FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 125
  • Posts: 3793
January 13th, 2011 at 8:18:40 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Quote: RaleighCraps

I lost THEORETICAL money. But REAL money totally depends on the outcome. And the HE of the bet is not a factor in the outcome. If I got no black jacks, playing 1:1 , 6:5 , 3:2, or 10:1 BJ would not have mattered. How can you say otherwise, with a straight face?
They do not take 1.41 from my $100 PL bet. Over infinity that would be the expected outcome, but for that one bet, I either win $100 or I lose $100. It is a 0% or 200% proposition. All the HE does is affect your likely outcome of the bet.

Now, if they charged me a commish based on the HE of the bet when they paid off winning bets, then I would totally agree with you. Then the bet that you are making does have an impact on the real money.




Casinos base player ratings on "theoretical" results, NOT actual results, so what does that tell you? That the "theoretical" is, in fact, very real, and is actually more significant than the actual result.



1. As I stated before, the government bases your taxes on actual results. So what does that tell you?

2. At the end of the year, you calculate all the bets you made and you've determined that your theoretical loss was $300. Then you look at your gambling bank account, and you've lost $500. Which result is more significant to you?
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 195
  • Posts: 10742
January 13th, 2011 at 8:53:43 AM permalink
MKL -

I think you're in a minority here.

The theoretical math is very important, when a casino makes decisions on what sort of comps to award. It may also be useful in making projections.

However, the actual cash is important when determining if the casino really made any money. And it is the actual cash that a gambler cares about.
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ 覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧 Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
January 13th, 2011 at 9:07:09 AM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

MKL -

I think you're in a minority here.

The theoretical math is very important, when a casino makes decisions on what sort of comps to award. It may also be useful in making projections.

However, the actual cash is important when determining if the casino really made any money. And it is the actual cash that a gambler cares about.



+1. Work out the projections before you enter the casino. Look at the wallet when you leave.

Winning a big hand with the wrong play doesn't make you smart, but it does make you richer.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
Ike
Ike
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 63
January 13th, 2011 at 9:15:06 AM permalink
This discussion gives me a headache, mainly due to that MKL character.

I work for a casino, do you think the VP's here care more about coin in or actual slot win? Do you think they care more about table drop or actual table win? Moreover, do you think the average gambler cares more about the 13% percent theoretical payback of the penny game they are playing or the $150 hit they just got in a bonus round? Do you think they care more about the free 10x odds they are taking on a craps table, or the $300 they just blew through and lost?

Theoretical hold and game math is great and all, but it means nothing to 95% of the gamblers out there. The majority of gamblers don't have the discipline to manage their bankroll properly, or simply don't have a bankroll large enough to account for variance on a table game. They will never get dealt enough hands in blackjack, see enough rolls on a craps table or pull enough handles on a one armed bandit to approach those theoretical paybacks. Where does that leave them? They still want to play, so they play. They rely on "luck" and either go home a winner or a loser. Theoretical hold from .5% to 10% means very little to them. They can win or lose due to variance, but will never gamble enough to get even close to the theoretical payback of a game.

I agree an informed gambler should seek out the best rules possible, but the vast majority of gamblers don't care about being informed. They go to a casino to strike it rich, they go for a chance to make some money. Gamblers will continue to play crappy hold penny slots, continue to play carnival table games and will continue to play 6:5 blackjack. They play for the same reason scratch off lottery tickets are bought, they have to risk a little for a chance to win a lot. They don't care how small that chance to win may be. It will never end.

People like us who like to make informed gambling decisions will never be happy with the hold being raised on slots/VP machines, we'll never be happy with 2x odds in craps, we'll never be happy with diminishing good rules in BJ, but it doesn't matter.
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
January 13th, 2011 at 10:00:17 AM permalink
Quote: Ike

Theoretical hold from .5% to 10% means very little to them. They can win or lose due to variance, but will never gamble enough to get even close to the theoretical payback of a game.



Not quite right, in my opinion.

They will gamble enough to be within the vicinity of the payback of the game... as the theoretical payback is made up of not just EV but also the amount of the variance. Each bettor is one point along that curve.

Each gambler individually will reacts to that result... and if a larger percentage are doing worse than they expect (where their expectation may be as simple as "lets through dice for 2 hours, drink beer and lose $500), a larger percentage won't return. Or return with less. And if less players hit a nice profit, less will say "hey, I went there and won $1000, woot!", this also shaves of a few players who don't return, or don't pass on that positive message.

Is this enough to effect Vegas as a whole and mean better payoffs are necessary? I don't know. I know I'd like more 3:2 Blackjack and full pay VP, on strip at quarter/$5 limits with cute cocktail waitresses and a cheap room in pleasant surroundings, but I also want a lot of other things I'm not going to get.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
January 13th, 2011 at 10:05:52 AM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

Don't patronize me, I'm not an idiot.

Oh, and if I'm an advantage player, I only need enough money to make the first bet, since I win on every hand.



