Re: [vpFREE] Scot Krause's LVA Players Club Bonus Points Update - 1 DEC 2015

 

Scot, I couldn't understand the Orleans entry til I looked up the Orleans multiplier days on the B Connected app. I think it's got a typo where "12/25:" was inserted before "30x" instead of "15x": Dec: 15x pennies 12/4, 11 & 18; 12/25: 30x 12/6, 13, 20 & 27. 15x pennies/11x reels/7x vp; Age 50+ Weds Mystery Multiplier up to 50x. Swipe. Limits apply Should be: Dec: 15x pennies 12/4, 11 & 18; 30x 12/6, 13, 20 & 27. 12/25: 15x pennies/11x reels/7x vp; Age 50+ Weds Mystery Multiplier up to 50x. Swipe. Limits apply Also I believe the Wed 50+ mystery multipliers are only 7p-midnight. Regards, JD > On Dec 1, 2015, at 8:21 PM, 'Scot Krause' krauseinvegas@cox.net [vpFREE] <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > No. > > > > From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpFREE@yahoogroups.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 8:15 PM > To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Scot Krause's LVA Players Club Bonus Points Update - 1 DEC 2015 > > > > > > So the 7x on Saturdays at the Gold Coast was not on your "open to the public" list???? > > ------------------------------------------ > Jean $¢ott, Frugal Gambler > http://queenofcomps.com/ > http://jscott.lvablog.com/ > UPDATED TAX BOOK > (Download 2015 eBook now) > > From: mailto:vpFREE@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 7:27 PM > To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Scot Krause's LVA Players Club Bonus Points Update - 1 DEC 2015 > > That is not from a mailer. It is what they sent me as "open to the public." > > Scot > > From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpFREE@yahoogroups.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 6:58 PM > To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Scot Krause's LVA Players Club Bonus Points Update - 1 DEC 2015 > > I am wondering if the 7x for VP on Sundays listed for the Orleans is for everyone, or only for people who get a mailer? In the past I often haven't been able to get those kind of multipliers because I didn't get a mailer. Gold Coast is having 7x points on Saturdays, according to our mailer, but again is it only for people who get the mailer????

__._,_.___
Posted by: john.douglass@yahoo.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (6)

.

__,_._,___

RE: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LVA - 1 DEC 2015

You make some good points but I don't see a lot of comp hustling. I know many people who enjoy playing a hour or so at various casinos. In addition the costs of the comps is very small! Its a good deal for the gambler if they were to pay retail. For instance CET will comp a room they could not sell, and charge you the resort fee. Here is another example, my son is playing with me at a casino with FP VP and he complains after an hour that he lost $15, I saw that he had 6 drinks, so I said "you are killing the casino", he was drinking a premium liquor.However those drinks were only costing the casino $1 and he was paying part of the salary of the CW by tipping. There was a meeting last year in which the casinos executive were lamenting the comps that they were giving the Asian whales and their entourages! I wonder how the pioneers of this industry made any money when they more generous with comps and a skim was part of their costs.
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:06:54 -0800
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LVA - 1 DEC 2015


























Ken wrote: "The[y] should target the high stakes advantage gamblers! Sorry Bob. At paytables of .25 and less they will never get burnt because of the low jackpots..."





The problem with low denomination machines is the comp hustling, not everyone can play video poker at computer perfect levels, but just about everyone knows they should try to extract as much from the casino as possible and keep asking until they get a yes. The "resort casinos" have too many "amenities" and can't win enough from the low denomination machines to cover costs. Low denomination machines are of course fine at the airport and other low overhead casinos.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
vpFREE-digest@yahoogroups.com
vpFREE-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

[vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's Response

 

Barry wrote: "...is what they do in Nevada, like it or not - and the state law permits "trespassing" for any reason. In a state heavily financed by casino tax money, we are not likely ever to succeed in getting the law changed, or in persuading casinos not to take advantage of it."

Actually, the court of North Las Vegas has already determined that the law does not allow trespassing law abiding citizens. It's just a matter of time before the State Supreme Court makes the same determination. Bob Nersesian is looking for just the right case. Give him a call if you think you have one.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (3)

.

__,_._,___

RE: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LVA - 1 DEC 2015

 

Ken wrote: "The[y] should target the high stakes advantage gamblers! Sorry Bob. At paytables of .25 and less they will never get burnt because of the low jackpots..."

The problem with low denomination machines is the comp hustling, not everyone can play video poker at computer perfect levels, but just about everyone knows they should try to extract as much from the casino as possible and keep asking until they get a yes. The "resort casinos" have too many "amenities" and can't win enough from the low denomination machines to cover costs. Low denomination machines are of course fine at the airport and other low overhead casinos.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (9)

.

__,_._,___

RE: [vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's LVA - 1 DEC 2015

 

I think a lot of casinos keep the denoms low to keep the heavy AVP players away. Places like CZR don't want to give up the big denom players so they just killed the comps.

