SICK OF MG

[mary]

Some whale playing down $280k is the same as 2,800 players playing down $100 each. No difference from the casino's point of view.

No, there's a big difference. The whale can survive variance much better than the low rollers and has more opportunities to choose to walk with a win before being down $280k

That's why big Baccarat players can whack a casino even though Baccarat has a house edge. That's also how The Pirate got a big win in Caribbean 21 and it's also how some bonus hunters make money: playing the variance.

However much you put into action, house edge is going to take its piece. What a player can do is gamble less; when you get a big win, take it out, savor it, spend it on something else, and then go back to your usual gambling habits. People usually don't ramp down on a big win; they ramp up and gamble more than they would otherwise.

Over time, the casino will get that win back. Make 'em wait for it.

[caruso]

A high roller, churn or no churn, can hurt them a lot more than a low roller...Sure they entice the whales back - no question about that....

The apparent contradiction proves the point. Why court, covert and comp just those customers who can hurt them? Because risk notwithstanding, they represent a large WIN RATE.

All the above regards RISK. It is not about win rate, the mechanics of the casino profit. Mary's post also addresses RISK. Apparently, Harrahs don't like whales. Fair enough - they represent too much RISK, win rate notwithstanding. These are separate issues, insofar as RISK has no bearing on win rate (apart from the obvious bust issue).

The high roller to the casino is the same as the casino to the card counter. The card counter wants as big a win rate as possible plying his EV+ trade, exactly as does the casino; however, the card counter has to balance his desired win rate with his risk, exactly the same as the casino wants the whale action but is inevitably faced with the risk factor. If you want $500 EV on every blackjack / baccarat hand, there is obviously a risk factor, dependent upon the size of the whale bankroll against that of the casino. The nickel slot junkies do not put the casino at risk, with the tradeoff that they represent less profit.

This is the RISK FACTOR. We are / were discussing the WIN factor, the profit factor and the attainment of such.

The casino desires (though may also fear) whale action because of the WIN RATE from the house edge on the massive churning of the bankroll. That is why they are courted. Risk notwithstanding, the churning of the bankroll ensures the win rate. $500 win rate per hand, or $10 average per "busted" low roller for X hours play? Come on.

Casinos are mathematical temples. There is no emotion involved, no "counting on" this or that to happen, such as players busting, as Ted suggests above. Players busting causes only one thing: a walk out the door. The casino does not want this to happen, because a player walking out the door is a non-profitable player.

[spearmaster]

The casino does not want this to happen, because a player walking out the door is a non-profitable player.

Surely you jest... a player walking out the door has already given his money to the casino. If there's no more, there's no more. Churn means absolutely zero in this case. There is no relevance between churn and a person who is broke - I fail to see how you can draw this conclusion.

I shall also repeat again - churn does NOT ensure a win. Churn will ultimately work in the casino's favor given probability. Volatility, on the other hand, means that the casino ultimately has a far better chance of surviving a player than the other way around.

You're right about whales - casinos definitely don't mind them if they don't encounter an untoward run of cards. But again, there is no guarantee. If the whale turns the tables and gets the better of the odds, and walks away, the casino is hurt big time.

However, it is ultimately the low-end players or slot players who make a casino profitable - this is well documented. I've given you plenty of reasons, such as amount of floor space occupied, ability to survive volatility, etc. which back up this assertion. You, however, claim that RISK is the objective of the casino - it is most certainly not. When you have a mathematical edge, the risk is always lower for the casino. But they cannot necessarily overcome the volatility of a whale should the cards turn his way. The edge is not so great that they can always defeat these whales.

Let me give you a real-world example. Store A stocks lots of chips and very little caviar. Store B stocks all sorts of caviar and practically no chips. Both stores are located in the centre of town.

Which store is more likely to survive in the long run? Which store will almost surely always show a profit?

No casino - I repeat NO casino - will risk the establishment against the strength and luck of a whale for long. No whale will ALWAYS be welcome at a casino under any and all circumstances. But the slots players will always have a home at any casino, which will fight tooth and nail to gain their attention.

Your assertions, in my opinion, are probably incorrect - but most definitely incorrect with regard to the North American and Australian markets. If you have any research which shows otherwise, please by all means produce it for I would surely like to see it.

By the way, have you noticed how much more space video roulette takes up in UK-based casinos of late? There's a pretty compelling reason for that... and it ain't in the hope that some whale is going to play video roulette...

[mitch]

Hi Caruso

Actually I think both you and Spearmaster are right here. Mathematically you are correct, house edge rules and the casino need only look at the totatility of bets and not how any particular player does. However, this is not unlimited, variance also rules and therefore a player could theoretically
take all the casinos money.
Variance means any player could do it though probabilty says it would more likely be a rich one than a poor one.

