Foreign Currency Bonus Discussion

[Linus]

Only those who are truly bonus whores would take offense to anything I said because I speak the truth. If you're out to never spend any of your own money or only just enough of it to meet whatever requirements are necessary for you to do your thing .... then live with the image you created and don't take offense at me for stating the obvious.

I think that you'll find that - other than on affiliate bulletin boards - bonus chasers/whores/whatever, are are looked at with less disdain than affiliates.

[Simmo!]

I think that you'll find that - other than on affiliate bulletin boards - bonus chasers/whores/whatever, are are looked at with less disdain than affiliates.

Probably true

In an ideal world, an affiliate acts as the middle "glue" between the casino and the player. Sadly, that is more the exception than the rule, and the majority of casinos incentivize affiliates to act as an extra promotional arm.

In light of that, it's not unrealistic to expect players to see it how it is after all. But like in any area of business, there are different areas of motivation. And the same goes for the player side too. Some go for bonuses, some don't - thats the way life is and good luck to 'em i say

What grates is when people deliberately try to bend the rules, or act in a way that is largely unethical. Plenty of players and affiliates alike do this and money is the root cause - we're not the only industry with problems like this let's face it. Additionally, when certain people (no-one specific in mind) lump all types of player and/or all types of affiliate into one basket and voice a group judgement publically. In essence, this is also what HR4777 is based around too, although its being dressed up as a "control" issue for obvious political reasons.

Someone in one of my threads recently, intimates that because I am an affilliate, i have an ulterior motive to the subject of the thread and in essence is implying that I shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion on the matter - or perhaps more accurately, that my opinion is irrelevant because i would be biased. Fair enough - they are perfectly entitled to their opinion, and i wasn't going to debate the rights and wrongs, but it's indicative of my previous paragraph where assumptions are made based on your line of business.

Of course, this is where forums are so much fun. Different opinions, open debate, even arguments...they keep us coming back for more. I just think it's important to respect other people's right to their choices and to remember that while it might seem like we do, we are usually talking to people we don't know the first thing about. Those who don't show a degree of respect, or those who get a tad over-emotional on a subject, or use it as a soap-box, often find out that it does their reputation more damage than good. A current example of emotion hindering judgement can be found here in another forum.

But back on subject, I certainly wouldn't jump down someone's throat for taking a bonus in £ when they live in the US. If the casino gives them the option, then it's fair game IMO

[vedat]

now a days how do people profit from bonuses usually they are 20x slots
and slots usually have %94-90 pay out 100$ deposit get 100$ bonus and you have to wager 4000$ just at slots and 4000$ slots should make you lose between 240$ to 400$ and i am sure people lose more than that even they hit something people usually lose them all becouse of wagering requirements
and still casinos dont like people who play with bonuses there must be a trick at there

[vinylweatherman]

The trick is to calculate the "expected value" of a given bonus and the required playthrough. If the expected value is positive or near zero the bonus is worth a look, although it does not mean you will win.

Expected value is simply looking at the playthrough, and working out how much will be lost to the house in the long term due to the house edge. For 20x on slots at 95% on a 100% match for $100

playthrough 20x$200 = $4000
expected loss is 5% of $4000 or $200; so you should expect to lose in the long term.

If Blackjack could be played, at 1% to 0.5% house edge then the calculation is different, the expected loss is only $40 (1%) or $20 (0.5%), and thus in the long term a bonus hunter would win provided they play to minimise variance.

Naturally, the idea of further bonuses is to encourage players to try again. An ideal loyalty bonus would be one that preserved a small (say 0.5%) house edge overall, but gave the clever player a real prospect of beating the WR by clever play. Despite the relative simplicity of the calculation, the casinos often cannot grasp this, and cry "foul" when they are outsmarted by players. Players also cry "foul" when cheated by the casino. If the casino has abided by it's own CLEAR terms, and the player misjudged the value of an offer, that's just tough on the player, but I sometimes see cases where casinos happily let players play and lose with bonuses, but don't like it when they finally win with one of them.

It is similar to our supermarkets. Bread and Milk are often sold at cost, or even at a loss; the idea being to get people to buy the other things on offer. If shoppers only went in for Bread and Milk, and waited till closing when they had to cut prices further to clear, would they be told to leave because they were abusing the Bread and Milk isle. (This can happen if you buy ALL the loss leader stock and leave none for others, but not if you just buy enough for your own needs). If everybody bought only Bread and Milk, they would have to increase the prices to ensure a profit. The casino equivalent is the steady tightening of WR rather than stopping bonuses. Who wants to be the first supermarket to NOT sell Bread and Milk, and who wants to be the first casino to totally do away with bonuses.

[42ndSSD]

Expected value is simply looking at the playthrough, and working out how much will be lost to the house in the long term due to the house edge.

Focusing primarily on expected value is pretty traditional approach. It's not a bad method, but it makes a couple of assumptions which don't apply to most bonus play--the worst of which is that you'll be able to play bonuses forever.

While I don't want to turn this into BW 101, and this is bound to be either an offensive or boring post for some, there are probably some useful ideas for non-bonus gambling as well.

The really important figure for bonus (ab)use is the Risk of Ruin (RoR). While the house edge figures prominently in RoR, there are other significant factors to be considered such as bet sizing and game variance.

RoR is essentially the odds of losing an entire starting bankroll. For games with a positive return, RoR is the chance of going broke over an infinite period of time. For games with a negative return (which of course make up the majority of casino games) it's the chance of going broke over a specific set of conditions: for example, playing the game a set number of times or stopping when a specified bankroll is met.

RoR is more important than expected value because few of us will play enough sessions to approximate the expected long-term return on a per-session basis. Minimizing RoR usually maximizes the chances of getting a positive return from any given session.

In the following examples the player has a starting bankroll of $200, a profit is ending up over $100, and you have to place $2500 worth of bets before you can cash out. All of the figures are taken from simulations, but they should be accurate to within 1%.

Let's consider RTG Pontoon with $1, $5, and $25 bets. What bet size is best? What are the chances of coming out ahead?

Typical but incorrect answers are "$25 bets" and "excellent, Pontoon has a really low house edge". You're placing fewer bets so $25 is lots faster, plus your long-term return is slightly higher. So $25 must be the best option... right? And when you win, you can get some pretty impressive wins. (Those are actual arguments I've read.)

The right answer is $1 bets. The probability of winning any given session (ending up over $100) is .89 for $1 bets, .67 for $5 bets, and .39 for $25 bets. Worse, the probability of having 3 consecutive losing sessions with $25 bets is .23, versus only .001 for dollar bets. And, the majority of the time you'll lose both the bonus and deposit on $25 bets--while with dollar bets only rarely will you end up completely broke, and the remaining money can then be used for the next bonus.

As for the "increased return", the average long-term return for $25 bets is only about $6 higher than the return from dollar bets. Hardly worth it. Sure, you get some impressive wins... and some mighty impressive losing streaks.

Another very good option for this bonus is single hand 9/6 Jacks or Better with quarters. The probability of completing the bonus with a profit is about .84. (This figure is very different from what you'd expect by just looking at the house edge.) If you're really dedicated, nickels are extremely safe (99% chance of earning a profit) but 40,000 hands for an average $87 profit is a lot of work.

Other points:

Baccarat is a better option than Pontoon with $5 and above bets even though the house edge is much higher; the probability of completing the bonus with $5 Baccarat is .76, and it's just about 50/50 with $25 bets. (Assuming Baccarat is allowed, that is. Usually it isn't.)

House edge makes a significant difference in the JoB example. 6/5 JoB with $1 or below bets is a long-term loss with this bonus. With $5 bets you'll probably come out slightly ahead in the long run, but the probability of winning any given session is only about .25--a total crapshoot, in other words. (It's safest to say that 6/5 JoB is a lose, period.)

Slots are rarely a good option for bonus hunting even with a 99.9% return and a smaller WR, because the odds of making a profit are surprisingly low even with penny bets.

[GrandMaster]

The risk of ruin is almost irrelevant unless the you $100 is all your wealth and you don't have a job or another source of income, or you are following some extreme strategy which is unlikely to provide a profit in this lifetime despite the positive expectation. You are also forgetting the time factor, if you bet bigger, you can clear the WR in less time, and you can do something more useful with your life than pressing buttons.