Dear CM, why do you help APs?

[dunover]

I give up, what's an AP?

'Advantage Player' - one who always takes a cashable bonus, plays low-risk 50-50 bets on highish stakes in order to make wagering requirement to cash the bonus+winnings out. On slots they may make high stake spins in order to try and get a big hit, then play minimal stakes on low-variance slots to burn the wagering requirement if they hit with the high stake. Most casinos have terms (varying in specificity) against such, but some are vague so the AP's try it on, only to find they don't get paid.

 

[skiny]

If the software was robust enough to ensure that invalid bets could not be placed, it would protect the casino from AP. The aspect of "nannying" would be a by product, but we all get "nannied" in a land casino in any case because the slot machines only accept the bets programmed into them, the dealers will not accept a bet greater or less than the table limits, and the player rewards will only work in the marked games programmed to accept them.

I agree. There's no good reason for software to accept invalid bets. We're not talking about programming an artificial intelligence or complicated algorithms. Knowing how much a player's bonus was and what percent of that he's allowed to wager only requires a small piece of data storage and a calculator.

These guys are a lot better at this stuff than I am so if I can do it, they can do it.

 

[skiny]

'Advantage Player' - one who always takes a cashable bonus, plays low-risk 50-50 bets on highish stakes in order to make wagering requirement to cash the bonus+winnings out. On slots they may make high stake spins in order to try and get a big hit, then play minimal stakes on low-variance slots to burn the wagering requirement if they hit with the high stake. Most casinos have terms (varying in specificity) against such, but some are vague so the AP's try it on, only to find they don't get paid.

What game has 50/50 odds?

Even playing black or red in roulette still gives the house an edge. You have less than a 50/50 chance of hitting either colour which means theoretically this should only work less than 50% of the time.

It would be really interesting to know how many times these APs try this and fail on the initial big bets. I think this is why many casinos don't give you an exact amount you're allowed to wager. If they let you try your luck at a few huge bets on a table game and you lose they keep the money. It's not until after the first half of the strategy works that the casinos start complaining about "substantially lowering your bet" again after moving to slots.

There is absolutely no strategy short of cheating that will guarantee you a profit when you gamble.

In my opinion, even if you are an advantage player, the casino still has the advantage.

 

[vinylweatherman]

What game has 50/50 odds?

Even playing black or red in roulette still gives the house an edge. You have less than a 50/50 chance of hitting either colour which means theoretically this should only work less than 50% of the time.

It would be really interesting to know how many times these APs try this and fail on the initial big bets. I think this is why many casinos don't give you an exact amount you're allowed to wager. If they let you try your luck at a few huge bets on a table game and you lose they keep the money. It's not until after the first half of the strategy works that the casinos start complaining about "substantially lowering your bet" again after moving to slots.

There is absolutely no strategy short of cheating that will guarantee you a profit when you gamble.

In my opinion, even if you are an advantage player, the casino still has the advantage.

This would be the case, provided those in charge have also passed their maths GCSE, and it appears that many have not. They probably graduated in "media studies" or some similar subject, so know how to market an offer, but are not so good at working out whether it is going to be of benefit to the casino or to the players.

For years, the bonus has been the main marketing weapon of choice, yet for years, the software has NOT been designed to properly support this method of promotion. What we have had are several attempts to retrofit software with bonus handling modules, with limited success. Casinos have needed complicated terms and conditions because the software is not capable of handling the implementation of the rules they want to set. If the software was properly adapted, there would only be one term and condition for every bonus ....

1. The software will only permit you to place bets that are eligible under the promotion you have opted into. Click here to see details of the bets you may place.

 

[ProbabilityZero]

Personally I don't "get" how betting high initially on a bonus and then betting low if you get a hit is an advantage play. You are just as likely to make a big loss as you are a big win! (In fact on a 96% slot more likely). I fail to see how preserving a win gained on initial stakes is a bad tactic. It is simply sensible. If the player had instead bet low to start with he would not have risked an equally dire loss if things go the other way. This surely cancels out the occasional big hit! The only time I see advantage play as an issue is with a 97% plus slot which on a 100% bonus match is mathematically likely to see the player profit long term on a 100% 30x wager. I have bet low many tines and been nowhere near making WR and have switched to an all or nothing tactic with higher betting. On average the results are no worse than starting with high bets and switching to low.

 

[jshort]

Personally I don't "get" how betting high initially on a bonus and then betting low if you get a hit is an advantage play. You are just as likely to make a big loss as you are a big win! (In fact on a 96% slot more likely). I fail to see how preserving a win gained on initial stakes is a bad tactic. It is simply sensible. If the player had instead bet low to start with he would not have risked an equally dire loss if things go the other way. This surely cancels out the occasional big hit! The only time I see advantage play as an issue is with a 97% plus slot which on a 100% bonus match is mathematically likely to see the player profit long term on a 100% 30x wager. I have bet low many tines and been nowhere near making WR and have switched to an all or nothing tactic with higher betting. On average the results are no worse than starting with high bets and switching to low.

