Thread Rating:

Eaglesnest
Eaglesnest
Joined: Jul 29, 2014
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 125
August 28th, 2014 at 7:48:22 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

So you can see how this could really affect a casinos bottom line.



Not really. They will either give away a lot of $5 and $10 coupons to a lot of people or a few $100+ coupons to a few people. The total dollar amount won't be that significant. Also, I suspect that 90% of that money given away won't make it back out the front door. I was told once by a Stations casino manager that 95% of free slot play was lost right back to the casino (which makes you wonder why they're so stingy with free play these days). The people who "AP" such a play as this will be in the tiny, tiny minority.

It's kind of funny how both casinos and APs themselves overestimate the impact of APs.
24Bingo
24Bingo
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1348
August 28th, 2014 at 8:25:04 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

Of course it makes sense. Anyone who doesn't think so never operated a casino.

If you could bet both sides I know plenty of people who would AP



That's nonsense. It's easy to AP without playing both sides, just as long as you get the free play.

Quote: darkoz

The odds on roulette may not change but the odds of winning do change.

If I can only bet red then I may win or lose.



No, you can't. Not with free play. You can win, or you can break even.

Quote: darkoz

If I can bet both, I get someone to play opposite me and with a hedge on green I am guaranteed to win. The advantage is now in my favor, not the casinos.



Less than it would be if you had just put it down on red. Any AP the casino would have to worry about would understand this.

Quote: darkoz

BTW - this is especially important in Atlantic City where they have the surrender rule. If the ball landed on green, I not only win the money for the hedge but also fifty percent of the both the red and black (or I win the green and get back the vouchers for another spin depending on how the dealer correctly or incorrectly handles it).

So you can see how this could really affect a casinos bottom line.



HELL no. A player might be happier always walking out with cash, but it absolutely cannot affect a casino's bottom line. The players are "winning" every time, but what are they winning?

$20 free play on red.
$10 cash on black.
$1 cash on green.

You always "win": red or black, $9 net, green, $12 net (assuming no surrender on the free play). Say hundreds of "AP's" bet that way - on average, for every nineteen, the casino pays out $174.

Now let's look at those poor fools who just put it on red. Most of them, of course, went home with nothing. But nine out of every nineteen won $20, so for every $174 your AP's got, these chumps only cost the house... $180.

So that's the bottom line.

Now, keep in mind that I'm on the side saying this is a sensible policy for the casino, but for a very different reason - essentially, it's to repel the risk-averse, because casino gambling, at least as they would have it, is essentially the canonical example of "irrational" (in pure dollar terms) risk-seeking behavior. (You are, frankly, showing a textbook risk-averse mindset - neither is conducive to AP, at least not at the extreme on display in your post.)
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
August 28th, 2014 at 8:31:48 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

If you could bet both sides I know plenty of people who would AP the shit out of it.



There is no advantage play to betting both sides.

Quote:

If I can bet both, I get someone to play opposite me and with a hedge on green I am guaranteed to win. The advantage is now in my favor, not the casinos.



That is not an advantage play. An advantage is when you have positive EV. You are just playing games with variance and getting nothing for it.

Quote:

So you can see how this could really affect a casinos bottom line.



It would have absolutely no effect on the bottom line. 10,000 free bet coupons cost the casino the same amount whether all are bet on even, or half on even and half on odd.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 261
  • Posts: 8759
August 28th, 2014 at 9:06:21 PM permalink
I LOVE YOU GUYS!!!

You are what make it possible for me to do what I do on a daily basis.

If you guys all thought (and acted) the way I do, the casinos would truly be scared and I might be put out of business.
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
August 28th, 2014 at 9:26:18 PM permalink
Quote: darkoz

I LOVE YOU GUYS!!!

You are what make it possible for me to do what I do on a daily basis.

If you guys all thought (and acted) the way I do, the casinos would truly be scared and I might be put out of business.



lol. Supposed AP who does not understand EV. The scourge of the casinos, indeed.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 151
  • Posts: 19851
August 28th, 2014 at 10:21:33 PM permalink
Quote: 24Bingo

That's nonsense. It's easy to AP without playing both sides, just as long as you get the free play.



No, you can't. Not with free play. You can win, or you can break even.



Less than it would be if you had just put it down on red. Any AP the casino would have to worry about would understand this.



HELL no. A player might be happier always walking out with cash, but it absolutely cannot affect a casino's bottom line. The players are "winning" every time, but what are they winning?

$20 free play on red.
$10 cash on black.
$1 cash on green.

You always "win": red or black, $9 net, green, $12 net (assuming no surrender on the free play). Say hundreds of "AP's" bet that way - on average, for every nineteen, the casino pays out $174.

Now let's look at those poor fools who just put it on red. Most of them, of course, went home with nothing. But nine out of every nineteen won $20, so for every $174 your AP's got, these chumps only cost the house... $180.

So that's the bottom line.

Now, keep in mind that I'm on the side saying this is a sensible policy for the casino, but for a very different reason - essentially, it's to repel the risk-averse, because casino gambling, at least as they would have it, is essentially the canonical example of "irrational" (in pure dollar terms) risk-seeking behavior. (You are, frankly, showing a textbook risk-averse mindset - neither is conducive to AP, at least not at the extreme on display in your post.)

Are you sure he is not talking about using 2 coupons at the same time?
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
August 28th, 2014 at 10:45:53 PM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

Are you sure he is not talking about using 2 coupons at the same time?



The point is that using two coupons at the same time is no more of an advantage play than using 1 at a time. The EV does not change. Each coupon has a specific EV, and your total EV is the sum of the EVs of the coupons, regardless of whether you bet them at the same time.

Now of course EV is not everything, and if the coupons are very large compared to your bankroll then of course reducing variance is worthwhile. But I think that most people who get very large coupons also have very large bankrolls so I don't think that this is really an issue. Mostly this is just people who have two $10 coupons and don't want to risk getting nothing out of it because they really want that $10. Which is fine, but the point is that if the casino gives out 1000 of these coupons, their bottom line is unaffected regardless of whether people play them 2 at a time (against each other) or one at a time. They are going to lose about the same amount on the coupons either way.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 151
  • Posts: 19851
August 28th, 2014 at 11:11:48 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

The point is that using two coupons at the same time is no more of an advantage play than using 1 at a time. The EV does not change. Each coupon has a specific EV, and your total EV is the sum of the EVs of the coupons, regardless of whether you bet them at the same time.

Now of course EV is not everything, and if the coupons are very large compared to your bankroll then of course reducing variance is worthwhile. But I think that most people who get very large coupons also have very large bankrolls so I don't think that this is really an issue. Mostly this is just people who have two $10 coupons and don't want to risk getting nothing out of it because they really want that $10. Which is fine, but the point is that if the casino gives out 1000 of these coupons, their bottom line is unaffected regardless of whether people play them 2 at a time (against each other) or one at a time. They are going to lose about the same amount on the coupons either way.

I understand that however, it's worth more per spin. I was really asking because someone said you win or break even. If you use 2, you win no matter what. (assuming no green) It's probably best not to bet both sides, casinos don't like it and it adds to the discontinuing of the coupons . They know if you are doing that, your goal is probably to walk out the door wit the money.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
August 28th, 2014 at 11:18:54 PM permalink
So yeah, it's all psychology and no math. They want everyone walking around the casino with one leg longer than the other. Perfect Batman question too now I think about it. Na na na na na, Batman! Who was that masked man?
I am a robot.
Eaglesnest
Eaglesnest
Joined: Jul 29, 2014
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 125
August 29th, 2014 at 12:32:15 AM permalink
Quote: 24Bingo



(You are, frankly, showing a textbook risk-averse mindset - neither is conducive to AP, at least not at the extreme on display in your post.)



A true AP definitely should be risk-averse, because he knows that he will be a winner in the long run as long as he escapes the slings and arrows of variance. The house is risk-averse when it sets betting limits at the tables, for the same reason.

When the ratio of bankroll to amount risked is high, then one can truly be indifferent to the outcome of a +EV bet. For those trying to build a bankroll, it is worth paying a small premium for certainty of a profit even if that reduces overall EV.

  • Jump to: