A casino story

[Alan Mendelson]

I thought this was an interesting story.

While I was waiting for a verifier the other day to get paid on my royal, the floorperson and I were chatting about the high limit players on the $100 machines who are hitting handpays all the time.

He told me about one of these $100 video poker players who insisted on cash for every hand pay. His wife was with him. She had a shopping bag and the handpays went into the shopping bag.

Soon, their host came by to visit them while they played. The host saw the shopping bag and the cash and left.

About twenty minutes later the host returned to the high limit room with an attache case purchased as a gift for the couple at one of the high end stores -- either Gucci or Louis Vuitton, the floorman wasn't sure.

They transferred the cash from the shopping bag to the attache case. The host wished them well and left.

Several hours later the couple walked out of the high limit room with the attache case. It was empty.

[redietz]

I thought this was an interesting story.

While I was waiting for a verifier the other day to get paid on my royal, the floorperson and I were chatting about the high limit players on the $100 machines who are hitting handpays all the time.

He told me about one of these $100 video poker players who insisted on cash for every hand pay. His wife was with him. She had a shopping bag and the handpays went into the shopping bag.

Soon, their host came by to visit them while they played. The host saw the shopping bag and the cash and left.

About twenty minutes later the host returned to the high limit room with an attache case purchased as a gift for the couple at one of the high end stores -- either Gucci or Louis Vuitton, the floorman wasn't sure.

They transferred the cash from the shopping bag to the attache case. The host wished them well and left.

Several hours later the couple walked out of the high limit room with the attache case. It was empty.

LOL -- I hope it was a Ted Baker.

[Guy Incognito]

I guess this is a good strategy if you want to slow down the game every minute or so, or however long it takes on average to hit trips or better. Not to mention how long it takes to feed the bills back in when the machine is tapped out. It would annoy the hell out of me, though. Do VP whales have an easier time getting comped on time of play, rather than coin-in?

[redietz]

I guess this is a good strategy if you want to slow down the game every minute or so, or however long it takes on average to hit trips or better. Not to mention how long it takes to feed the bills back in when the machine is tapped out. It would annoy the hell out of me, though. Do VP whales have an easier time getting comped on time of play, rather than coin-in?

Guy, that is an excellent question that I would not have thought to ask. The standard belief is that time-on-device doesn't matter regarding comps, but maybe it does for high rollers. Machine designers and casino execs are always referring to "time-on-device," so there's a good chance the concept is less prehistoric than we have been led to believe.

[Count Room]

I'll posit a far more speculative and controversial theory just for the heck of it...

When that couple had the shopping bag they were hitting the DEAL/DRAW button at a perfect time at regular intervals because they subconsciously perceived the casino as enemies and were hungry for more wins on a biologically unconscious level.

When the host suddenly appeared offering the attache case, it altered the couples' subconscious perception that the casino was the enemy and now was their friend. Why would your subconscious hungrily want to take away things from your new friend?

This completely messed up their subconscious biological mindset towards the deterministic RNG that day and, hence, their button timing.

The attache case would have been a terrific investment on the host/casino's part from this purely speculative vantage point.

Cliffs: Giving the attache case completely messed up the couple's subconscious psychology for the day

[Alan Mendelson]

Is "time on device" still used? I thought everything is now determined by coin-in?

[redietz]

Is "time on device" still used? I thought everything is now determined by coin-in?

I don't know if or to what degree it's used to adjust comps, but when it comes to machine research and designing/selling games, "time-on-device" is a factor discussed as much as anything else.

[pkspins]

Is "time on device" still used? I thought everything is now determined by coin-in?

I've seen it referenced several times in trip reports/discussions about Atlantis on various forums. These weren't the CET related trips that have come up here but rather 3rd party host or other source offers. From what I recall, time played is one factor that they look at there when considering back-end comps.

[Count Room]

When I read Natasha Schull's book "Addiction By Design" back when it first came out (2012-13 or so), she mentioned "time on device" as a sort of internal gaming industry metric for keeping the player at the machine for the longest period of time possible until "extinction" (ie. out of money). I suspect the meanings of "time on device" here are being confused with time played at table games where comps are concerned.

Coin-in, ADT, and possibly losses/wins (in some instances) are the dominant factors for comps and freeplay at all levels of machine play.

[Alan Mendelson]

I've never heard time on device discussed for comps.

Perhaps its a term the industry uses for discussing players and play and the effectiveness of machines. But no host has ever said to me "you spent two hours and twenty minutes playing video poker."

[redietz]

I've never heard time on device discussed for comps.

Perhaps its a term the industry uses for discussing players and play and the effectiveness of machines. But no host has ever said to me "you spent two hours and twenty minutes playing video poker."

I'm glad someone else read Schull's book. It's superb.

The point I was making earlier is that even though "time-on-device" is believed to be prehistoric in terms of comps and rating, perhaps it's not completely unused when it comes to high rollers. That's possible. At one point, in the 80's and 90's, it meant something towards comps.

The other thing is, I still get offers for free nights and a gift card or something for "four hours of play." Those are the exact words, so sometimes the concept gets dredged out of the grave.

[Alan Mendelson]

So is my four hours of play on a $5 video poker machine worth more than someone who plays $100 video poker for fifteen minutes? I think not.

[jbjb]

So is my four hours of play on a $5 video poker machine worth more than someone who plays $100 video poker for fifteen minutes? I think not.

Depends on the game and your speed of play.

[RS__]

So is my four hours of play on a $5 video poker machine worth more than someone who plays $100 video poker for fifteen minutes? I think not.

If I ran a casino, I'd probably prefer the $5 player to the $100 player. I'd rather the guy who plays for a longer period of time because he's going to be more likely to get sucked in and may likely have difficulty quitting. The $100 player may more likely be able to get up and quit when he feels like it, or when he's tapped out. Best case scenario, the player becomes addicted to gambling and gives all his money to the casino -- who's more likely to do that, the $5 player who plays 4 hours or the $100 player who plays 15 minutes?

All things being equal, the $100 player would have a 25% higher theo than the $5 player, which is great. But there's also the benefit of the $5 player who plays 16x as long, which would decrease the variance of the play, thus increasing the probability the casino wins off that player....especially if there aren't many $100 players (and there aren't).

[redietz]

So is my four hours of play on a $5 video poker machine worth more than someone who plays $100 video poker for fifteen minutes? I think not.

If I ran a casino, I'd probably prefer the $5 player to the $100 player. I'd rather the guy who plays for a longer period of time because he's going to be more likely to get sucked in and may likely have difficulty quitting. The $100 player may more likely be able to get up and quit when he feels like it, or when he's tapped out. Best case scenario, the player becomes addicted to gambling and gives all his money to the casino -- who's more likely to do that, the $5 player who plays 4 hours or the $100 player who plays 15 minutes?

All things being equal, the $100 player would have a 25% higher theo than the $5 player, which is great. But there's also the benefit of the $5 player who plays 16x as long, which would decrease the variance of the play, thus increasing the probability the casino wins off that player....especially if there aren't many $100 players (and there aren't).

Great points, RS. The questions don't revolve around whose theo is greater, but who is more likely to donate how much money over the course of their lifetime. Addiction is clearly a factor in this. That's why virgin players are in such demand. A novice player losing half as much as an established, addicted player should still be viewed as more valuable to casinos because addiction hasn't yet been established in that player and the potential income is untapped.

[Alan Mendelson]

Sorry, but the "typical forum fiction overanalysis" is wrong.

It's all about coin in.

If two players play ten hands per minute, the $100 video poker player in 15 minutes will have $75,000 of coin in, while the $5 video poker player will have $60,000 of coin in over 4 hours.

This is why high rollers get more comps.

If the casino has two high rollers playing 15 minutes each they would see $150,000 of coin in versus the $60,000 one player might have on a machine over four hours.

This is why casinos like Caesars Palace and Wynn and Bellagio have big plush high limit gaming rooms with machines that are idle for most of the day: they only need the high rollers to spend a short period of time gambling vs the players who are at 25-cents, one dollar and even five dollars.

[Rob.Singer]

???? Why is this even a discussion? The amount of time spent "on" a machine means nothing. The vast majority of machines are multi-denom., which completely obliterates any notion that time on a machine means anything.

Amount played is the #1 tool, obviously. Then you can take your pick: which game, amt. won or lost, amt. of time played, what color your shirt is, how many potty breaks you take, etc. etc.

As for some host bringing the couple a "free" briefcase, well, bringing all this psychology into it just turns it into fodder. Anyone who works in a casino knows most vp players come in and play until they're drained. So why not make a show of goodwill? It's a good bet it'll coax them to come back sooner than later.