Originally Posted by
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?
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
Reply With Quote