Any Experience with M Resort $500 Loss Rebate?

[RS__]

Alan Mendelson Math question for casino players: if you made $100 bets at a game with a return of 99.9% and the casino gave you $20 on every bet you lose as a loss rebate, would you be a winner?

Jason H. Mendelson Plug it into a payable calculator with a high hand paying .2... Yes you will find you would be a huge winner.

Alan Mendelson You lose $100 and get back $20 each time you lose. That's a net loss of $80.

Jason H. Mendelson Are you talking about a single have it over the lifetime of the game? Be specific if you are going to come up with ridiculous questions

Jason H. Mendelson Single hand

Jason H. Mendelson A single hand or over the lifetime of the game

Alan Mendelson Each time you lose you lose $80. The overall payback on the game is 99.9%
What's the difference if it's a single hand or a million hands?

Jason H. Mendelson Because for each of those losing hands rather than getting nothing you get back 20% of the bet. There are much more losing hands than winning... So if it's 99.9% getting nothing for the losing hands you're now getting money back for losing. I don't think you understand your own question.

Alan Mendelson You bet 100 and when you lose you get back 20. That's a net loss of 80. How does that 20 rebate make you whole?

Jason H. Mendelson Ok... What about when you get .1% cash back? You are talking about a greater amount

Jason H. Mendelson Return goes from 99.54% on Jack's or Better to 110.53%

Jason H. Mendelson Standard 9/6 Jack's
[WOO picture showing 99.54% return]

Jason H. Mendelson Where losing hands pay 20% of the bet (1 coin)
[WOO picture showing 110% return]

Alan Mendelson Instead of losing $100 per loss you lose $80. It's still a negative expectation game.

Jason H. Mendelson You should not gamble... You don't understand how it works

Jason H. Mendelson Call me when you can and I'll explain...

[Alan Mendelson]

RS__ and everyone else: rebates on losing hands do not make you win.

Give this a moment to sink in.

What makes you win is hitting winners, whether it be at blackjack, video poker, roulette, horse races, etc.

Rebates only return a percentage of your bet.

Does anyone understand this yet?

[RS__]

I actually played a loss rebate that worked exactly like that. It's been a while. But essentially, winning hands didn't go against your "rebate balance", only losing hands did. You could play an hour, win $500 overall, and still get a rebate on top of that. Unfortunately the place was tiny and couldn't take out too much money at a time. We actually had to keep track of how many hands we were losing so we wouldn't get a massive rebate, which would certainly raise some eyebrows to say the least. And yes, Alan, we ended up winning overall.

[redietz]

Mickey, thanks for the payout table.

So... you are making $100 bets and getting $20 back each time you lose. I'm still not sure how you come out ahead when you are losing $80 with each play on a negative expectation game, and given any reason to believe you will even hit one winning hand?

However, if you do hit a winning hand the REBATE does not help you win, does it?

Using the game you have shown us, REBATES don't make you win. It's hitting the winning hands that make you win. And THIS has been my point all along. REBATES don't make you win. You must hit the winning hands to win.

Alan, sometimes you gotta step back and take a deep breath. I thought you were being facetious regarding the question with $20 back on each $100 losing vp hand. That's why I just spelled out the logistics on 9/6. It's obvious that if you reduce your losses on each losing hand to .8 units instead of 1 unit that you have flipped the game into positive. It's not even close. It's really clear.

Math guys can correct me on this (as I say, I am not a math guy, but I did play on the Penn State grad math department basketball team), but with Jacks or Better, you lose about 13 of each 24 hands. If the game is 99.9%, you are playing 24 hands and therefore putting 24 units into play. With the $20 rebate, you are losing 10.4 units instead of 13 on the losing hands. That is way, way more than needed to turn the game positive. The rebate, in this case, is exactly why it is a positive game.

In case you were having a bad day or had brain fog from an all night menage, it's okay. Everybody gets brain fog once in awhile.

[Alan Mendelson]

There is no brain fog. It is the winning hands not the rebate.

Let me give you a different scenario.

You have $1000 and you choose to play 9/6 Jacks or Better. You can make 100 $10 bets. You are given a 20% rebate ($2) on each bet you make.

Do you follow me so far?

Okay, good....

You make 100 ten-dollar bets and for some strange reason, the RNG Gods are not with you and you lose every single one of them. BUT YOU HAVE YOUR GENEROUS 20% REBATE so you collect $200 in rebates.

Now... you played 9/6 Jacks with a 20% rebate. What happened?

[mickeycrimm]

Mickey, thanks for the payout table. So... you are making $100 bets and getting $20 back each time you lose. I'm still not sure how you come out ahead when you are losing $80 with each play on a negative expectation game, and given any reason to believe you will even hit one winning hand? However, if you do hit a winning hand the REBATE does not help you win, does it? Using the game you have shown us, REBATES don't make you win. It's hitting the winning hands that make you win. And THIS has been my point all along. REBATES don't make you win. You must hit the winning hands to win.

Yes, the 20% rebate would help you win, alot. In effect, the nothing hands make the payscale because you win a 5th of a bet when you make them. And you can see by the stats that you make a nothing hand 54% of the time. Take a look at the payback percentages for the royal, straight flush, 4 Aces and and Small Quads. It totals to about 6.2%. If you removed those hands from the payscale you would still be close to 103% payback. So in effect you would be at 103% just up though the Generic Quads which has a cycle of just 610 games.

I know this whole thing is just hypothetical but I sure would like to get a 20% rebate on all losing hands.

[mickeycrimm]

Mickey, thanks for the payout table.

If there's any other games you want to see the stats for just let me know. I'll be glad to put them up.

[Alan Mendelson]

I know this whole thing is just hypothetical but I sure would like to get a 20% rebate on all losing hands.

Yes, it would be very nice to get 20% on your losing hands to keep you in the game... but only the winning hands will make you a winner. (By the way, I think you got the point. Rebates alone don't make you win.)

[SLaPiNFuNK]

There is no brain fog. It is the winning hands not the rebate.

Let me give you a different scenario.

You have $1000 and you choose to play 9/6 Jacks or Better. You can make 100 $10 bets. You are given a 20% rebate ($2) on each bet you make.

Do you follow me so far?

Okay, good....

You make 100 ten-dollar bets and for some strange reason, the RNG Gods are not with you and you lose every single one of them. BUT YOU HAVE YOUR GENEROUS 20% REBATE so you collect $200 in rebates.

Now... you played 9/6 Jacks with a 20% rebate. What happened?

It is no longer a negative expectation game when the return is 110.53% ... This means over time you SHOULD return 10% on your money.

Keep in mind, with your question of 20% rebate on EVERY LOSING HAND you get paid a credit!

For every possible "WINNING" hand in Jacks or Better (732,214,439,740), you will then get paid a credit for all the losing hands (928,888,103,360).

This means if you were to play all 1,661,102,543,100 possible hands you would get paid 10.53% MORE than you would if you were not paid on the 928,888,103,360 possible loosing hand combinations...

Yes non of us are ever going to play a trillion and a half hands... So lets lower the sample size...

Say you have a video poker session of 1 hour. In this hour you play 300 hands (because video poker is hard and you need to really really think about EVERY play)... Lets say you have a winning hand every 3 hands (this means there will be 100 winning hands and 200 losing hands)...

Lets say you ran bad, and got mostly even money Jacks or Better hands, 10 Two Pairs, and 7 Three of a kinds, 1 straight, and 1 flush, and 1 full house...

For sake of math we are playing $1 video poker:

WITHOUT REBATE

300 Hands = $1,500 Wagered (150 Total Reward Credits)

200 Losing Hands x $5 = -$1000
80 Jacks or Better x $5 = $400
10 Two Pair x $5 = $100
7 Three of a Kind = $105
1 Straight = $20
1 Flush = $30
1 Full House = $45

This would yield a net loss of -$300


Now WITH a 20% Rebate per losing hand:

300 Hands = $1,500 Wagered (150 Total Reward Credits)

200 Losing Hands x $5 = -$1000 + $200
80 Jacks or Better x $5 = $400
10 Two Pair x $5 = $100
7 Three of a Kind = $105
1 Straight = $20
1 Flush = $30
1 Full House = $45

This would yield a net loss of -$100


Lets say this session is now 5 hours long where we play 1500 hands and get 4 four of a kinds in there...

WITHOUT REBATE:

1500 Hands = $7,500 Wagered (750 Total Reward Credits)

996 Losing Hands x $5 = -$4,980
400 Jacks or Better x $5 = $2000
50 Two Pair x $5 = $500
35 Three of a Kind = $525
5 Straight = $100
5 Flush = $150
5 Full House = $225
4 Four of a Kind = $500

This yields a net loss of -$980


WITH 20% REBATE FOR EACH LOSING HAND

1500 Hands = $7,500 Wagered (750 Total Reward Credits)

996 Losing Hands x $5 = -$4,980 + $996 Rebate
400 Jacks or Better x $5 = $2000
50 Two Pair x $5 = $500
35 Three of a Kind = $525
5 Straight = $100
5 Flush = $150
5 Full House = $225
4 Four of a Kind = $500

This yields a NET WIN of $16


These are very conservative numbers as really in the longer session there should be more straights, flushes, and full houses than 5 each. There should be more than 10 two pairs per hour so these are very conservative numbers...

[jbjb]

Fun fact:

All free play is effectively a 100% loss rebate.

