When 7/5 Bonus Poker is BETTER than 8/5 Bonus Poker.

[Alan Mendelson]

Brace yourselves advantage players and numbers crunchers because this might hurt: when it comes to earning 7 Stars at Caesars in Las Vegas, it is better to play 7/5 Bonus Poker than it is to play 8/5 Bonus Poker.

I just crunched the numbers with a lot of help from forum member John ke6cdh.

The conventional thinking is that playing 8/5 Bonus with a return of 99.17% is a much better game than playing 7/5 Bonus with a return of 98% but when you are working towards 7 Stars or Diamond it's not the case. The 7/5 Bonus game will actually cost you less. And the reason is that Caesars Palace (and other Total Rewards casinos in Vegas) have a rule that the 8/5 Bonus Game requires $25 coin-in for 1 tier point (also for 1 Reward Credit) while the 7/5 Bonus Game requires $10 coin-in for 1 tier point (also for 1 Reward Credit). So, here's the math:

Your goal is to play for 5,000 Tier Points each day for ten days to get the maximum 10,000 Tier Point Bonus each day. Combined the 150,000 tier points will give you 7 Stars. You will also get a total of 50,000 Reward Credits which is the equivalent of $500 in comps.

PLAYING 7/5 BONUS POKER 98% RETURN

You earn 5,000 tier points in a day with $50,000 coin in at an expected cost of $1,000.

Over 10 days that's an expected cost of $10,000.

You will also get $500 in comps ($50 per day X 10) so your net cost will be $9,500.

PLAYING 8/5 BONUS POKER 99.17% RETURN

You earn 5,000 tier points in a day with $125,000 coin in ($25 per tier point) at an expected cost of $1,037.50 per day.

Over 10 days that's an expected cost of $10,375.

You will get the same $500 in comps so your net cost will be $9,875.

Comments?

[Count Room]

If you're playing $5 BP ($25 per hand), it will take 20,000 hands to reach 7 Stars with 7/5 BP and 50,000 hands to reach 7 Stars with 8/5 BP.

With a $375 expected loss difference between the two, that is only 15 hands at the $5 level.

I'd actually consider playing the 8/5 anyway because of the 50,000 chances for a much-needed royal rather than just 20,000 chances at 7/5. The risk profile seems to be worse overall for 7/5 rather than 8/5 because of the reduced royal chance. With only a $375 difference I'd probably stick with the 8/5 assuming the freeplay mailers returned for play on the 8/5 machines are as good as the 7/5. That's a big unknown.

[jbjb]

Not worth $10,000 a year to me.

[Alan Mendelson]

Count Room if there are free play mailers they will be better for a 7/5 player because the house has a better edge. That's how casino marketing works.

I find it odd that you would raise the issue of playing more to get a royal. For TR members the objective is reaching 7 Stars at the lowest cost-- not playing for a royal. And if you want to keep playing for a royal you have some extra money from the 7/5 path to do it.

The point is simply this: when Caesars made those 8/5 machines $25/point they raised the price of 7 Stars.

Fortunately you still have a "deal" at Rincon where you'll also get bounce back money too.

[Count Room]

Count Room if there are free play mailers they will be better for a 7/5 player because the house has a better edge. That's how casino marketing works.

I find it odd that you would raise the issue of playing more to get a royal. For TR members the objective is reaching 7 Stars at the lowest cost-- not playing for a royal. And if you want to keep playing for a royal you have some extra money from the 7/5 path to do it.

The point is simply this: when Caesars made those 8/5 machines $25/point they raised the price of 7 Stars.

Fortunately you still have a "deal" at Rincon where you'll also get bounce back money too.

Alan: Yes, I fully understand that the theoretical loss factored into 7/5 BP may allow for better free play offers, but I am not certain at all how Caesars' operates in this exact instance.

The royal is extremely important in this case to prevent outsized losses beyond the expected $10,000. You only have a limited set of hands with which to meet or come close to the theoretical numbers if you want to rely on your calculations.

I'd still lean towards the 8/5 BP myself despite all the other considerations presented. It's your decision, though.

If nothing else ---->>> Just remember that going through 20,000 hands at 7/5 BP without a royal will likely cost you a lot more than 50,000 hands at 8/5 BP with one royal (both scenarios here well within the middle zone of the bell curve).

[Alan Mendelson]

And what if you play 50,000 without a royal?

[Count Room]

And what if you play 50,000 without a royal?

I will send you a condolence card if that happens.

There is a 71% chance you will hit one or more royals during a 50,000 hand 8/5 BP sample.

There's only a 39% chance of hitting one or more royals during the 20,000 hand 7/5 BP sample.


As Dirty Harry would say, "Do you feel lucky, punk?"

As an aside, you also have a better chance of hitting two or more royals going the 8/5 BP route.

This is when you would owe me a steak dinner, is that correct?

