Originally Posted by
mickeycrimm
Rob did not say he would crush UX. He said he would play until he lost 400K or won 250K. But I get why you guys twist things up to suit your argument.
Yes, casinos avoid UX in high denom because they don't want the exposure. And even on the lower denom they put in bad payscales, 96% to 97% range.
Rob could have certainly negotiated them into the proposition. Casinos don't give blackjack players 20% rebates either. But Don Johnson, a very high roller, damn sure talked them into giving it to him. Money talks, bullshit walks. Those that can show some serious dough can get casinos to do a lot of things they won't do for the general public. So I see no conflict with what I said about high denom UX and what Rob negotiated himself into.
To be precise, though, Don Johnson did almost all of his rebate damage in Atlantic City, not Las Vegas.
I happen to actually know the details of some special negotiations for bigger sports players in Las Vegas. They are helpful and significant, but not overwhelming. On rare occasions, the general public has access to similar deals. So what I'm saying, mickey, is you shouldn't use the "money talks; bullshit walks" as some black box reasoning for why this or that happened unless you have direct knowledge of specifics for when it did make a difference in real life examples.
I have those specific examples, is what I'm saying, and I'm not sure you do. You "see no conflict," but how much experience or knowledge do you actually have regarding the subject of what a casino will do for someone putting 400K into immediate action? I know actual details and can provide specifics.