My husband sent the following to the Palms, and gave me an O.K. to post on VPFree:
(I don't exactly agree with his evaluation of the buffet.)
Here it is:
I was in the Palms yesterday (1/21/13) and noticed some large yellow signs
advertising "full pay" video poker. These signs contained numerous errors, a few
of which I will point out. First, however, I would like to share the definition
of "full pay" because these signs indicate that whoever put them up does not
understand this concept.
A "full pay" video poker game is the best generally available version of that
game. It may or may not pay back to the player 100 percent or more with perfect
play at maximum bets. Full pay deuces wild -- which you have in a separate group
of machines -- can in fact pay back more than 100 percent. Full pay jacks or
better, on the other hand, cannot. (Of course, even games that can return more
than 100 percent rarely do, because very people can play perfectly.)
The game you have labeled full pay deuces wild and designated as "program --
4/10" is in fact what video poker players refer to as "not so ugly" deuces and
is characterized by its payback for the five of a kind (16) and straight flush
(10). This game has a maximum payback of 99.73 percent, not the 98.8 percent
stated on your sign. Even at 99.73 percent, the payback of this game is a more
than a full percentage point less than the payback of the real full pay deuces.
Also erroneous was your sign for the "8/4" loose deuces. This is not the full
pay version of this game. The full pay version pays 12 for five of a kind for an
overall maximum payback of 100.15 percent. The game you are offering has a
maximum payback of 99.2 percent, not the 98.2 stated on your sign. Even at 99.2
percent payback, your version is vastly inferior to true full-pay loose deuces.
At 98.2 percent, it would be laughably bad.
A staple of local advertising is bragging about a casino's large number of
video poker games with 99 percent payback or better. The Palms looks pretty
silly touting as full pay a game with 98.2 payback -- especially since that
figure isn't even correct!
Furthermore, there is nothing at all special in the Vegas market about these
games at the denominations you are offering -- 25 and 50 cents. Many casinos
offer the 16/10 deuces and actual full-pay loose deuces at much higher
denominations, thereby attracting players who bet more and, in the long run,
lose more. It is also unusual that you are reducing the points earned by half
for playing the games you have labeled full pay. Most casinos reduce points only
on games that return more than 100 percent.
When I saw these signs, I asked to see a slot supervisor to point our the
errors. In talking with this gentleman, whom I will not name to protect the
guilty, it became apparent to me that he had no knowledge whatsoever of the
different versions of these games or even of the concept of "full pay" video
poker. It is equally apparent that whoever approved the posting of these signs
is unqualified for his or her job.
In fairness, I will say that I like the buffet better under the Palms' new
ownership, and the background music in the casino is less objectionable that it
was. As far as the casino floor goes, however, I cannot think of a single change
that has been handled well. The overall impression I get is of a management that
lacks a clear vision. There appears to be -- at best -- an indifference to the
video poker playing locals George Maloof carefully cultivated as a key part of
his customer base.
I am frustrated with the past year's disappearing games, moving machines, and
inability of managers on the floor to provide help or any useful information. At
this point I am looking hard for some good reasons to keep playing at the Palms.
Can you give me any?
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