I don't think you're an idiot, but statements such as the latter, above, don't exactly help your case.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
January 13th, 2011 at 10:13:17 AM permalink
Quote: Ike

I work for a casino, do you think the VP's here care more about coin in or actual slot win? Do you think they care more about table drop or actual table win? Moreover, do you think the average gambler cares more about the 13% percent theoretical payback of the penny game they are playing or the $150 hit they just got in a bonus round? Do you think they care more about the free 10x odds they are taking on a craps table, or the $300 they just blew through and lost?



If you work for a casino, then you should realize that customers feel the EFFECT of an increased house hold, even if they don't understand the concept itself, or what was done to increase that hold: they don't get to play as long, they don't win as often, etc. It isn't necessary for gamblers to perceive the methods the house uses for them to know that SOMETHING is affecting their bottom line. Obviously, this will only show up over repeated visits/sessions; at first, the gamblers will just think they were unlucky. They will then gradually realize that their results are worse than they used to be. Of course, many of those gamblers will simply say, "I just don't have good luck at the Golden Commode", but that would still cause them to shy away, and maybe next time play blackjack at the Silver Snakepit across the street.

So it's a fiction that only those gamblers who can perceive an increase in the house's edge will care about it.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
Ike
Ike
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 63
January 13th, 2011 at 10:35:33 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Not quite right, in my opinion.

They will gamble enough to be within the vicinity of the payback of the game... as the theoretical payback is made up of not just EV but also the amount of the variance. Each bettor is one point along that curve.

Each gambler individually will reacts to that result... and if a larger percentage are doing worse than they expect (where their expectation may be as simple as "lets through dice for 2 hours, drink beer and lose $500), a larger percentage won't return. Or return with less. And if less players hit a nice profit, less will say "hey, I went there and won $1000, woot!", this also shaves of a few players who don't return, or don't pass on that positive message.

Is this enough to effect Vegas as a whole and mean better payoffs are necessary? I don't know. I know I'd like more 3:2 Blackjack and full pay VP, on strip at quarter/$5 limits with cute cocktail waitresses and a cheap room in pleasant surroundings, but I also want a lot of other things I'm not going to get.



Look, I never said all this was good for the casino. I actually believe the opposite. Hold percentage and table games rules are the price in a casino, and we all know raising your price when there is lessened demand will get you nowhere but bankrupt. There are a million reasons why Vegas is struggling right now, and the short term gains they see by penny pinching the players will only lead to further disaster in the future. You can milk the cow a million times, but slaughter it but once. If the big wigs in charge of things realized this, and realized gambling is entertainment for the majority of gamblers, they'd realize if they gave the players time on device/table they'd add value to that player's experience and probably get more trips out of them. 3 trips with an expected loss of $1000 is better for the casino than 1 with an expected loss of $2000. You'll get more money in the long run and the player will probably be willing to come back again in the future.
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
January 13th, 2011 at 10:39:28 AM permalink
Quote: Ike

Look, I never said all this was good for the casino. I actually believe the opposite. Hold percentage and table games rules are the price in a casino, and we all know raising your price when there is lessened demand will get you nowhere but bankrupt. There are a million reasons why Vegas is struggling right now, and the short term gains they see by penny pinching the players will only lead to further disaster in the future. You can milk the cow a million times, but slaughter it but once. If the big wigs in charge of things realized this, and realized gambling is entertainment for the majority of gamblers, they'd realize if they gave the players time on device/table they'd add value to that player's experience and probably get more trips out of them. 3 trips with an expected loss of $1000 is better for the casino than 1 with an expected loss of $2000. You'll get more money in the long run and the player will probably be willing to come back again in the future.



I completely agree with you. I was starting from your observation that players never reach the theoretical payback, which is a statement I don't agree with; but I do agree with the rest of your conclusions.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
Ike
Ike
Joined: Jan 13, 2011
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 63
January 13th, 2011 at 10:39:35 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

If you work for a casino, then you should realize that customers feel the EFFECT of an increased house hold, even if they don't understand the concept itself, or what was done to increase that hold: they don't get to play as long, they don't win as often, etc. It isn't necessary for gamblers to perceive the methods the house uses for them to know that SOMETHING is affecting their bottom line. Obviously, this will only show up over repeated visits/sessions; at first, the gamblers will just think they were unlucky. They will then gradually realize that their results are worse than they used to be. Of course, many of those gamblers will simply say, "I just don't have good luck at the Golden Commode", but that would still cause them to shy away, and maybe next time play blackjack at the Silver Snakepit across the street.

So it's a fiction that only those gamblers who can perceive an increase in the house's edge will care about it.




Maybe you misunderstood my post. I DO understand gamblers will feel the effects. I do understand a player who gets to play through their $100 in 2 hours will be happier than a player that loses it in 1. That is irrelevant to casino VP discussions. They think in the short term, as do 95% of the players in a casino. If they didn't, you wouldn't see the 6:5 tables packed every Friday and Saturday. Eventually, the money will run out, the players will be pissed and the casinos might realize the error of their ways. For now, revenues look better. You can take a popular slot machine with 5% hold and jack that hold up to 20%. You are going to slaughter the players, and your short term gains will look amazing. Eventually, the popularity of that game will fizzle out and die, but rarely is a decision maker in their position long enough to care. If they make the numbers look good for this year, or even this quarter, they will be off to bigger and better things long before their decisions have blown up...

  • Jump to: