my family and I. When I opened my wallet and asked how much to pay, the teenager manning the stand said "Nothing, the previous customer paid for the next person to come by." I would view leaving multipliers for the next player in the same kind of light, although the motives are probably different. Nevertheless, I would compare the casino erasing the multipliers to the proprietor of that lemonade stand quietly pocketing the extra money the previous customer to me paid and then charging me the full way.
Quote: AxelWolfNot to get technical, and I'm not even 100% sure this is the case. It's to my understanding they can't have a video poker machine/game with a 75% Payback that's based on optimal play. It must have a 75% Payback based on how the average reasonable person would play. I'm talking about Nevada, of course. That makes sense, or they could come up with some game that was technically 75% but the strategy is so difficult it would only average about 20% back to the players.
14.040 Minimum standards for gaming devices.
1. All gaming devices must:
(a) Theoretically pay out a mathematically demonstrable percentage of all amounts wagered, which
must not be less than 75 percent for each wager available for play on the device.
(b) Determine game outcome solely by the application of:
(1) Chance;
(2) The skill of the player; or
(3) A combination of the skill of the player and chance.
(c) Display in an accurate and non-misleading manner:
(1) The rules of play;
(2) The amount required to wager on the game or series of games in a gaming session;
(3) The amount to be paid on winning wagers;
(4) Any rake-off percentage or any fee charged to play the game or series of games in a gaming
session;
(5) Any monetary wagering limits for games representative of live gambling games;
(6) The total amount wagered by the player;
(7) The game outcome; and
(8) Such additional information sufficient for the player to reasonably understand the game
outcome.
(d) Satisfy the technical standards adopted pursuant to Regulation 14.050.
2. Once a game is initiated by a player on a gaming device, the rules of play for that game, including
the probability and award of a game outcome, cannot be changed. In the event the game or rules of play
for the game, including probability and award of a game outcome, change between games during a gaming
session, notice of the change must be prominently displayed to the player.
3. Gaming devices connected to a common payoff schedule shall:
(a) All be of the same denomination and have equivalent odds of winning the common payoff
schedule/common award based as applicable on either or both of the combined influence of the attributes
of chance and skill; or
(b) If of different denominations, equalize the expected value of winning the payoff schedule/common
award on the various denominations by setting the odds of winning the payoff schedule in proportion to the
amount wagered based as applicable on either or both the combined influence of the attributes of chance
and skill, or by requiring the same wager to win the payoff schedule/award regardless of the device’s
denomination. The method of equalizing the expected value of winning the payoff schedule/award shall be
conspicuously displayed on each device connected to the common payoff schedule/common award. For
the purposes of this requirement, equivalent is defined as within a 5 percent tolerance for expected value
and no more than a 1 percent tolerance on return to player or payback.
4. All possible game outcomes must be available upon the initiation of each play of a game upon
which a player commits a wager on a gaming device.
5. For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical probability
of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the mathematical probability
of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game.
6. Gaming devices that offer games of skill or hybrid games must indicate prominently on the gaming
device that the outcome of the game is affected by player skill.
7. Gaming devices must not alter any function of the device based on the actual hold percentage.
8. Gaming devices may use an identifier to determine which games are presented to or available for
selection by a player.
9. For gaming devices manufactured and distributed before September 28, 1989, the chairman may
waive the requirements of subsection 1(d) of section 14.040 for a licensee exposing a gaming device to the
public for play, if the licensee can demonstrate to the chairman’s satisfaction that:
(a) After the waiver the aggregate theoretical payout for all amounts wagered on all gaming devices
exposed for play by the licensee at a single establishment meets the 75 percent standard of subsection
1(a) of section 14.040, and
(b) The licensee is unable to bring the device into compliance with the requirements of subsection 1(a)
of section 14.040 because of excessive cost or the unavailability of parts.
10. The chairman may waive for good cause shown the requirements of a technical standard for a
game. The chairman has full and absolute authority to condition or limit a waiver granted under this section
for any cause deemed reasonable.
(Adopted: 7/89. Amended: 9/89; 10/92; 7/10. Effective: 1/1/93. Amended: 12/11; 9/15; 10/16.)
I'm not going to read the entire thing right now, I certainly will later. From the first part I did read, it seems that I was correct?Quote: DRich14.040 Minimum standards for gaming devices.
