Casino Perpetual Comp Machine

Interesting indeed.

How does this information reflect on the basic rule that professor ditz cited above?

Does the ditz know not of what he speaks?

 

According to the Caesars Rewards website, sports betting and video poker earn the same comps.

Are they not following ditz's rule, that the more beatable a game, the tighter the comps?

https://www.caesars.com/myrewards/earn-and-redeem

VIDEO POKER
Earn 1 Reward Credit for every $10 wagered through video poker.

SPORTS
Earn 1 Reward Credit for every $10 of wager on sports bets placed

 

How about the Social Security game? Are you beating that one?

 

A key statement here is "Some machines have lower earn rates and these machines will be clearly marked with lower earn rates." According to a recent article by Bob Dancer, games like 9/6 Jacks, 99.54% get 1 Reward Credit for every $25 wagered at the Caesar's properties in Las Vegas. It's most likely that only their games between 98% and 99% get 1 Reward Credit per $10 wagered.

Back when people were chasing 7 Stars level there was internet activity about where to get 9/6 Jacks on a Caesar's property with 1 Reward Credit per $10 wagered instead of $20 or $25. There used to be a few spots around the country. But it dwindled down to just Harrah's Tahoe.

 

OK...but what is comrade saying below...which game is more beatable, betting sports or VP?

 

For blackjack points earned and offers varied not only by perceived more beatable games, but also by player skill level. 2 different pit folks told me of the same 4 level rating levels used for blackjack players. The top level being AP or whatever label they put on it, the next level being a solid basic strategy player, and two lesser levels below that, sometimes carried a rather unflattering label.

What this meant was 3 players could wager the same amounts for the same period of time on the very same game and receive very different comp amounts and offers, with the top rated player being knocked down to next to nothing probably right before he was cut off completely. And I am pretty sure you aren't going to find any mention of that on their website.

Now I don't know if they do similar with machine players, rating different players differently for similar play and amounts based on percieved skill level. I doubt they have people assigned to that like they do with pit people and table games, but there may well be some computerized system that can rate a players play in terms of skill.

I know back when I first noticed Boyd cutting offers, probably 7 years ago now, if a player were to play the higher return machines like mickey mentioned 9/6 or machines over 100% return and/or only played on multiplier days, you could be sure your offered would be cut vs someone playing not being so obvious. I guess something like that would be the first step to a skill based machine rating, similar to what was described to me regarding blackjack.

 

And this has always been the contradiction to the Mdawg "story". He claims he gets all these comps and even just about tells them what average bet to record him at. If that is true, and I suspect it is,....it is because they KNOW, not suspect or undecided, but absolutely KNOW that he is a losing player over the long run.

That has always been the conflict within this guy's story. If you remove all the claims of winning, winning, winning, then everything else about the story makes sense and falls into place. AND I proved that last year when I posted information from results of his play and all of the sudden 7 months and over a million dollars in claimed winning disappeared overnight. You take out the winning and Mdawg is a higher end player being comped accordingly, maybe even playing the comp game well. But that is not the "story" he wants to tell.

 

What do you mean..."this" ?

They rate baccarat players based on skill?

 

And this is what I mean by someone being out of their depth. LOL.

Coach, the hold on straight sports wagers and video poker hold, for the general public, should be roughly comparable. So in theory, the comps should be roughly comparable. The problem with a parallel comparison is that one is a strictly mathematical game and the other is a game of opinion with vacillating numbers. So while CET may set their comps for sports and video poker on a roughly equivalent footing, other places do not. The history of CET comps and limits has its own narrative. I did a survey of limits and comps at sports books around Las Vegas about 12 years ago, including CET properties. A chunk of the survey was published in PlayBook and I still have the surveys around here somewhere.

What was interesting was that CET yoked betting limits to card statuses, and in a fluid, subjective way. The answers I got regarding comps were also fluid, based both on personal card status and personal betting history (did you win or lose?). Of course, that was 12 years ago or thereabouts.

Now onto the present and places other than CET. For example, if you directly examine what Boyd is currently doing with sports comps, they tie their comps to payout odds. It was quite shocking to me that they would do this publicly, but it's right there in their current brochures, which coach should pick up and read the next time he visits Las Vegas. Boyd has formalized this "general rule" of comping more heavily based on the hold of particular wagers. Wagers with the bigger holds, namely parlays, get differently scaled comps based on the payout odds.

And of course horse betting comps are scaled differently than sports, based on the hold. Much more of horse betting stays with the house, percentage-wise. So comps are more generous.

Boyd basically formalized into a set scale what I suggested above. And I did use the words "in general," which means there are exceptions.

So coach, unless you actually know what you're talking about, best to keep your naivete (in general) to oneself.

 

Coach tries so hard to debunk people who actually know what they're talking about. I bet that the dude didn't even know card status affects bet limits at CET or that games are put into tiers so that limits vary depending on the designation of the games. And he's probably spent ten times more hours on CET properties than me.

As Professor Trump says, "SAD!!!"

 

Same for CET...

SPORTS
Earn 1 Reward Credit for every $5 of potential profit on sports bets placed.

SLOT MACHINES
Earn at least 1 Reward Credit for every $5 you play on a reel slot machine.

So what was your point here (below)....?

So, which is the more beatable game...sports betting, baccarat, VP or slots?

 

I'm not trying anything of the sort.

I'm copying and pasting information from sources, then asking questions about the info that was presented.

In an effort to duck the questions, you squirmingly imply that the examiner has a nefarious motive.

That's because you are a ditz.

 

You made the comparison.

Did you fail to acknowledge the problem when you originally made the comparison?

 

Coach, you don't know enough to engage with me. It really is that simple.

You're using CET current (as in not 10 years ago) comp rules as representative of comp rules across all sports books and casinos. CET's current rules don't reflect the industry and they don't even reflect CET historically.

Boyd's current rules reflect the industry and they reflect CET historically.

The most beatable game, for experts, is sports betting. That doesn't mean the hold for civilians betting sports is less than for other casino games. For straight bets made by civilians, the holds for sports betting and video poker are comparable.

 

I am examining the information that you presented.

Here are the conditions that you presented earlier today...

Does this standard reflect the industry?

Would CET's current rules place qualify them as liberal or tight?

 

I am sure that REDietz concedes what I said here:

which actually does contradict what he wrote before

about how the "beatability" of the game translates to % of comps offered.

Comps are offered according to the exact formula I posted above, and in no other way.

Meantime we may ignore the UNKewl Chameleon who is once again trying desperately to appear as though he knows something, after having brushed up on the topic which I have lived for longer than he's played blackjack (which would not be hard to do, in that he hasn't and doesn't play much). As Coach Belly has pointed out, there are single days when I have won more at BlackJack than UNKewlJ has in a whole year, but I'd opine that I've won more in a single day than UNKewlJ has in his entire LIFE - in that UNKewlJ hasn't played much at all (except in his overactive imagination).

The GALL of an UNKewl Chameleon trying to lecture anyone, let alone The Pope of Las Vegas, on how Las Vegas works. He loses, he never gets comp'ed, so he figures no one may be winning or getting comp'ed as well.

 

He implies that comps for sports betting are tighter than for baccarat..and by extension tighter than VP & slots.

But he hasn't offered any information to support his position.

All of the information he's presented so far contradicts that.

$1 comps for $500 wagered is loose for slots, $1 for $240 or $400 would be more liberal than what's offered for slots.

 

Yes, the numbers he offered of "a dollar in comps for every $240 in the liberal places and $400 or $500 in the tight" contradict that sports betting offers much different comps from Baccarat, and yes, again, he hasn't offered any evidence that the "beatability" of the game correlates to the amount of comps offered, unless his definition of "beatability" is = What is the House Edge?

 

I said "became." That was at that time, namely 25 years ago. I was giving you a history lesson, since neither of you has a blessed clue.

I then said that sports comps had tightened further, meaning after the tightening to a dollar for $240 (loose) or $500 (tight), which was 25 years ago, comps became even tighter. If you guys don't know the historical context of what I'm telling you, that what I'm referencing occurred 25 years ago, I'm sorry for your lack of knowledge. But it's not my job to educate you when you don't know the history of anything.

You presumed when I said "became" that the tightening 25 years ago was the end of the story and reflected today's sports comps currently. It does not.

That is why I then gave the example that Wynn offered me lunch if I bet 20K THAT DAY. Note I said that day, please. That does not reflect some cumulative, let's keep a record for weeks and months fashion. Offering me lunch for 20K THAT DAY is considerably tighter than comps that accrue and stay in an account.

Reading is a tough skill. I get it. MDawg, I expect better from you. You're a decent writer. Pay attention to the tenses and phrases like "THAT DAY.".