Any Experience with M Resort $500 Loss Rebate?

[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.

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.

Not exactly the way I want to play and definitely not the way I want to keep my books.

At the end of the day instead of losing $5 per hand you've lost $4 per hand. You think that's a measure of success?

Wow.

Once again: loss rebates don't make you win. They only take the sting out of losing.

Now to directly respond to the example you gave: is there a casino such as M that will give you a partial rebate with one lost hand, or do they want you to lose the entire $500 before you get the rebate?

I only know of rebates that are paid after the full amount is lost. So again do you want to lose to get back only 20% or whatever percentage of your money?

It's absurd if you want to lose to get a rebate that won't make you whole.

This entire discussion is absurd.

Rebates do not make you whole.

[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.

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.

How about the longer you play the deeper the hole? Oh I forgot. You always make a profit because you only play +EV.

[redietz]

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.

Well, it all makes sense now. If you don't count winning hands as contributing to losses, then you can play lousy pay tables and it doesn't matter because those are just the hands you won, and they don't affect your bottom line.

Sounds a little silly, eh? Also sounds like a CET bloke.

The problem, of course, is Alan's definition of "wins." He talks about them as if, in a vacuum from "losses," they have some gambling meaning or weight.

Interestingly, this parallels Rob Singer's focus on percent of session wins as opposed to an overall bottom line. Session wins mean nothing in a vacuum without counting losses. The resonance of the two ways of thinking is something I would not have realized if Alan hadn't gone on this compartmentalization trip.

[Alan Mendelson]

If you keep betting $500 and lose and keep collecting $100 loss rebates, pretty soon you will be broke. Is that simple enough for you to understand redietz?

[redietz]

Rebates in a scenario where you are guaranteed to lose before you activate the rebate can't make you whole. Rebates in a scenario where you are not guaranteed to lose before you activate the rebate can make you more than whole.

I don't know anywhere that forces you to lose before the rebate is active. As soon as you sign up for the slot card, the rebate potential exists.

As I said previously (if anyone was paying attention), I've done two of these where I made half the rebate amount upon playing initially, similar to what FAB did. I then stopped, similar to what FAB did. Nothing stops you from making that much or much more before the rebate kicks in. So what FAB and I reported can obviously be done. You don't have to collect the rebate for the ongoing presence of the rebate to be the reason you won. I wouldn't play lousy pay tables in the first place (like at Cosmo) if I didn't have the rebate backing me up. It flipped the advantage.

I'm really curious. Does anyone else reading this besides Alan not understand this?

[dannyj]

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

Seems pretty basic.

Mickey - A bit off topic but in general, if one got $100 in free play, would they be better off playing 20 hands @ $1 or 80 hands @ .25?

[jbjb]

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

Seems pretty basic.

Mickey - A bit off topic but in general, if one got $100 in free play, would they be better off playing 20 hands @ $1 or 80 hands @ .25?

All things being equal, it doesn't matter.

Personally, I prefer the lowest denomination to lower variance and avoid taxables.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rebates in a scenario where you are guaranteed to lose before you activate the rebate can't make you whole. Rebates in a scenario where you are not guaranteed to lose before you activate the rebate can make you more than whole.

I don't know anywhere that forces you to lose before the rebate is active. As soon as you sign up for the slot card, the rebate potential exists.

As I said previously (if anyone was paying attention), I've done two of these where I made half the rebate amount upon playing initially, similar to what FAB did. I then stopped, similar to what FAB did. Nothing stops you from making that much or much more before the rebate kicks in. So what FAB and I reported can obviously be done. You don't have to collect the rebate for the ongoing presence of the rebate to be the reason you won. I wouldn't play lousy pay tables in the first place (like at Cosmo) if I didn't have the rebate backing me up. It flipped the advantage.

I'm really curious. Does anyone else reading this besides Alan not understand this?

I understand it perfectly and you made my point. You won because you hit winning hands. You did not win because of the rebate. Are we clear?

Rebates on losses do not make you win. Rebates on losses only soften the blow of the losses.

[FABismonte]

Rebates in a scenario where you are guaranteed to lose before you activate the rebate can't make you whole. Rebates in a scenario where you are not guaranteed to lose before you activate the rebate can make you more than whole.

I don't know anywhere that forces you to lose before the rebate is active. As soon as you sign up for the slot card, the rebate potential exists.

As I said previously (if anyone was paying attention), I've done two of these where I made half the rebate amount upon playing initially, similar to what FAB did. I then stopped, similar to what FAB did. Nothing stops you from making that much or much more before the rebate kicks in. So what FAB and I reported can obviously be done. You don't have to collect the rebate for the ongoing presence of the rebate to be the reason you won. I wouldn't play lousy pay tables in the first place (like at Cosmo) if I didn't have the rebate backing me up. It flipped the advantage.

I'm really curious. Does anyone else reading this besides Alan not understand this?

Hi RED:

As the original poster, I asked a question about a particular loss rebate offer where I understood there was two possible outcomes I was interested in pursuing: (1) I win some money say ($250) right away on high volatility games I do not normally play like $25 Double Diamond Slots, or $5 Wheel of Fortune and quit with a profit; or (2) I lose all $500, then play a low volatility game like 9/6 JOB on the free play and then cash out my free play as soon as I can for an expected minimal loss on my $500. To the extent you are discussing the same situation, then we are on the same page.

That said, this thread went off on a bizarre tangent with weird non-existent hypotheticals of loss rebates on each losing hand, ect.

FAB

[jbjb]

Rebates in a scenario where you are guaranteed to lose before you activate the rebate can't make you whole. Rebates in a scenario where you are not guaranteed to lose before you activate the rebate can make you more than whole.

I don't know anywhere that forces you to lose before the rebate is active. As soon as you sign up for the slot card, the rebate potential exists.

As I said previously (if anyone was paying attention), I've done two of these where I made half the rebate amount upon playing initially, similar to what FAB did. I then stopped, similar to what FAB did. Nothing stops you from making that much or much more before the rebate kicks in. So what FAB and I reported can obviously be done. You don't have to collect the rebate for the ongoing presence of the rebate to be the reason you won. I wouldn't play lousy pay tables in the first place (like at Cosmo) if I didn't have the rebate backing me up. It flipped the advantage.

I'm really curious. Does anyone else reading this besides Alan not understand this?

Hi RED:

As the original poster, I asked a question about a particular loss rebate offer where I understood there was two possible outcomes I was interested in pursuing: (1) I win some money say ($250) right away on high volatility games I do not normally play like $25 Double Diamond Slots, or $5 Wheel of Fortune and quit with a profit; or (2) I lose all $500, then play a low volatility game like 9/6 JOB on the free play and then cash out my free play as soon as I can for an expected minimal loss on my $500. To the extent you are discussing the same situation, then we are on the same page.

That's exactly what you went to do.

Go back to the links I posted of Jacobsons articles. One of which will give you the correct exit point.

[regnis]

Rebates in a scenario where you are guaranteed to lose before you activate the rebate can't make you whole. Rebates in a scenario where you are not guaranteed to lose before you activate the rebate can make you more than whole.

I don't know anywhere that forces you to lose before the rebate is active. As soon as you sign up for the slot card, the rebate potential exists.

As I said previously (if anyone was paying attention), I've done two of these where I made half the rebate amount upon playing initially, similar to what FAB did. I then stopped, similar to what FAB did. Nothing stops you from making that much or much more before the rebate kicks in. So what FAB and I reported can obviously be done. You don't have to collect the rebate for the ongoing presence of the rebate to be the reason you won. I wouldn't play lousy pay tables in the first place (like at Cosmo) if I didn't have the rebate backing me up. It flipped the advantage.

I'm really curious. Does anyone else reading this besides Alan not understand this?

Hi RED:

As the original poster, I asked a question about a particular loss rebate offer where I understood there was two possible outcomes I was interested in pursuing: (1) I win some money say ($250) right away on high volatility games I do not normally play like $25 Double Diamond Slots, or $5 Wheel of Fortune and quit with a profit; or (2) I lose all $500, then play a low volatility game like 9/6 JOB on the free play and then cash out my free play as soon as I can for an expected minimal loss on my $500. To the extent you are discussing the same situation, then we are on the same page.

