Any Experience with M Resort $500 Loss Rebate?

[a2a3dseddie]

I was only going by the way you described this hypothetical rebate Alan.

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?

In your example, you were paid the rebate on each losing hand.

I'm going to plagiarize a concept from Mike Caro's Chapter in Super System 2 by Doyle Brunson. It goes something like this.

A gambler finds a magic lamp and rubs it. A genie comes out and grants him just 1 wish. The gambler of course wishes for money.

Genie: How would you like to be ahead $100,000 this year after all of your gambling sessions?

Gambler: Sure! How are you going to do that!

Genie: Well, first you need to answer a question. Would you like me to ADD extra winnings onto each of your winning sessions totaling an extra $100,000 or REDUCE the amount you lost during each losing session to total the $100,000?

Gambler: It doesn't make a difference. Just do it.

That's right. It doesn't make a difference.

Of course your profits/losses at the end of the year do depend upon how much you lose.

In your example reducing your losses by 20% on each losing bet is huge. You effectively stand to lose only $80 per bet, but have the chance to win $100.

If you want to start adding in new requirements or stipulations, then we're talking about something else entirely.

[redietz]

I actually think Alan's mental treadmill on this has some value in terms of seeing how language affects thought processes. It also provides some insights into tense use and hypotheticals. In addition, it can provide a study in how level of analysis can be wrong, sometimes because of the language used. As one example, Alan tries to tease out "wins" from "losses" post-play and assigns the term "rebate" just to those hands that fall in the category of "losses." I suspect his thought question regarding 20% rebate per losing hand was meant to clarify his position. The fact is that the term "rebate" is a pre-play assignation to all hands played and the overall result. I am not a language expert, but it is fascinating how the language used affects the perception of what is actually in progress.

[Alan Mendelson]

The point is this: loss rebates have conditions that you guys are not addressing in your examples. I don't know of any casino that gives a rebate hand by hand or play by play. The only rebates I know of require you to lose a specified amount whether it be $500 or in the case of Johnson $100,000.

So, telling me that you get 20% here or there when you lose a hand is meaningless and argumentative.

Let's go back to reality. Let's talk about the M's promotion which is real.

You have to lose $500 to claim the rebate. The rebate is paid in two installments of $250 free play a week apart.

Is this still the pot at the end of the rainbow you think it is?

[a2a3dseddie]

The point is this: loss rebates have conditions that you guys are not addressing in your examples. I don't know of any casino that gives a rebate hand by hand or play by play. The only rebates I know of require you to lose a specified amount whether it be $500 or in the case of Johnson $100,000.

So, telling me that you get 20% here or there when you lose a hand is meaningless and argumentative.

Let's go back to reality. Let's talk about the M's promotion which is real.

You have to lose $500 to claim the rebate. The rebate is paid in two installments of $250 free play a week apart.

Is this still the pot at the end of the rainbow you think it is?

You were the one that came up with the scenario.

So here's the question: 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?

[jbjb]

Let's go back to reality. Let's talk about the M's promotion which is real.

You have to lose $500 to claim the rebate.

No you don't have to lose the whole $500. You can quit down $50 and get that amount rebated if you wish.

[Alan Mendelson]

You were the one that came up with the scenario.

I gave you the hand by hand scenario hoping that it would become clear to you that you are a net loser with each rebate paid hand by hand.

For the record, redietz and FAB both used the loss rebate promotion properly, just as I would: they played using it as a safety net but QUIT WHEN AHEAD with a real profit.

I know the words QUIT WHEN AHEAD hurt to read.

[mickeycrimm]

Once again Alan has succeeded in muddying up the issue. He switched us from the original post concerning $500 loss rebates to 20% rebates on nothing hands. When he got us going on that he pulled the switcheroo and went back to the $500 loss rebates. So now every post we have to clarify which situation we are talking about. Way to go, Alan.

His statement that you have to hit winning hands in order to win is true enough but it goes without saying. And somehow he thinks we don't understand that. But it's clear he doesn't understand the value of a 20% rebate on nothing hands. Percentagewise it's worth 7 times what 4 Aces are worth in the game. If you get a 5th of a bet return on losing hands then it becomes part of the payscale. And everything on the payscale plays a roll in winning, not just the big hands. Take a look at the game analysis chart I put up on page 3.

