More shame for Harrahs

Sitting in my inbox was the latest edition of the Total Rewards magazine. I guess these are sent out to any Total Rewards member who gives them their email address. For those of you that don't know, Total Rewards is Harrah's comp system.

Some snippets from the magazine:

On the subject of Three Card Poker...
"There is one instance where other players may affect your cards. If someone gets up and leaves the table, consider scaling back your bet and see if you still get the type of hands that previously kept you on your winning streak."

"Bendinelli recommends playing the long-odds Pair Plus early and often. 'For the Pair Plus payouts, we go from 1:1 to 50:1,' he says. So if you are going to be at the table for a while, its a good, regular investment of some of your chips because you'll typically get a pair or better in 25% of your hands."

Shame on you Harrah's!

That is definitely shameful! I thought dealers were superstitious and gave bad advice, but this takes the cake! I also consider it blasphemous to refer to any sort of gamble as an "investment."

I agree 100%.

Quote: jeremykay

That is definitely shameful! I thought dealers were superstitious and gave bad advice, but this takes the cake! I also consider it blasphemous to refer to any sort of gamble as an "investment."

Well, some investments do have negative returns!!!

Quote: boymimbo

Well, some investments do have negative returns!!!

Of course. Just as some gambles have positive returns. However, an investment is a risky activity with a positive expected return. A gamble is a risky activity with a expected return <=0%.

Speaking of gambling and investing, did anybody listen to the Thorp interview that was on NPR recently?

And can anyone explain the "FACT" that appears about Shufflemaster's Blackjack on the Presque Isle Downs Website:

http://www.presqueisledowns.com/gaming/virtual_bj.html

"FACT: Live dealer pays out 87% Virtual Blackjack at PID Casino pays out 96%+"

Then they source a USA Today article. Take a look.

I guess they mean hold. So technically they are correct. But they aren't comparing apples to apples. Somebody should call them out on that.

Quote: cclub79

And can anyone explain the "FACT" that appears about Shufflemaster's Blackjack on the Presque Isle Downs Website:

http://www.presqueisledowns.com/gaming/virtual_bj.html

"FACT: Live dealer pays out 87% Virtual Blackjack at PID Casino pays out 96%+"

Then they source a USA Today article. Take a look.

The figures seem to be taken from this USA Today article, which says:

Quote: USA Today

According to Nevada statistics, slot machines take less of a gambler's dollar, on average, than other games: 94% of what's bet is returned in prizes vs. just 87% in blackjack. But gamblers often put slot winnings right back into the machine, rather than their pockets.

And I think they are referring to this report, which shows a slot win of 6.13% and a blackjack win of 12.40% for 2007. (Or they might have used the 2006 statistics, or averaged the results for an unknown number of years, but the 2007 figures are pretty close to what USA Today was referring to.)

The figures appear to indicate the opposite of the last sentence I quoted from USA Today. That is, it would seem that blackjack players are feeding their winnings back into the game more so than slot players, especially considering the lower house edge. However, there are a couple of other things to consider:

(1) Video poker is lumped in with slots, and often has a much higher return. Good VP games with good players will be bringing up the average for the "slots" category.

(2) Slot machines (except VP) require no strategy. An inebriated slot player is up against the same house edge as a sober one. An inebriated blackjack player might have a tougher time playing correctly. Now throw in things like 6:5 and SF21, and those who play but have never learned the strategy, and the results begin to make sense.

Quote: JB

(2) Slot machines (except VP) require no strategy. An inebriated slot player is up against the same house edge as a sober one. An inebriated blackjack player might have a tougher time playing correctly. Now throw in things like 6:5 and SF21, and those who play but have never learned the strategy, and the results begin to make sense.

The only problem I have with #2 is it goes against those theories about the real "House Edge" in blackjack, assuming imperfect strategy by all players. Do slots have a lower "hold" because jackpots are paid by hand and often not in cash, so players are LESS likely to feed the money back into the machine?

It seems these in-house puff pieces feature quotations from the dealers and therefore avoid having the casino actually be giving this advice. Its sort of like all those women's magazines wherein any fact must be attributed to an expert. Authors are told the expert can be fictitious but a fact must be attributed to an expert.

Now Tuscany recently reworked its webpage, but they had previously said "where the odds are in the player's favor" which makes me wonder not only how they were able to stay in business but why they would want to operate a casino at all if the odds were in the players favor. All casinos seem to offer the loosest slots in town. Its not a town noted for its honesty in advertising.

The gambling lessons offered by casinos are far more sensible than the public relations pieces in those in-house magazines. Thats because few people actually attend the lectures but zillions of them will read that rewards-program publication each month. Harrahs goes after a market wherein their ideal customer is a gawking tourist with more money than knowledge. Soon the public relations pieces will be encouraging players to enjoy the exciting new Even Money Blackjack Game. And some public relations flack will write good copy about it and some photographer will have good images and the magazine will be sent out looking real slick!

For this particular game and this particular side bet, just what money are we talking about? I don't know but as far as Harrahs in concerned its Harrahs money and they want it and they don't much care what they have to do or say in order to get it from you!

It used to be that you had to be wary of clip joints in Vegas, now you have clip joints in Vegas being more honest than the casino's puff pieces are. (Well, ... almost! After all, everyone knows its silicone).

Quote: cclub79

Quote: JB

(2) Slot machines (except VP) require no strategy. An inebriated slot player is up against the same house edge as a sober one. An inebriated blackjack player might have a tougher time playing correctly. Now throw in things like 6:5 and SF21, and those who play but have never learned the strategy, and the results begin to make sense.

The only problem I have with #2 is it goes against those theories about the real "House Edge" in blackjack, assuming imperfect strategy by all players. Do slots have a lower "hold" because jackpots are paid by hand and often not in cash, so players are LESS likely to feed the money back into the machine?

Blackjack has a higher hold, partly because of poor play, but mostly because of churn. That is, people take their winnings from their initial buy-in and keep playing it, exposing it to the house edge again. So they are double, triple, etc. exposing the same chips to the edge. If everybody just played through their buy-in once (e.g., bought $50 in chips, made 10 $5 bets and left), then blackjack would have a hold closer to the 1-2% house edge.

Slot machines also have churn but they are simpler to understand -- they are basically computers that take in $XX amount of money and pay out XX%. So the hold/house edge are for all intents and purposes the same.

Casinos don't much care how many times a quarter has to go through a slot machine before it winds up in the casinos hard count room. Similarly at blackjack, they don't much care how much booze it costs them to get a player who is unable to play sensibly.