Suppose a MGM sends you a mailer for $100 in free play. The way theirs works is that you have make an initial bet and are "rebated" it, win or lose, when the hand is over. Using quarter VP betting $1.25, if you lose, you get the $1.25 back. If you win, say a 45 credit ($11.25) full house, you get that amount PLUS your $1.25 back.

I'll bet some of you guys never knew that free play was a loss rebate.

[Alan Mendelson]

slapinfunk... without any winning hands and only a loss rebate, what would happen to your bankroll?

how much of the "win" comes from the rebate?

Is the win from the rebate enough to offset what you lost from the losing hands?

when you win, do you win from the winning hands or do you win from the rebate?

[SLaPiNFuNK]

slapinfunk... without any winning hands and only a loss rebate, what would happen to your bankroll?

how much of the "win" comes from the rebate?

Is the win from the rebate enough to offset what you lost from the losing hands?

when you win, do you win from the winning hands or do you win from the rebate?

It is all in the post...
1500 Hands = $7,500 Wagered (750 Total Reward Credits)

996 Losing Hands x $5 = -$4,980 + $996 Rebate
400 Jacks or Better x $5 = $2000
50 Two Pair x $5 = $500
35 Three of a Kind = $525
5 Straight = $100
5 Flush = $150
5 Full House = $225
4 Four of a Kind = $500

This yields a NET WIN of $16

Would you play video poker at all if you really lost every single hand?

[Alan Mendelson]

the point is, you should play for or depend on loss rebates. just as you shouldn't play for comps. If you are depending on loss rebates to bail you out you are in trouble. so I agree with you when you say: "would you play video poker at all if you really lost every single hand?"

you have to play to win. those loss rebates are there to soften the blows when you lose.

[SLaPiNFuNK]

the point is, you should play for or depend on loss rebates. just as you shouldn't play for comps. If you are depending on loss rebates to bail you out you are in trouble. so I agree with you when you say: "would you play video poker at all if you really lost every single hand?"

you have to play to win. those loss rebates are there to soften the blows when you lose.

Agree completely...

However, for sake of conversation, with the scenario you posted, you would have to be pretty special to not take the offer you presented...

I have always told you I am not into much bonus whoring... I wouldn't drive 2 hours to collect $200 of free play, but I would drive 35 minutes to collect $200 of free play. I won't drive the same 35 minutes for $25 of free play.

There are things I will take advantage of... In real life offers to purchase $100 in gift cards to a restaurant I frequent for an extra $25 gift card... Thats a 25% bonus to pay in advance. Sure I'll take it. Some grocery stores do the same thing.

You can look to squeeze every bit of AP out of real life... Buying bottled water is the biggest sucker bet there is. You can save a grip of money just getting a 1 gallon jug and filling it up for $0.30 with the same filtered water that s in bottles...

[mickeycrimm]

RS__ and everyone else: rebates on losing hands do not make you win. Give this a moment to sink in. What makes you win is hitting winners, whether it be at blackjack, video poker, roulette, horse races, etc. Rebates only return a percentage of your bet. Does anyone understand this yet?

Actually, it's the combination of winning and losing hands that would make you a winner. At almost 11% the losing hands would represent the fourth biggest contributor to the payback percentage, after high pairs, two pairs and 3-of-a-kinds.

PS: Redietz, it's gamblingtalk.freeforums.net. They are requesting that Rob join the forum.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't include losing hands as contributing to wins. That's like the "Phantom bucks" Rob Singer talks about.

If you want to include them in how you play go ahead.

[jbjb]

I don't include losing hands as contributing to wins. That's like the "Phantom bucks" Rob Singer talks about.

If you want to include them in how you play go ahead.

We both play $1 8/5 BP for just two hands. I get a 20% loss rebate and you get nothing. The first hand we both get two pair for a 5 credit profit. The next hands we both lose so we both lose 5 credits. Here you'll just break even. I'll get 20% back of that loss for a 1 credit or $1 profit. Who won?

Even if we lost both hands, I still come out ahead of you by $2. Like any other advantage play, you won't always win.

[mickeycrimm]

The "losing hands" pay a 5th of a bet. Since you get a return on them they are included in the payscale.

[jbjb]

I don't include losing hands as contributing to wins. That's like the "Phantom bucks" Rob Singer talks about.

If you want to include them in how you play go ahead.

We both play $1 8/5 BP for just two hands. I get a 20% loss rebate and you get nothing. The first hand we both get two pair for a 5 credit profit. The next hands we both lose so we both lose 5 credits. Here you'll just break even. I'll get 20% back of that loss for a 1 credit or $1 profit. Who won?

Even if we lost both hands, I still come out ahead of you by $2. Like any other advantage play, you won't always win.

The longer we play, the more likely I'll get ahead.

[regnis]

If I get even money or better on the win and only lose 80% on the loss that is certainly better than playing without the 20% rebate. Yes--you still need to win to show a profit. But you have that much better of a chance as your losses are reduced. This seems pretty basic to me.