Your partly correct.

If you have to wager 1000$ on a slot with a RTP of 95%, then your expected loss is 0.05 x 1000$ = 50$. It doesn't matter if you complete this wagering by making 1000 small 1$ wagers or one single big 1000$ wager, the expected loss is still 50$.

Betting low AFTER a big win just reduces risk but doesn't change your expected return/loss. Casinos really just have this rule so that they have one more excuse not to let players withdrawal. If the gambling community wasn't so math-illiterate more players might complain and you wouldn't see this rule on as many online casinos.

Betting HIGH is advantageous under the following conditions;

1) The casino offers repeated bonuses.

2) The casino will void your WR on previous bonuses if your deposit+bonus falls to zero.

 

[dunover]

Your partly correct.

If you have to wager 1000$ on a slot with a RTP of 95%, then your expected loss is 0.05 x 1000$ = 50$. It doesn't matter if you complete this wagering by making 1000 small 1$ wagers or one single big 1000$ wager, the expected loss is still 50$.
Betting low AFTER a big win just reduces risk but doesn't change your expected return/loss. Casinos really just have this rule so that they have one more excuse not to let players withdrawal. If the gambling community wasn't so math-illiterate more players might complain and you wouldn't see this rule on as many online casinos.

Betting HIGH is advantageous under the following conditions;

1) The casino offers repeated bonuses.

2) The casino will void your WR on previous bonuses if your deposit+bonus falls to zero.

Yes it does matter. If you play 1000 x 1 spins, your RTP isn't going to deviate from the 95% by more than 30% +/- in most instances, unless of course you're playing new Netents.
You play 1 spin at 1000x and select a zero spin, you have a RTP of 0%. Play one spin at 1000 and get a 5 x stake win, and you have a 500% RTP and 5000 balance. Neither of those results is likely if you play 1000 spins at 1$. The former is impossible barring the biggest numerical calamity in the history of the universe, the latter possible but highly unlikely.
This is why casinos have bonus stake limits. Yes, the casino still pays out 95% overall, but your example ignores variance. If slots had ZERO variance and produced 95% on EVERY spin whatever the stake, then of course your statement would be true.

 

[dunover]

What game has 50/50 odds?

Even playing black or red in roulette still gives the house an edge. You have less than a 50/50 chance of hitting either colour which means theoretically this should only work less than 50% of the time.

It would be really interesting to know how many times these APs try this and fail on the initial big bets. I think this is why many casinos don't give you an exact amount you're allowed to wager. If they let you try your luck at a few huge bets on a table game and you lose they keep the money. It's not until after the first half of the strategy works that the casinos start complaining about "substantially lowering your bet" again after moving to slots.

There is absolutely no strategy short of cheating that will guarantee you a profit when you gamble.

In my opinion, even if you are an advantage player, the casino still has the advantage.

Heads and tails, hi-lo numbers (well, were supposed to be level.) Perhaps I should have quoted from the terms instead of using the player perception of some games. "Placing of low-risk bets..."

 

[jshort]

Yes, the casino still pays out 95% overall, but your example ignores variance.

I said THE RETURN IS CONSTANT, not the risk.

Of course different wagering sizes influence the variance, but the only scenarios in which a casino should care about that is highly unlikely or impossible.

If we we're dealing with highly extravagant wager sizes that could financially bankrupt the business you'd have a point.

If the casino had an incredibly small player base (ie just a few daily customers), the casino should similarly face a risk of ruin.

However in most cases, even if EVERY SINGLE PLAYER decided that they we're going to significantly drop their bet sizes upon hitting big with an SUB or other bonus, the casino would still hit its expected return at the end of the day (maybe end of the week) as apose to if the same players DIDN'T DROP their wagers sizes upon hitting big. In the very short term, the casino may experience increased fluctuations in its daily $$ intake (this really depends on the size of its player base) but things would always even out after enough time.

The "no large drops in wagering" or "inconsistent wagering sizes" rule as seen in some T&Cs is rubbish and possibly just used to decrease casino payouts.

 

[pmutts]

Advantage Players -- Bacteria??? ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

APs are like bacteria, they're not "evil" they're just looking for a good place to find a meal and breed (so to speak). IMO the "service" they provide is basically housekeeping: they find the soft bits of the casinos, the exposed underbelly, the ill-conceived and/or poorly executed offering, the unprotected honey-pots.

Is this bad or wrong? I'd say no more so than sunburn or mosquito bites: protect yourself or suffer the consequences. Annoying maybe, possibly even harmful but also a fact of life. Open a casino and you attract the APs, simple as that. No amount of huffing and puffing is going to change the basic equation of "money on offer = some people wanting to get as much of it as they can".

As to "the generosity of casinos" I'd have to say that's a contradiction in terms. It's right up there with "the generosity of bankers": ain't no such thing. People open and run casinos to make money, not friends. Any "generosity" on offer is a bit of bait on the end of a fishing line. Mind the hook. Want the bait and not the hook? Ah, now you are an AP!

