Re: [vpFREE] CET is getting tight on the freeplay

 


My biggest beef with CET is that the properties have not been properly maintained. The Rio in particular needs to be painted.

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 10:30 PM, Agonpd <agonpd@gmail.com> wrote:
 
getting back to the original subject title, am i the only one to be getting way more freeplay and airfare than last year? of course it could be that i'm just losing more than everyone else. <groan> and i was 7* Tier 1 last year, am 7* this year, so that's not it. curious. not that i'm complaining of course. just thought i'd chime into the conversation.



On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 7:42 PM, <davidcp789@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
Anybody noticing increased scrutiny when cashing out free play tickets? Hosts/suits show up instantly out of nowhere, tickets mysteriously don't work unless I go to the cage to get substitute tickets. I get the feeling that they don't appreciate all that action that I am giving them.



__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (10)
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] CET is getting tight on the freeplay

 

getting back to the original subject title, am i the only one to be getting way more freeplay and airfare than last year? of course it could be that i'm just losing more than everyone else. <groan> and i was 7* Tier 1 last year, am 7* this year, so that's not it. curious. not that i'm complaining of course. just thought i'd chime into the conversation.



On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 7:42 PM, <davidcp789@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

Anybody noticing increased scrutiny when cashing out free play tickets? Hosts/suits show up instantly out of nowhere, tickets mysteriously don't work unless I go to the cage to get substitute tickets. I get the feeling that they don't appreciate all that action that I am giving them.


__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (9)
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] CET is getting tight on the freeplay

 

You're clearly wrong on this. Have you not seen their recent quarterly reports? They continue to hemorrhage money - operationally (day-to-day, month-to-month), they stink as a company and that has very little to do with events of, what?, 5 years ago?


On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 7:37 PM, <vpbp2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

They got to be $23B in debt not because of their casino management but because of their ill-timed LBO and previous HET stockholders profited enormously.     That they haven't been able to manage that debt is all about current management and it's failures.    HET changed it's name to CET,  but deep down it's still the same old Holiday Inn casino group,  just headquartered in Vegas instead of Memphis.   Circus Circus became Mandalay Resort Group but deep down it was still Circus Circus.  


__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (8)
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] CET is getting tight on the freeplay

 

They got to be $23B in debt not because of their casino management but because of their ill-timed LBO and previous HET stockholders profited enormously.     That they haven't been able to manage that debt is all about current management and it's failures.    HET changed it's name to CET,  but deep down it's still the same old Holiday Inn casino group,  just headquartered in Vegas instead of Memphis.   Circus Circus became Mandalay Resort Group but deep down it was still Circus Circus.  

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (7)
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Majestic Star 1 - Gary IN

 

So far the remodel of the vp room has added nine "All Star II" machines. The only barely playable game on these is STP 10-6-5 DB.
Still some games on the back wall not yet active. Will check those later. I have updated the database.

Howard W. Stern

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Why you should care about the Kelly criterion

 

I believe that being cheated should rank ahead of either of the below listed two options as "the most common".
 
In a message dated 4/6/2014 12:10:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com writes:
 

There are many ways to lose at gambling, but probably these two are the most common:

1. Gamble on negative expectation (negative EV)

2. Gamble on positive expectation (positive EV) but bet more than double Kelly


Everybody knows about #2, it is commonly called betting over your head or overbetting your bankroll, but not everyone knows there is a mathematical definition (Kelly) for the concept, and many are actually overbetting Kelly thinking they are not "over their head" when in fact they are from a mathematical standpoint.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (9)
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] CET is getting tight on the freeplay

 

CET CEO Gary Loveman stated several years ago that he has only spent 45 minutes on a casino floor. Enough said.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (6)
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Why you should care about the Kelly criterion

 

There are many ways to lose at gambling, but probably these two are the most common:

1. Gamble on negative expectation (negative EV)

2. Gamble on positive expectation (positive EV) but bet more than double Kelly


Everybody knows about #2, it is commonly called betting over your head or overbetting your bankroll, but not everyone knows there is a mathematical definition (Kelly) for the concept, and many are actually overbetting Kelly thinking they are not "over their head" when in fact they are from a mathematical standpoint.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (8)
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Why you should care about the Kelly criterion

 

There are three Kelly regions. Less than Kelly is less average bankroll growth than full Kelly but less risk. This is the region that Kelly advocates operate in, generally betting less than full Kelly and only rarely if ever going to the full Kelly limit. The second region is more than Kelly but less than double Kelly. This region has average bankroll growth, but it's less than full Kelly with greater risk. Generally it's not seen as a prudent idea to take on more risk while accepting less reward, but there is average bankroll growth in this nosebleed region. The third region is greater than double Kelly, in this region there is average bankroll shrinkage. There can be higher highs, but periods of bankruptcy are also likely. If you play long enough in this region, you will go bankrupt. So, pick a Kelly region, and have fun. Or just ignore the math and see what happens.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (7)
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Why you should care about the Kelly criterion

 

James Bean wrote: "You must always wager *at* the KC number."