I don't want to post exactly what I do online but I like to reverse the position of player and casino I aim to deposit big and win only moderately. By using bonuses to get me part way to my ultimate target this means variance and probability are on my side as long I play a low enough house edge game and the casino tends to go 'bust', ie I hit my target before the casino hits it's target, the vast majority of time.
Only works with bonuses however. Can't beat the laws of the universe unless you are lucky and that would be just gambling.

Casinos like players who deposit small and try and win big. Bonuses then become only a very minor help to a player as they have a much bigger objective in mind.

I don't know how bonuses play into internet casinos published payout percentages but they seem to win more than their house edge notwithstanding on all their games over the long run. How come? what is driving these results? I know there are some stupid players out there but some games have no skill attached to them.

Mitch

[Slotmachine]

No, there's a big difference. The whale can survive variance much better than the low rollers and has more opportunities to choose to walk with a win before being down $280k

Mary, perhaps you misread my post. I said that there is no difference between a whale _playing down_ 280k as compared to 2,800 slot players _playing down_ 100 each. I was referring to an earlier poster's example of a whale actually playing 280k down to zero, not walking. The casino's profit is the same. This was to demonstrate the significance of the house edge in such a case. However, I agree, as I said in my post, that the casino would rather have the 2,800 slot players in real life, because they play high-variance high-house-edge games.

However much you put into action, house edge is going to take its piece. What a player can do is gamble less; when you get a big win, take it out, savor it, spend it on something else, and then go back to your usual gambling habits. People usually don't ramp down on a big win; they ramp up and gamble more than they would otherwise.

Here we are in agreement. This is also in my opinion the only "betting system" that works in limiting losses. This is what Caruso said could be put in a nutshell: wager less, lose less.

Nothing I've read here changes the fact the the house edge = the casino's profits. The more players, the more wagers, the bigger the absolute value of the house edge. Of course, the more slot players, the bigger the house edge.

I mean, the casinos really actually do calculate their profits with the formula I provided above. They don't calculate like this: ok, we busted out n number of players tonight, so we made this much money, or like this: ok, we had this number of whales playing baccarat, so we made this little money. No, they calculate like this: we had x wagers, we paid out y, we profited x-y, hey, in n weeks, that's pretty much exactly the house edge.

The big baccarat winners, the whales having a good streak at the BJ tables, the jackpots....those logging out after having cashed out....the casino doesn't care what you do, as long as you do something (of course, that only applies to the casinos that have a large enough liquidity to take a big hit now and then). The casino would rather you log in and hit the jackpot than not log in at all. Someone's gonna hit the jackpot anyway, it's not about individual players, it's about the one big huge roll made by all the players combined.

Cheers,
SM

[occ123]

I am getting a bit sick and tired of MG casinos, any time you build your balance up...On several occasions my wife on her computer and me on mine have had a reasonable balance in our accounts only to find if you dont take it out and continue to play on the slots pay absolutely nothing. It does not matter what games you play the payouts just STOP..I think the casinos which are all computerised have the ability to put a stopper on your account to make sure that you lose the whole damn lot...If this trend continues I can assure you they will lose two customers because I am sick of it...Its the same if you cash in, the slots go dead for quite some time..Do any of you guys and gals have a similiar experience ?.

Wayram, I think a lot of MG players have felt this way at one time or another. I have for sure. But the reality is, for the most part, the slots are random and what you are describing is probably more of a 'cycle' than a switch that the casino turns on. I've noticed at online casinos as well as land based, that you will win, win, win, win and then lose, lose, lose, lose, maybe a few more 'lose's following. It's what you win on the UP cycle that counts. At which point I personally will leave that game and move on to another and wait for another 'UP' cycle- luck allowing, that is.

[slashman]

the fact that the casino is pretty much run by computers is a scary thing.

they can pretty much do w/e they want with your money an you basically have no control.

I read that gambling programs are told what percentage of money to take and how much to hand out so if you put in 100 you will be getting back 45 if it is set to 45%. usually its not in 45 cent intervals but you get the idea.

Thank you,

George CHristodoulou

[gfkostas]

Kerry Packer was once rumoured to have won 20 consecutive hands of baccarat in 20 minutes at $250,000 per hand in a Las Vegas casino

Following up:

''Packer reportedly lost $16.5 million in three weeks at Crockfords casino in London in 1999, said to be the biggest loss ever sustained in the UK''

I cannot believe that any Uk casino can afford to have a 250,000 table limit as it was at BJ at the time. Truly amazing.....

[tennis_balls]

I said that there is no difference between a whale _playing down_ 280k as compared to 2,800 slot players _playing down_ 100. SM

perhaps he needs to give up golf and take up jogging a few times a week, but I really don't think it's courteous to make such a lightly veiled reference to the KasinoKing.