In 7/5 Bonus Poker 4 Aces pay 80 for 1 and they occur every 5106 games.

80/5106 = 1.57%

A losing hand occurs every 1.83 games and returns a 5th of a bet.

.2/1.83 = 10.9%

That's 7 times what the 4 Aces are worth.

You hit 4 Aces every 5106 games for an 80 bet return but in that same number of games you will hit a nothing hand 2,790 times (5106/1.83 = 2790) for a return of 558 bets. Everything on the payscale contributes to winning, Alan, not just the big hands.

[mickeycrimm]

Alan, you are probably not familiar with penny video line games as I've never see you write about them. They are what the bulk of people are playing in the casnos these days. But don't let the fact they are penny games fool you. You can bet $1.50, $3, $4.50 and higher per spin. There is a phenomenon in these games that you don't see in video poker, fractions of bets returned. You can make a $3 spin and get a "win" of just 60 cents. Technically, it's a losing spin but you "won something back." And this is equivalent to getting a 20% rebate on nothing hands in video poker.

Those fractions of bets returned in the video line games are part of the payback percentage of the game just like a 20% rebate on nothing hands would be part of the payback percentage in video poker.

[Alan Mendelson]

Yes mickey, penny slots are the biggest scam against players going in casinos today. The partial paybacks on those $3 max bets are what grind players to zero.

Yes, they are just like rebates that grind you to zero.

Once again, rebates don't make you win. Only winning hands and winning pays make you a winner.

Now I know why Singer is so critical of you guys and your "phantom bucks."

[mickeycrimm]

Yes mickey, penny slots are the biggest scam against players going in casinos today. The partial paybacks on those $3 max bets are what grind players to zero. Yes, they are just like rebates that grind you to zero. Once again, rebates don't make you win. Only winning hands and winning pays make you a winner. Now I know why Singer is so critical of you guys and your "phantom bucks."

Yes, penny slots are bad. But so is craps and sucker video poker both of which you play. "Only winning hands and winning pays make you a winner" is redundent. Everyone knows it so you are not breaking new ground here and you are not explaining something to us we don't already know. My landlord don't take phantom bucks, neither does the car dealer, insurance company, gas stations, restaurants, hotels, etc. I pay them up front for everything I buy with money I made gambling and have been doing this for over 21 years. And Rob's son-in-law, the IRS mole, can tell you I haven't cashed a paycheck in that same length of time.

[RS__]

Alan's been a lost cause for a while now.

[redietz]

Alan's been a lost cause for a while now.

It bears repeating. Alan is arguing that wins are all that matter vis-a-vis winning. If true, it necessarily follows that losses are all that matter vis-a-vis losing. If this is true, then pay tables become irrelevant to winning because you always win when you win, and the amount you win each vp hand isn't relevant to losing. If Alan were to argue otherwise, he would have to admit that the amount you lose each vp hand is relevant to winning, and rebates that reduce your losses are therefore relevant to winning.

This would seem to be a theory particularly helpful to those playing lousy pay tables.

Saying that you have to win to win is like my old coach informing us, "Boys, you have to be ahead at the finish line to win," at which we rolled our eyes and wondered how bad the cross-country coaching was in our neck of the woods. It tells you nothing about how to win.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob Singer is making sense more and more and more.

[mickeycrimm]

Rob Singer is making sense more and more and more.

Yes, I'm sure. Rob rails against loss rebates "you have to hope to lose." But you seen what he wrote just a couple days ago. He wrote that he jumped right on that Revel loss rebate promo. I'm actually surprised that he did. It shows he's not completely lost in the wilderness.

You are not actually hoping to lose. You are hoping for some short term variance to make you a winner, maybe about half the rebate amount, then you quit the play. And yes, you have to make some winning hands or spins to do that.

I would be interested in what Jacobsen said was the optimum pullout point. I'll have to go back and read that.

[mickeycrimm]

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?

I would go for the lower denom to smooth out the variance, even as low as nickels on freeplay due to loss rebates.