That's a common misconception of the Kelly criterion. Most Kelly advocates bet less than the optimal Kelly bet, rarely if ever going to the very edge of full Kelly. The reason is that less than Kelly is less average bankroll growth but less risk, that's always a reasonable tradeoff. More than Kelly is less average bankroll growth but more risk, that's not a reasonable tradeoff for someone that values their bankroll.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (6)
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Why you should care about the Kelly criterion

 

007 wrote: "It wold have to be a professional who knows enough to have positive EV but who is so blind to the danger of overbetting that s/he'll still lose. I think that's rare. I don't think "Fortune's Formula" made that case."

Of the professional gamblers that you know, how many have gone bankrupt at least once?

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (5)
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Vegas Values Report - 6 APR 2014

 

Vegas Values Report - 6 APR 2014

http://www.americancasinoguide.com/vegas-values/vegas-values-report-for-april-6-2014.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/lrb3z39

*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] CET is getting tight on the freeplay

 

The Sands in PA has trimmed back on weeklies and weekend freeplay. And it seems they're quite happy to announce a 5k jackpot on the public address system whereas a year or more ago the cutoff was 10K. Comp dollars aren't adding up like they used to. It's getting tough to make back even my gas money (for my 90 minute drive), and a little over a year ago I was hitting jackpots with some regularity on both slots and VP. Yes, it's anecdotal. But I've been going there since it opened and the screws are tightening.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (5)
.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Why you should care about the Kelly criterion

 

There's nothing catastrophic about betting slightly more than the Kelly Criterion would call for.   So, as 007 correctly suggests, if you bet a few percent more than what the KC calls for, you're going to have faster bankroll growth than if you bet, say, one-fourth the Kelly Criterion. 


That said, if you consistently bet more than twice the KC, it IS catastrophic. Your bankroll will not grow at all and will in fact approach zero in the longrun.  That's why NOTI's emphasis of the importance of understanding the KC is well taken, as well as his caution in betting over the KC.   

I don't agree with 007 that it's a rare positive-EV player who would benefit from a better understanding of the Kelly Criterion.  First of all, going broke isn't the only bad consequence of ignoring Kelly.   A stagnant or barely growing bankroll is also a negative consequence.   A "gut" feel for how much to bet is going to be extremely inaccurate.

--Dunbar

---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <funny.young.guy@...> wrote :

You are both wrong but in two different ways:

1 - you have to accept that the KC will only help *winning* players or help you at games with an edge. Period. If you apply it to a game with negative EV you will still lose.  So its really not fair to talk about gamblers that do it for "excitement". That's a misapplication of KC

2 - to say that "you can bet below KC but not above" is also misguided. You must always wager *at* the KC number. You must recall that the KC number is also designed to *optimize growth of your bankroll*. Knowing how much to wager on an edge is relatively simple calculation and/or monte-carlo simulation - that's just risk-of-ruin. But knowing how much to bet to *grow* your bankroll and get the most from any given EV, well, that's a whole other number . . . in fact, that's the KC :-)


On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 7:32 PM, 007 <007@...> wrote:
 

nightoftheiguana2000@... wrote:

>Don't get stuck if the Kelly bet is $5.522589, yes you can bet $5 and no you can't bet $6 or $10. It's that simple.

I think you're going too far here. It might depend on the situation,
since it's so close, but I believe there's more bankroll growth with a
$6 bet than $5.

But my main comment on a stress on the Kelly Criterion is skepticism
that stressing it is necessary. It's kind of like the situation with
Christians saying one has to accept Christ as their Lord and Savior or
spend eternity in hell, even if one was born into a country in which
no one is going to hear the name Christ. I happen to believe that
such people are not doomed to hell and will basically do all right,
even assuming that Christianity would have been a step in the right
direction, which I don't want to express an opinion about. What do
people without much understanding of the Kelly Criterion do? I doubt
if overbetting is generally much of a problem. Most gamblers can be
classified into the vast majority of losers, to whom Kelly would only
tell them to stop gambling, and professionals who, no matter how
unsophisticated their understanding of the Kelly Criterion is,
generally understand that they shouldn't bet more than a certain
amount and generally don't. I don't believe I've ever had much of a
sophisticated understanding of it, but I think I've done pretty well
in not overbetting my bankroll. And I'm skeptical that chronic
overbettors will be "cured" by understanding the Kelly Criterion.
Maybe they crave excitement so much that they wouldn't be affected by
such a cerebral approach. To make a case that the Kelly Criterion
needs to be propagated more, you'd have to show examples of people
whose failure had turned to success, not due to more positive EV, but
strictly due to not overbetting any more, with % EV held constant. It
wold have to be a professional who knows enough to have positive EV
but who is so blind to the danger of overbetting that s/he'll still
lose. I think that's rare. I don't think "Fortune's Formula" made
that case.


__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (4)
.

__,_._,___
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)