1. All gaming devices must:
(a) Theoretically pay out a mathematically demonstrable percentage of all amounts wagered, which
must not be less than 75 percent for each wager available for play on the device.
(b) Determine game outcome solely by the application of:
(1) Chance;
(2) The skill of the player; or
(3) A combination of the skill of the player and chance.
(c) Display in an accurate and non-misleading manner:
(1) The rules of play;
(2) The amount required to wager on the game or series of games in a gaming session;
(3) The amount to be paid on winning wagers;
(4) Any rake-off percentage or any fee charged to play the game or series of games in a gaming
session;
(5) Any monetary wagering limits for games representative of live gambling games;
(6) The total amount wagered by the player;
(7) The game outcome; and
(8) Such additional information sufficient for the player to reasonably understand the game
outcome.
(d) Satisfy the technical standards adopted pursuant to Regulation 14.050.
2. Once a game is initiated by a player on a gaming device, the rules of play for that game, including
the probability and award of a game outcome, cannot be changed. In the event the game or rules of play
for the game, including probability and award of a game outcome, change between games during a gaming
session, notice of the change must be prominently displayed to the player.
3. Gaming devices connected to a common payoff schedule shall:
(a) All be of the same denomination and have equivalent odds of winning the common payoff
schedule/common award based as applicable on either or both of the combined influence of the attributes
of chance and skill; or
(b) If of different denominations, equalize the expected value of winning the payoff schedule/common
award on the various denominations by setting the odds of winning the payoff schedule in proportion to the
amount wagered based as applicable on either or both the combined influence of the attributes of chance
and skill, or by requiring the same wager to win the payoff schedule/award regardless of the device’s
denomination. The method of equalizing the expected value of winning the payoff schedule/award shall be
conspicuously displayed on each device connected to the common payoff schedule/common award. For
the purposes of this requirement, equivalent is defined as within a 5 percent tolerance for expected value
and no more than a 1 percent tolerance on return to player or payback.
4. All possible game outcomes must be available upon the initiation of each play of a game upon
which a player commits a wager on a gaming device.
5. For gaming devices that are representative of live gambling games, the mathematical probability
of a symbol or other element appearing in a game outcome must be equal to the mathematical probability
of that symbol or element occurring in the live gambling game.
6. Gaming devices that offer games of skill or hybrid games must indicate prominently on the gaming
device that the outcome of the game is affected by player skill.
7. Gaming devices must not alter any function of the device based on the actual hold percentage.
8. Gaming devices may use an identifier to determine which games are presented to or available for
selection by a player.
9. For gaming devices manufactured and distributed before September 28, 1989, the chairman may
waive the requirements of subsection 1(d) of section 14.040 for a licensee exposing a gaming device to the
public for play, if the licensee can demonstrate to the chairman’s satisfaction that:
(a) After the waiver the aggregate theoretical payout for all amounts wagered on all gaming devices
exposed for play by the licensee at a single establishment meets the 75 percent standard of subsection
1(a) of section 14.040, and
(b) The licensee is unable to bring the device into compliance with the requirements of subsection 1(a)
of section 14.040 because of excessive cost or the unavailability of parts.
10. The chairman may waive for good cause shown the requirements of a technical standard for a
game. The chairman has full and absolute authority to condition or limit a waiver granted under this section
for any cause deemed reasonable.
(Adopted: 7/89. Amended: 9/89; 10/92; 7/10. Effective: 1/1/93. Amended: 12/11; 9/15; 10/16.)
Quote: Mission146No major disagreement with any of this, love the analogy. My only minor disagreement with the second part is that the casino is artificially causing a state of no multipliers where there would be multipliers. The result is that the overall expected return to player drops at least slightly. It has to. They are taking away some of the conditions that make the return what it is in the first place.
Thanks for your comments.
To that I would say there can be no argument the casino is lowering value, unless the player doesn't stop playing until he has no multipliers on the next hand. Playing the devil's advocate, I don't know of any law that says the casino can't lower value, as long as it doesn't go under 75% for infinite play.
Quote: SOOPOOJust to be clear, Mission, if I go to play one of these machines and play maximum coins with no multipliers,and only plan to play one hand no matter what, the house edge exceeds 25%?
If that is true, I believe that it breaks the law, if the law states a given game cannot have a house edge that exceeds 25%.
There should be NO WAY that I be required to continue playing a game to have the game fall into line with legally established house edges.
No its legal. The long term theoretical payback must be 75%+ in Nevada, not for every hand. Now if the machine automatically wiped them out every time, then it would be below 75%. But since you copied the reg SOOPOO, the wording doesn't clearly state that imo. But I pretty sure it how the gaming commission will interpret it.
Quote: AxelWolfI'm not going to read the entire thing right now, I certainly will later. From the first part I did read, it seems that I was correct?
They are allowed to assume that a player will act in his best interests.. which essentially means they can assume perfect play.
Quote: WizardPlaying the devil's advocate, I don't know of any law that says the casino can't lower value, as long as it doesn't go under 75% for infinite play.
I have come full circle on my opinion of "erasing" the multipliers.
First, I figured, the game UX is designed to 'reward' players for landing certain hands. A new player didn't earn the reward, so what is the big deal if the game is 'reset' after a period of inactivity?
Then, I became convinced by some of you the erasing of multipliers, by slot director or computer, is wrong. Mainly due to the argument that the published returns are based on these earned multipliers. Resetting the multipliers reduces the published returns without player notice, which is deception at best.
Finally, I thought of this scenario: Player A hits a hand which 'earns' her certain multipliers. She is hungry (has to use the ladies' room, whatever), so she leaves for 10, 20, 30 minutes...one day. No one plays that machine while she is gone. When she returns to the machine to play another hand, shouldn't the multipliers be there for the next hand she plays?
In that scenario, I wonder the legality of resetting the machine.
Quote: WizardThird, legally, I think the casinos are not breaking any regulation I'm aware of in Nevada.
I am going to argue that this is illegal, coming at it from a totally different angle than the minimum return to the player. Each game has a help screen or game info. For Ultimate X, it says "A multiplier is awarded for a winning hand. That multiplier is assigned according to the multiplier table to the next hand played."
For a casino to erase the multipliers, so that they are not assigned to the next hand played, they are not following the rules they agreed to. The casino had no problem taking the money when the bet was made. Then when it came time to honor the bet (by having the multipliers assigned to the next hand played), they refused. That is illegal. That type of stuff rips apart both the integrity of the state's casino industry and the law enforcement that is supposed to keep them honest.
The gaming commissions response about why it is ok is also troubling. The house advantage for every game and every bet is decided by the casino (only exception I can think of is poker). If there are times when certain bets carry a negative house advantage (aka Player Advantage), that is entirely because of the casinos decision. If the casino doesn't like that, they are allowed to come up with different rules for the games (automatic shuffler in blackjack, lower pay tables in video poker, no must-hit on the floor, etc.), they are not allowed to decide they aren't going to honor a bet.
Quote: TomGI am going to argue that this is illegal, coming at it from a totally different angle than the minimum return to the player. Each game has a help screen or game info. For Ultimate X, it says "A multiplier is awarded for a winning hand. That multiplier is assigned according to the multiplier table to the next hand played."
For a casino to erase the multipliers, so that they are not assigned to the next hand played, they are not following the rules they agreed to. The casino had no problem taking the money when the bet was made. Then when it came time to honor the bet (by having the multipliers assigned to the next hand played), they refused. That is illegal. That type of stuff rips apart both the integrity of the state's casino industry and the law enforcement that is supposed to keep them honest.
The gaming commissions response about why it is ok is also troubling. The house advantage for every game and every bet is decided by the casino (only exception I can think of is poker). If there are times when certain bets carry a negative house advantage (aka Player Advantage), that is entirely because of the casinos decision. If the casino doesn't like that, they are allowed to come up with different rules for the games (automatic shuffler in blackjack, lower pay tables in video poker, no must-hit on the floor, etc.), they are not allowed to decide they aren't going to honor a bet.
Great post. If I'm the judge I rule in favor of TomG. Is there any way you can post a picture of the exact statement about how the multipliers are assigned? I don't understand the (b)in your post. Thanks.
Oh. It is how you bold some type.
Quote: SOOPOO
Great post. If I'm the judge I rule in favor of TomG. Is there any way you can post a picture of the exact statement about how the multipliers are assigned? I don't understand the (b)in your post. Thanks.
Oh. It is how you bold some type.
Took this picture yesterday when I realized why it is illegal for the casino to do this
https://imgur.com/gallery/HQIT2xP
Let this be evidence anyone who claims casinos don’t cheat
Quote: TomGI am going to argue that this is illegal, coming at it from a totally different angle than the minimum return to the player. Each game has a help screen or game info. For Ultimate X, it says "A multiplier is awarded for a winning hand. That multiplier is assigned according to the multiplier table to the next hand played."
That's a very good point.
For the record, here is the help screen from VideoPoker.com
Quote: TomGTook this picture yesterday when I realized why it is illegal for the casino to do this
https://imgur.com/gallery/HQIT2xP
Let this be evidence anyone who claims casinos don’t cheat
I would say that there can be no "16 minute excuse" as well. Class action lawsuit? Go for it, Tom!
Quote: WizardQuote: TomGI am going to argue that this is illegal, coming at it from a totally different angle than the minimum return to the player. Each game has a help screen or game info. For Ultimate X, it says "A multiplier is awarded for a winning hand. That multiplier is assigned according to the multiplier table to the next hand played."
That's a very good point.
For the record, here is the help screen from VideoPoker.com
Is it because its the "rules" of the game and they are changing the rules? As in the rules say that its supposed to have the multiplier for the next hand if it was awarded to the previous play, and when they remove these multipliers they are doing it illegally because they are changing the next outcome ?
Btw everyone. The photos of the ultimate x game with max credits bet where there should have been multipliers on one of the two possible bet levels and there were none?
It's a trick advantage players use to throw off slot techs.
When playing off the multipliers the player bet five coins. After the hand was finished they pressed the bet one coin button until it says ten coins. All the cards appear to be face down. Then they select another game and return the previous screen. Now the cards are face up again and it appears as if it was played at max bet. So that mystery is solved.
Gaming has begun an investigation due to the fact that Wizard wrote them a letter asking for an explanation. Very smart. I should have thought of that. They inspected the machine last week. Since then I have not seen the supervisor who deleted multipliers Gaming stated they will not inform me if the outcome of their investigation or any penalties the casino will have due to this incident.
If it is in fact illegal, what is a casino supposed to do if a machine has pending multipliers and legitimately needs to be reset for maintenance or any other reason?
But they have misused this excuse in the past to delete multipliers and it's not like gaming even checks. Once the factory reset is preformed the machine is wiped clean so it's not like gaming can even see if there were multipliers.
It is not legal. But someone has to sue to get gaming to enforce it. Or someone has to go to the monthly gaming commission meetings and present the situation to the commission.
It clearly breaks the rule which states the machine has to preform as the rules indicate. And the rules state the multipliers will be on the next hand.
Quote: WizardI wrote a letter to Gaming asking about the legality of this. I'll let you know what they say if they reply.
Any word? Based on past experiences, how long does it take to get a response?
You are right, the minimum return would be met, but the real problem is the machine not following its own rules, which is must simpler. I would say the rules, the pay table, the help screen are implied contracts, and to perform an action like this, breaks a major casino rule, they are damaging the integrity of gaming by doing so. To save having to pay out money, a casino tampering with the machine to do so is doing this. What the casino is saying, the next hand will pay x times, but not this hand, because we intentionally took it back so nobody can have it, but the next hand will pay a multiplier if it is played before we take it. That's terrible there is an automatic repossession of multipliers program approved. This is about as close to Satan himself being the Pope. I would hope the casino is actually taking advantage of another rule to steal from the public by doing so without integrity and their real intention is being hidden from gaming because the agents are incompetent, corrupt morons. Whatever their sense of justification, they're not wasting their time on other slots for the same purpose, just when it suits them. That's the proof of the crime, whatever action is done 1000s of times a year to certain machines, but not once or only less than a handful of times to others. I would look for this evidence if I was gaming, hopefully there is a record in the books of this tampering.Quote: SOOPOOTime for a devil's advocate post.
When you approach a game that has a possibility of 'earned' multipliers like we are discussing, I assume the expected return percentage with optimal play includes the playing of those multipliers? And that EVEN with zero multipliers the house edge will not exceed the required minimum return (75%?)?
Any INDIVIDUAL player starting playing on a game that uses earned multipliers can achieve the EXACT EV reported to gaming by using optimal strategy and just not leaving any multipliers unused?
My point being the person leaving a multiplier has not used overall optimal strategy. The casino has no obligation to the NEXT player to present the game with extra value because the PREVIOUS player left it there. As a mater of fact, if the previous player left MONEY (credits) on the machine, you would not be allowed to take it, right?
You could argue that the EV the casino erases is "found money", and I believe (in theory) it eventually goes to charity or some such. Obviously the casinos are not doing this with the "stolen EV".
Although I think it is really low...... I don't think the casino gets in trouble for doing this. I hope I'm wrong!
Quote: PinkIf the casino has a legitimate reason to reset the machine ( sometimes they freeze and don't function correctly) then they have to ask permission from gaming.
But they have misused this excuse in the past to delete multipliers and it's not like gaming even checks. Once the factory reset is preformed the machine is wiped clean so it's not like gaming can even see if there were multipliers.
It is not legal. But someone has to sue to get gaming to enforce it. Or someone has to go to the monthly gaming commission meetings and present the situation to the commission.
It clearly breaks the rule which states the machine has to preform as the rules indicate. And the rules state the multipliers will be on the next hand.
This would probably vary by state, but in NJ casinos definitely do not need permission from gaming to reset a machine. It’s been done in front of me in situations where I am sure permission was not asked.
Assuming that is the case, and DRich probably knows most about this, why wouldn’t machines not save restore the previous state of the game when reset?
That is obviously a requirement of the ticket voucher system.
Quote: PinkToo bad you weren't recording that. Because it clearly states you can play one to ten coins. So I'm pretty sure you were absolutely going to play them the way they were intended to be played. And even though they claim they can deny entry to anyone for any reason. If they outright said you have to play your money the way we want you to or leave I'm pretty sure they would lose that one in court. So It's not really true. Let's say they said "We don't like black men in our establishment. And it's our place so it's our rules.". Definitely violating someone's constitutional rights. In Atlantic City there was a case about casinos not being private property. So to tell someone not to play a machine would be against the law. And btw. Who does get to play the machine? And why do some get to play them and others not? Are they discriminating because you don't look like you belong in a high limit room? I'll bet if an old man and woman wearing expensive designer clothes walked in to play no one would say a word. I'm sure someone with the means could win this case in court. It would be nice to have a class action suit filed by advantage players asked to leave properties simply because they used their brains and looked for the best spot to wager their own money. The problem would be all those advantage players who could have given good reason to be thrown out. Like obviously drunk or on drugs. Fighting on machines. Being rude or obnoxious to customers or employees. But then again they were evicted for good reason.
I was told I could not play a bar top game in AC because I was not a diamond or 7 stars member.
Quote: IndyJeffreyAny word? Based on past experiences, how long does it take to get a response?
No.
As I recall, the only other time I wrote Gaming a letter was to complain about the Las Vegas Club claiming to have the "loosest slots downtown," while offering no evidence this to be true. Gaming called me shortly after sending the letter, asking me questions about it. As with Pink, they stated they would take appropriate action, but were not at liberty to tell me any details.
About a month later I was downtown and noticed the signage at the Las Vegas Club had the word "best" taped over the word "loosest." This was on hundreds of signs, so must have required some effort. I can only assume that Gaming made them either quit making the claim or prove it to be true. For that, I applaud Gaming for keeping the LVC honest.
So to me, at this point, if she thinks it is a single slot attendant doing this, as opposed to an institutional mandate from the casino, it is a much smaller story. Pink mentioned she actually has not seen this attendant for a while, and is wondering if he has been fired.
I am going to post a few more thoughts about this in the NY AP move thread.
Quote: gamerfreakThis would probably vary by state, but in NJ casinos definitely do not need permission from gaming to reset a machine. It’s been done in front of me in situations where I am sure permission was not asked.
Assuming that is the case, and DRich probably knows most about this, why wouldn’t machines not save restore the previous state of the game when reset?
That is obviously a requirement of the ticket voucher system.
I am pretty sure that the game does maintain the multipliers on a normal power off or reset. All slot machines also have the ability to wipe everything out but that usually requires a lotof work on the casinos part because they would have to re-setup the whole machine. I am skeptical that they have a built in way just to get rid of the multipliers,. I have machines with Ultimate X in my office and I don't see any option like that.