That said, this thread went off on a bizarre tangent with weird non-existent hypotheticals of loss rebates on each losing hand, ect. If Dan Druff is not fully occupied with the WSOP, I suggest that the tangential hypothetical debate on this thread be moved to its own thread.

FAB

Essentially FAB, to my understanding, you asked if you should go ultra aggressive with the free play. If you won big--great. If you lost, you play the rebate money conservatively one time through and try to minimize the loss. To me--good strategy. Apparently Alan does not agree as there is a chance you still lose big on the rebate play.

[jbjb]

https://wizardofodds.com/games/slots/loss-rebate/

[jbjb]

[QUOTE=regnis;49660][QUOTE=FABismonte;49658]

.......Apparently Alan does not agree as there is a chance you still lose big on the rebate play.

But yet he advocates high house edge sucker bets. It's such a shame...

[redietz]

We're on the same page, FAB. I play these as you just summarized, except I'm even more conservative as my idea of "high volatility" is double double bonus. That way, if I hit one or two four-of-a-kinds, I call it a day. If I don't get ahead a chunk, I lose the whole wad, then come back and play 9/6 Jacks or as close as I can get to it with the rebate free play.

Alan had some point, I imagine, with the rebate every losing hand question, but I don't know what it was. It was obvious to me that getting a 20% rebate every losing hand in vp turned it into a winner unless you were playing a truly bizarre (nonexistent) game.

[Alan Mendelson]

If jbjb is talking about Bonus Craps and being the high edge sucker bets, I have to remind him I have a profit on those bets.

But who am I to talk? He profits on everything.

[Alan Mendelson]

We're on the same page, FAB. I play these as you just summarized, except I'm even more conservative as my idea of "high volatility" is double double bonus. That way, if I hit one or two four-of-a-kinds, I call it a day. If I don't get ahead a chunk, I lose the whole wad, then come back and play 9/6 Jacks or as close as I can get to it with the rebate free play.

Alan had some point, I imagine, with the rebate every losing hand question, but I don't know what it was. It was obvious to me that getting a 20% rebate every losing hand in vp turned it into a winner unless you were playing a truly bizarre (nonexistent) game.

For the umpteenth time: the rebate doesn't make you a winner. Hitting winning hands makes you a winner. You still don't understand that?

Ironically both you and Fab hit winners and quit when ahead when using loss rebate promotions. So why did you win? You won because you hit winners and quit when ahead. The loss rebate wasn't even a factor.

[redietz]

Other than the fact we wouldn't have played without the loss rebate, yeah, it was no factor at all.

Again, I ask, do any readers besides Alan not understand the rebate advantage concept?

[Alan Mendelson]

I understand the rebate concept perfectly. It's a subsidy of your losses. If it keeps you at the machines longer so you might win, then good for you. But rebates that only return a portion of what you lose and do not make you whole can never make you a winner.

[a2a3dseddie]

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?

Let's say you flipped coins for $100 a flip. Heads you win $100. Tails you lose $100, but then get $20 returned to you. Over 100 flips, would you be ahead or behind?

Assuming 50 heads come up (+$5000) and 50 tails come up (-$4000) Wouldn't you be ahead by $1000?

[Alan Mendelson]

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?

Let's say you flipped coins for $100 a flip. Heads you win $100. Tails you lose $100, but then get $20 returned to you. Over 100 flips, would you be ahead or behind?

Assuming 50 heads come up (+$5000) and 50 tails come up (-$4000) Wouldn't you be ahead by $1000?

Let's say you flipped coins for $100 a flip. Heads you win $100. Tails you lose $100, but then get $20 returned to you. If the first flip is a tails how much did you lose?

If the second flip is a tails, how much did you lose?

You only "win" with "heads." Every "tails" only lessens your loss by $20 per flip.

The rebate doesn't make you win.

Now add on a requirement that the rebate isn't paid to you until you lose $5,000.