[Alan Mendelson]

Well, if the point was all about hitting royals then obviously the more hands you played the better your chances.

But this is not about hitting royals. This is about the expected return (yes, chance of a royal is included) and achieving 7 Stars at the lowest cost.

You should not be swayed into thinking that playing an 8/5 game is superior in this case. It would be at a casino such as Rincon where $10 of coin-in even on a $5 video poker game earns 1 point. But you have to think differently at Caesars and other casinos.

But if you want more hands to hit royals, play the $1 7/5 Bonus.

[Count Room]

Alan: I will concede that I was mistaken earlier in the thread by saying the 7/5 BP approach has a worse risk profile than the 8/5 BP. 50,000 hand sample at 8/5 has more volatility compared to 20,000 hands of 7/5 when final results are tallied.

It's just a personal preference of mine in this case even though the numbers are slightly inferior for 8/5. It's not about hitting royals for the sake of hitting royals. I would just rather be looking for a good chance of getting away with 7 Stars more cheaply with the understanding there is a small chance of a disaster (50,000 hands with no royal).

[Alan Mendelson]

You could also play 7/5 at $2 or $1 but you would just have to play more hands and spend more time. You still get one point for $10 coin-in and you have more chances to hit a royal. Perhaps then you would prefer playing 7/5 $2 as a compromise for the best of both worlds -- a lower cost than 8/5 Bonus and more hands to catch a royal?

[RS__]

Phenomenal thread Alan. Very eye opening. Not sure why you have the idea that APs would be playing to get 7 stars....or think your idea is new -- playing a worse return game because you earn points faster.

[Alan Mendelson]

RS___ There is no reason why an AP can't be 7 Stars. Even card counters can be 7 Stars.

[RS__]

RS___ There is no reason why an AP can't be 7 Stars. Even card counters can be 7 Stars.

Re-read my post. I didn't say APs cannot be 7 stars. I'm 7 stars, but it's not because I developed a plan to become 7 stars.

[jbjb]

AP's care about making money, not status.

[Alan Mendelson]

7 Stars also has a value to it. I will leave Dan Druff a true AP to discuss that. 7 Stars is more than "status."

[Count Room]

Alan: Playing 50,000 hands of $2 7/5 BP is a good idea if you want to smooth out some of the volatility associated with hitting royals or lack thereof.

If you fail to make any royals happen at the $2 level you would be expected to lose about $20,000. One royal will cut that loss to $12,000.

At the $5 8/5 BP level, the disaster "no royal" scenario would average a loss of about $36,000.

On the flip side, let's say you get really lucky and grab two royals:
You'd still be at a modest loss ($4,000) playing the $2 level, yet at the $5 8/5 BP level you'd actually be ahead $6,000 by the time you finish your quest for Seven Stars.

The difference is even more pronounced at three royals, and so on...

[Alan Mendelson]

it's not because I developed a plan to become 7 stars.

There are advantage players who do have a plan, and by following their plan their goal is to get their 7 Stars at the lowest possible cost -- and hopefully with a profit. If you are a recreational player a plan might not matter to you. But for an AP who goes through the trouble of card counting, or learning proper strategies, or playing for maximum comps, or being aware of wins and losses, having a plan to reach 7 Stars makes 100% sense.

In fact, if you don't have a plan to reach 7 Stars then you can't possibly call yourself an AP because true APs have a plan for everything.

[jbjb]

There are advantage players who do have a plan, and by following their plan their goal is to get their 7 Stars at the lowest possible cost -- and hopefully with a profit. If you are a recreational player a plan might not matter to you. But for an AP who goes through the trouble of card counting, or learning proper strategies, or playing for maximum comps, or being aware of wins and losses, having a plan to reach 7 Stars makes 100% sense.

In fact, if you don't have a plan to reach 7 Stars then you can't possibly call yourself an AP because true APs have a plan for everything.

AP's don't aspire to be 7 stars, noir, or anything else. If we get it, cool. First and foremost is beating casino games for profit. 7 stars, noir, etc., can't pay the bills.

[Rob.Singer]

AP's care about making money, not status.

Making money is the ONLY thing that's important to me also, but I go a step further. I'll accept all slot club benefits but overall use very few of them.

The moment any player concerns themself with status, that's the moment they enter the Jean Scott Hall of Shame. And whenever any player finds himself or herself continually roped in to any casino thru offers, that is the moment they should quit gambling.

[RS__]

In fact, if you don't have a plan to reach 7 Stars then you can't possibly call yourself an AP because true APs have a plan for everything.

Umm....wtf? I didn't go on some quest to become 7 *....so obviously there was no plan for it.


Alan, you speak about APs as if you were an AP....but you really have no idea about advantage play. I like seeing your quote of Wiz in your signature -- it's a quick reminder that you usually don't know what you're talking about, especially when it comes to anything AP related.