But there is a situation in Las Vegas where players are running a certain amount of action every month on a negative game like NSUD and receiving freeplay through mailers every month that makes the game a positive. In that case I would run the freeplay off on the same game at the same denom. RS probably knows more about this than me but I would do it that way because you could get no mailed doing it differently.

[Alan Mendelson]

Really? You mean QUIT WHEN AHEAD?

[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?

I would go for the lower denom to smooth out the variance, even as low as nickels on freeplay due to loss rebates.

But there is a situation in Las Vegas where players are running a certain amount of action every month on a negative game like NSUD and receiving freeplay through mailers every month that makes the game a positive. In that case I would run the freeplay off on the same game at the same denom. RS probably knows more about this than me but I would do it that way because you could get no mailed doing it differently.

Thanks Mickey,

I was thinking it might be better to play at $1's rather than quarters, variance notwithstanding. But that may be due to a recent short term memory event where my wife was playing off her free play @ $1's and was dealt quads on her first hand and built quads five hands later.

[bocce ball]

Alan's been a lost cause for a while now.

Sometimes I think I'm being trolled, but then I realize most gamblers are the same. For example if a casino drawing offers a choice of either $1000 cash or $2000 freeplay (non-reportable), usually some winners will choose cash, and the cash recipients will be more certain of their decision.

I'm sure many gamblers roll their eyes at the possibility that any loss rebate could be player-favorable.

[Rob.Singer]

Again, one need only look at the Wizard's "infamous words of wisdom" to understand why AP's come up so misguided when it comes to the basics of winning consistently at video poker--and why 5 more or less paytable credits here or there are NOT the most likely reason people win or lose any particular session. To refresh the one-track/true-believer minds here: "I'D RATHER MAKE A GOOD (aka, +EV) BET AND LOSE, THAN MAKE A BAD (aka, -EV) BET AND WIN!"

In other words, those phantom bucks sure are something special to AP's, and I'm sure he was sitting there counting them out in all his glory as he was begging for money from his forum members to keep liquid.

The reason I got involved in the Revel rebate was mainly to prove a few points to my LV "AP" friend. First, my strategy does indeed work, just as it has for me as I've continuously had 5 & 6 figure winning years for nearly 20 years straight. Secondly, I was schooling my friend that instead of going in either hoping to lose so he could use the rebate in order to attain his precious "+EV" out of his play on their negative machines, or utilizing his flawed thinking that he would best be playing only hi-variance games on his first $100k go-around....he could go in understanding that he could actually WIN! and leave after attaining our per-determined win goal--which he did. When he got back and I met him at the Venetian for dinner, drinks and to p/u my cash, he met me with the joke "I really didn't win anything at all and in fact I LOST!...because all I played was -EV games"! A great joke, to be sure.

[slingshot]

Again, one need only look at the Wizard's "infamous words of wisdom" to understand why AP's come up so misguided when it comes to the basics of winning consistently at video poker--and why 5 more or less paytable credits here or there are NOT the most likely reason people win or lose any particular session. To refresh the one-track/true-believer minds here: "I'D RATHER MAKE A GOOD (aka, +EV) BET AND LOSE, THAN MAKE A BAD (aka, -EV) BET AND WIN!"

In other words, those phantom bucks sure are something special to AP's, and I'm sure he was sitting there counting them out in all his glory as he was begging for money from his forum members to keep liquid.

The reason I got involved in the Revel rebate was mainly to prove a few points to my LV "AP" friend. First, my strategy does indeed work, just as it has for me as I've continuously had 5 & 6 figure winning years for nearly 20 years straight. Secondly, I was schooling my friend that instead of going in either hoping to lose so he could use the rebate in order to attain his precious "+EV" out of his play on their negative machines, or utilizing his flawed thinking that he would best be playing only hi-variance games on his first $100k go-around....he could go in understanding that he could actually WIN! and leave after attaining our per-determined win goal--which he did. When he got back and I met him at the Venetian for dinner, drinks and to p/u my cash, he met me with the joke "I really didn't win anything at all and in fact I LOST!...because all I played was -EV games"! A great joke, to be sure.

So Rob- how did you arrive at the 5 level win goal? Seriously. I know that $5 is the top level- or is it based on something else? I know also that a start at lower levels changes that.Thanks.