I kind of meant that most people play the bonus games as opposed to plain old JoB. As most people here concur that it's boring. Most, and I mean 99.99999999% of players just sit down, pick their game and just start banging away.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Double Double Bonus is the most popular of all the video poker games. Statistics show that. I think it's because most players go to a casino to win big and not to grind for points to make higher levels in player clubs or to qualify for cash back or free play bonuses.
In reality, most casino goers go to a casino two or three times a year with a limited budget.
If you told these folks that you enjoy grinding away at Jacks or Better they'd probably call you an addict before anything else because they couldn't comprehend what you are talking about.
Absolutely agree it's the most popular. And where I'm at, I see the same folks day in and day out so I know who the addicts are. I personally can't sit and play for more than 30 minutes. And I don't try and grind points. If I'm sitting and playing, it's usually just slow nickel play wasting time waiting on other opportunities.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
The majority of casino players are uneducated in the games they play... The casinos bank on this.
I have seen players playing 6/5 jacks and be perfectly happy with what they are doing.
I have seen players play single Coins on $5 machines and be happy.
I've seen people playing DDB hold AK off suit and be perfectly happy.
Good, let them be happy.
Speaking of new opportunities... I just might have "retired" from video poker.
My new "love" is the Small, Tall, All bet at Bellagio craps. I've now hit the ALL once, hit the tall three times, and hit the small twice. I have a huge percentage win at this even though my actual amount bet is small. My biggest bet so far was $25 on the STA for $75 total -- just once -- and that one time I hit the tall for $875.
I think I am going to spend more time/money on this from now on.
I love to see that too especially when they are contributing to progressive jackpots.Originally Posted by BadBeet
I was at Rincon one time when a player with ONE coin in hit a royal on the $5 progressive. Of course he wasn't paid for the progressive but he contributed five-cents to the jackpot. LOL
I think we might see an opinion from BoyGenius regarding the first statement.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'm sure of that. LOLOriginally Posted by alpax
The casinos don't "bank on" anything but to have as much action from players as possible. The math is forever in their favor, so the more action the more profits they get. Based on your statement, Alan was one of those uneducated players because he went after a game that was -EV. Every 5 & 6 figure jackpot I've ever hit were also on the negative games. God Bless the negative games.Originally Posted by BadBeet
You're both correct.Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Casinos DO bank on the fact that most players are clueless about matters such as paytables and correct strategy.
They also are usually happy to get action, even at the lesser-edge games, because the math is in their favor.
However, there is an ongoing change in business model. The "old school" casino business model involved offering games with a relatively low house edge, figuring that the gambler knew better, and wouldn't play a game if he was getting a poor paytable or a pit game with player-unfriendly rules.
But as time passed and Vegas became more of a mainstream "entertainment" destination, it was realized that most gamblers are actually clueless to things such as odds, paytables, and rules. Thus, it was to the casino's advantage to greatly increase their edge, but still keep it low enough to where people will occasionally win. (If the edge is TOO high, the typical gambler will never win, and will get frustrated and not want to come back.)
At the same time, the once-coveted high-limit, low-edge player (think the 99.54% JoB player who runs it at $5/credit) is now considered close to a pariah. It has been determined that these players aren't worth the time, resources, energy, and potential variance for the slim profit that will be achieved from them. That's why these 99%+ VP games have been removed from many casinos, and where they do remain, the comps are very stingy.
Basically, they don't want the smart video poker players anymore, no matter how much action they give.
Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com
I play a 99.17% game and while I might win sometimes I never have a trip when I lose 0.83% of my bankroll. When I lose, I lose $1500 or $5,000 or whatever my loss limit is for the trip.
I think too much attention is put on the house edge incorrectly.
What Dan said, but from a sports betting history perspective. High-limit, low-edge players are considered pariahs.
Sports books back in the 80's and 90's routinely took very large wagers, and were happy to have them, regardless of who the player was making the wagers. By large wagers I mean 10K on up on any college football game, 20K and up for the NFL, and occasionally much more, as when Little Caesars (a hole-in-the-wall next to Bally's) would take 100K on certain games without flinching. Binion's sports book downtown took anything thrown at them, basically, since much of it was being laid off by agents of bookmakers around the country
Today, with consolidation and monopolies being the rule, one would think (since for several chains, half a dozen of their large sports books all have the same lines and pool the wagers thrown at them) that limits would be very high and sports books would be fearless. They would have confidence in their expertise and house edge and want action. Certainly a corporation like CET or MGM can hire the best people to make lines. Surely they have access and can pay more for expertise than little Binion's or the Golden Nugget circa 1990.
One would think wrong.
The sports books today are cringing, low-limit nervous Nellies compared to 40 years ago. They want no action unless the sources of that action have demonstrated utter brainlessness in the past. A brief case in point -- CET will scale its sports limits to the player based on his TR history. So if you lost big at slots, you can negotiate higher limits than people who have not their asses at CET slots.
The only real exceptions to this in LV are the Superbook and Cantor Gaming, and even they aren't as "brave" as books 40 years ago.
Casinos prefer addicts play their games because they must.
Last edited by redietz; 10-05-2015 at 11:22 AM.
Keep track of all of your sessions and see how you end up at years end. The house edge/payback percentage is based on EVERY possible deal and draw outcome which is in the billions and billions. Not just a few thousand or even a few hundred thousand. That's why there is such a high fluctuation. Take a .33% HE blackjack game and make just one bet. No way is it possible to lose just .33% of only one bet.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Dan, there's a reason mostly every casino continuously has promotions that they know the AP's will calculate out their play along with these promos to be >100%: it's called "bring in the most action possible". They fear no one but the LUCKY player, just as they are always removing any machine, regardless of which games it has on it, because it's paying out too much.
jbjb, at year's end Alan will be in highly positive territory. And if you look at his lifetime stats you now may well find that to be overall positive also--maybe not straight up vs. the machines, but when adding in all those self-valued slot club goodies that AP's use as their yearly crutch. Thus he is correct: too much attention actually IS placed on those theoretical edges. They mean nothing except to the geeks who like to waste their time analyzing this and that about them. I just care about how to win money from the machines, which I've done for over 15 years, and that's why he plays too. Percentages are irrelevant to players and overrated because of it.
I'm still waiting for guys like Alan or slingshot to quit their day jobs and do this permanently. But we know they'll lose so they won't. Chickens, plain and simple.
Why? They do it for recreation and enjoy doing it that way.Originally Posted by jbjb
A REAL chicken is the one who lies and makes accusations as an anonymous forum poster. And I can only IMAGINE how jealous you must be when you had to eyeball Alan's big royal....!
Plain and simple answer- you know I'm lucky when I have my usual $100 day. I play quarters- with an occasional spree to halves. After 1 hour I'm freezing-even with a coat on. The machines are in a LEGAL simulated randomness and after trial and error I found the luck QUICKLY starts going the other way the longer one plays- maybe once in a while staying a little longer helps- but SELDOM. I have a large sum of money but it's my wife's inheritance and NO way will I risk it so it's what I get from my SS check and winning these small amounts keeps me happy. I take her out with the offers and live LIFE the rest of the time. As for a daily trip-it's my experience that some days there is some sort of casino hold wherein winning any appreciable amount is nigh impossible and nothing is more disgusting to me than winning $200 and immediately going back the next day to redeposit it. And to be honest, listening to the filth has me wondering if I'm in the wrong crowd, anyway.Originally Posted by jbjb
Last edited by slingshot; 10-05-2015 at 05:01 PM.
First of all I have never claimed to have a winning year gambling. THIS YEAR is likely to be the first because I've had one hell of a run. I've hit three royals on my last three trips to Caesars: two for $20,000 and the $100K on Thursday. Thursday's royal was #5 on the year. The other two: one for $1,000 at Rincon playing 25-cents, and the $3,000 on the multi line Super Times Pay machine at Rincon. I am not including the quad aces on Royal Aces Bonus played at Rincon and I have had several of those this year at 25-cents (at least 4), 50-cents (1) and $1 (1) which are paid the same 4,000 coins as a royal.
It is still possible that I could have a losing year IF I make more trips than normal between now and January 1. If I stick to my routine of one trip per month with my normal loss limit I will have a profit on the year -- and this will be my first.
Here's some unsolicited advice: stay home the rest of the year and be thankful for where you stand right now. Make yourself and others proud. Show us and yourself that you are not controlled by the casinos or the vp machines, and keep from proclaiming that you are only doing it for "entertainment" purposes if you do play again before the calendar turns. And please, there's no need to hint at that you'll stay at your normal loss limit, because, well, your past proclamations really haven't been your strong point.
I would LOVE to see you say every penny you now have will not be risked gambling until 2016. I know what it's like hitting big winners with all that cash burning a hole in your pocket. From you saying you kissed away ten grand! before leaving town, it's clear the only way you will not have a losing year is if you do not go back. And there's no way you WON'T be playing above your head again if you go. I'm wondering if a bit of that $10k went into the $100 machine. It will be very, very encouraging to see you not play again in 2015.
Did I really kiss away ten grand? I showed up in Vegas with $60 cash in my wallet and took a $5,000 marker at Caesars. I hit some quads, a straight flush and a $100,000 royal after putting in the machine only $1,000. I paid back the $5,000 marker and left Vegas with a $90,000 check plus $4,600. That was a net profit of $94,600 on the trip. Yes, before I left I also played at Bellagio where I hit some quads, including quad aces with a kicker for $10k and gave my son $3,000 to play (and he hit a $26,000+ royal).
Frankly, if you call that "kissing away ten grand" I'd say it was one hell of a big, deep, wet kiss.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote