VIP Casino Reward Scheme

[mitch]

VIP Casino have a monthly reward scheme were they comp you 10% of all losses in a month or 1% of all winnings. There are no wagering requirements on these bonuses.

If you were to make one bet of say $1000 each month you would either win $1010 or lose $900. If this bet were made on a low house edge game such as blackjack this seems to give the player a very considerable advantage.

I am thinking of trying this approach but would like to know whether any other members have tried this and what reaction they got from the casino if any.

Any thoughts or opinions out there?

Mitch

"win dont gamble"

[KasinoKing]

You probably don't want MY opinion! But I'll give it anyway:-

ONE bet of $1000 each month? ..... Hmmmmm....

You're fricking CRAZY!!!

I can't imagine how you'd feel if the dealer pulled a Blackjack 4 months in a row!

(Why don't you just try gambling instead - it's MUCH more fun! )

[sw2003]

Dealer only needs to win 4 months in a row, no need for BJ!

[DeMango]

Even though BJ has a low house edge you only win 47.5% of hands not including pushes. Compare to Craps 49.3%, Bacarrat Banker 50.68% or Player 49.32% Just a few stats to stir the pot!

[ayedub]

Mathematically speaking, wouldn't you be best off with a game where you lose the most percent of the time (discounting house edge), since you're getting the most money back when you lose.. So a bet that wins 1-in-100, and pays off 99-1 would yield a 10.9% player edge, whereas a 50-50 bet that pays 1-1 only yields a 5.5% player advatange...

Anyways, I'm just saying I'd play blackjack.

[dickens1298]

VIP Casino have a monthly reward scheme were they comp you 10% of all losses in a month or 1% of all winnings. There are no wagering requirements on these bonuses.

If you were to make one bet of say $1000 each month you would either win $1010 or lose $900. If this bet were made on a low house edge game such as blackjack this seems to give the player a very considerable advantage.

I am thinking of trying this approach but would like to know whether any other members have tried this and what reaction they got from the casino if any.

Any thoughts or opinions out there?

Mitch

"win dont gamble"

Let's assume a house advantage of 3%. You made 100 $1000 bets, losing 53 of them, and winning 47 of them (yes, I realize the percentages may be a tad off..but bear with me):

Your net losses = 53,000 - 5,300 = 47,700

Your net wins = 47,000 + 470 = 47,470

Net loss = 230

Why not just save yourself the time and the opportunity cost of the money and give them $230?

[GrandMaster]

Mathematically speaking, wouldn't you be best off with a game where you lose the most percent of the time (discounting house edge), since you're getting the most money back when you lose.. So a bet that wins 1-in-100, and pays off 99-1 would yield a 10.9% player edge, whereas a 50-50 bet that pays 1-1 only yields a 5.5% player advatange...

Anyways, I'm just saying I'd play blackjack.

Put all your money on a single number in roulette and you will have 7.1% advantage. You just need a strong stomach and a big bankroll.

[GrandMaster]

Let's assume a house advantage of 3%. You made 100 $1000 bets, losing 53 of them, and winning 47 of them (yes, I realize the percentages may be a tad off..but bear with me):

Indeed, your percentages a tad off, that's a game with 6% house edge.

[KasinoKing]

Let's assume a house advantage of 3%. You made 100 $1000 bets, losing 53 of them, and winning 47 of them (yes, I realize the percentages may be a tad off..but bear with me):
Your net losses = 53,000 - 5,300 = 47,700
Your net wins = 47,000 + 470 = 47,470
Net loss = 230
Why not just save yourself the time and the opportunity cost of the money and give them $230?

Yeah, but 100 bets at 1 a month would take 8.33 years - so at least he'd be getting a LOT of entertainment for his 230 bucks!

[dickens1298]

Indeed, your percentages a tad off, that's a game with 6% house edge.

Mea culpa, but you get my meaning....