The only time I ever saw all the $1+ FB JOB taken in AC was during 10X pts or better. OK you could get one of the horrid seats in the main room of Showboat but that was about it.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: cdgnpc@aol.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (8)

.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Bob Dancer's Response

 

In response to some of the points below, first of all, while I agree that team play was a greater threat to the casino than individual card counters, my experience was that I was able to play as an individual and extract a significant amount of money from the game, until I gave it up due to the frustration of being barred (and losing my comps when that occurred, forcing me to check out or pay full rent for my room).  I believe that in the absence of barring, I could have easily made my living playing blackjack, if other counter-measures (see below) were not enacted.
Barring mid-deck entry and utilizing shoes do not "stop" card counters. 
Team play often involves a minimum bet player who keeps count and signals the "whale" (large bettor) to join the table when the count is favorable, which is not permitted if mid-deck entry is prohibited, so certainly that most common method of team play is stopped by prohibiting mid-deck entry.  In fact, that alone can stop virtually all profitable team play.
For the individual, however, while "back counting," also known as "Wonging" by the pen name of the person advocating this technique (observing a table with a few open seats and only sitting down and playing when the deck / count turned favorable) is an option, and one I tried for a while at casinos where mid-deck entry was allowed, most individual card counters don't choose to play that way.  I found myself spending over two thirds of my time not playing, and I felt I was less likely to be detected and barred if I just sat down and used the more common bet variation method.  I would bet small until the deck was favorable and then bet larger, and if the deck turned unfavorable enough to be unlikely to turn back to favorable, I would go to the rest room and not resume play until a shuffle was underway.
Shoes are not that much more difficult to count than single and double decks, but they do present two problems for the card counter -- first of all, the count MUST be adjusted to the size of the remaining deck (a good idea for single and double deck as well, but not as essential) and secondly, favorable opportunities to bet big are less frequent, so that the ratio of big bets to small ("waiting") bets must be much larger in order to get an overall advantage -- which significantly increases the chances of detection, which leads to barring, of course.
Finally, to the point that "no one should be excluded for playing the games the casino offers in the 
manner presented" -- while all players seem to agree to this (and not just advantage players and card counters), casinos have few options to overcome the advantage of these players:  (1) do all they can to attract losing players who will lose enough to offset the advantage players, and just eat the reduction in their profits that result from the advantage players, (2) bar the advantage players from playing, or (3) change the games to the point where the advantage players can't get an advantage.  One other option, not "comping" the advantage players, is certainly reasonable as well, but only reduces the money flow a little bit since those give-aways rarely cost the casino anything close to their face value.
(1) is clearly not going to be perceived as "good business" by the casinos, no matter how much we advantage players may argue that it's important for the casino to make all players think the games can be beaten by freely allowing skilled players to play (and I agree with the argument, especially since so many skilled players are not a threat because they make enough mistakes to wipe out some or all of their edge, and since so many misunderstand bankroll management sufficiently to lose all their money in spite of their skill).
(2) is what they do in Nevada, like it or not - and the state law permits "trespassing" for any reason.  In a state heavily financed by casino tax money, we are not likely ever to succeed in getting the law changed, or in persuading casinos not to take advantage of it.  They simply want to improve their player mix to include fewer of those who win (or, in fact, who are likely to win, as I've been identified as a card counter and barred in the middle of a losing session many times).  Their biggest mistake is when they exclude unskilled players who happen to win more than they would like, of course.  I don't think casinos are sophisticated enough to correctly identify advantage players while permitting unskilled winning players to continue to play, without making an occasional error with both groups.
(3) is what Atlantic City did with blackjack -- using 8-deck shoes and setting minimum / maximum table limits that prevented a card counter from getting an advantage - which does not usually impact a non-counter from how they would play anyway.  And of course, affecting all players, changes in the rules such as paying 6:5 for blackjack instead of 3:2, restricting double-downs to totals of ten and eleven, and others -- again, while affecting everyone, the losing player is often unaware, although some are smart enough to realize that such restrictions make them lose faster / more.  And also affecting all players, the changes in paytables for video poker that this list is constantly discussing and that is the entire point of vpfree2.
While I, of course, personally agree that the casinos should offer lots of games that I can beat and allow me to play those games as much as I want and with no restrictions that don't apply to everyone, I'm not so stupid as to think that they will do so.  Please understand that I'm not calling others who also want unrestricted access to beat-able games "stupid" -- although the title fits if they think things will change.

--Barry Glazer================

>>>I'm sure Bob won't be surprised that I mostly agree with his 
position, as operating games in a reasonable manner (using common 
sense to prevent giving an unfair advantage to ANYONE) is implied in 
my  original thesis.  One was even stated directly:
>
> For example, card counting posed a real "threat" when practiced by 
> organized teams, with counters spotting opportunities and well 
> financed bettors jumping onto them.  This was easily eliminated by 
> barring mid-deck entry and utilizing shoes rather than single decks.

...
What Bob didn't address (and I suspect he agrees with me) is that no-
one should be excluded for playing the games the casino offers in the 
manner presented.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: Barry Glazer <b.glazer@att.net>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (2)

.

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