What an EXCELLENT analogy! I love it. It is perfect.

Fortunately, we have developed treatments to effectively treat and cure the vast majority diseases caused by harmful bacteria.

More importantly--the human race would not exist without the countless BENEFICIAL species of bacterium that are essential to our existence.

 

[maxd]

Fortunately, we have developed treatments to effectively treat and cure the vast majority diseases caused by harmful bacteria.

[derail]

That isn't the whole story, in fact a good part of it is old news. FYI (my bolding):

Antibiotic resistance is a serious and growing phenomenon in contemporary medicine and has emerged as one of the pre-eminent public health concerns of the 21st century, in particular as it pertains to pathogenic organisms (the term is especially relevant to organisms that cause disease in humans). A World Health Organization report released April 30, 2014 states, "this serious threat is no longer a prediction for the future, it is happening right now in every region of the world and has the potential to affect anyone, of any age, in any country. Antibiotic resistance–when bacteria change so antibiotics no longer work in people who need them to treat infections–is now a major threat to public health."

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

For instance in the US your chances of dying of an infectious disease (once contracted) are 10 times greater today than they were 30 years ago. In some areas of Western Europe it's quite a bit worse than that, especially if your case involves certain strains of pneumonia or blood diseases where the mortality rate due to drug resistance is now as high as 50%. That's a serious issue.

A further example from a WHO (World Health Organization) report published recently:

E. coli was effectively treated in nearly all cases in the 80s. ... those same antibiotics are ineffective in more than half of E. coli cases today.

Just saying.

[/derail]

 

[Nifty29]

Personally I don't "get" how betting high initially on a bonus and then betting low if you get a hit is an advantage play. You are just as likely to make a big loss as you are a big win! (In fact on a 96% slot more likely). I fail to see how preserving a win gained on initial stakes is a bad tactic. It is simply sensible. If the player had instead bet low to start with he would not have risked an equally dire loss if things go the other way. This surely cancels out the occasional big hit! The only time I see advantage play as an issue is with a 97% plus slot which on a 100% bonus match is mathematically likely to see the player profit long term on a 100% 30x wager. I have bet low many tines and been nowhere near making WR and have switched to an all or nothing tactic with higher betting. On average the results are no worse than starting with high bets and switching to low.

Yes.

The rule of thumb is that the less bets you make the less you expose your bankroll to the house edge.

The true AP looking to extract maximum value from a bonus bets as high as possible from go to woe I.e. they don't grind out on smaller bets after an initial big hit.

Grinding produces more cashouts, but the overall value of those cashouts will be lower than if they max bet the whole time and cashed out less often (busted more often). Grinding is for amateurs.

 

[pmutts]

Great minds think alike . . .

[derail]
That isn't the whole story. FYI (my bolding):

[/derail]

Max, I contemplated going there in my post but chose not to as it would have only diminished the point and derailed the thread.

 

[dunover]

I said THE RETURN IS CONSTANT, not the risk.

Of course different wagering sizes influence the variance, but the only scenarios in which a casino should care about that is highly unlikely or impossible.

If we we're dealing with highly extravagant wager sizes that could financially bankrupt the business you'd have a point.

If the casino had an incredibly small player base (ie just a few daily customers), the casino should similarly face a risk of ruin.

However in most cases, even if EVERY SINGLE PLAYER decided that they we're going to significantly drop their bet sizes upon hitting big with an SUB or other bonus, the casino would still hit its expected return at the end of the day (maybe end of the week) as apose to if the same players DIDN'T DROP their wagers sizes upon hitting big. In the very short term, the casino may experience increased fluctuations in its daily $$ intake (this really depends on the size of its player base) but things would always even out after enough time.

The "no large drops in wagering" or "inconsistent wagering sizes" rule as seen in some T&Cs is rubbish and possibly just used to decrease casino payouts.

With all due respect, you've contradicted yourself there. Your argument (correct) is that in the longer term the casino pays 95%, so by that definition payouts shouldn't be decreased.
We can summarize by saying that casinos do not want people, funded by 'free' bonus money, using that said bonus money to have a few 'free' spins at large stakes which IF yielding the player a large multiple x stake then result in an unnaturally enlarged balance which the player then (sensibly) grinds our on low stakes in order to make a substantial cash out which he/she wouldn't have done without the presence of bonus funds.

 

[skiny]

If a player deposits $100 dollars and takes a 100% deposit bonus with a 30xD+B wage requirement the player starts with 200 dollars and must wager 6000 before cashing out.

That's 6000 $1 spins and with an TRTP 95% the player will (theoretically) go broke after 4000 - winning back 95 cents each spin. In fact even a 98% TRTP will (theoretically) leave you with less than your original deposit after 6000 one dollar spins.

Gamblers win by not continuing to wager while they're ahead. The purpose of wage requirements are to not let them do that.

If a player actually achieved an RTP of 95% after 6000 one dollar spins he would have to start with 400 dollars just to be left with his original 100.

Advantage players are simply trying to give themselves more than that 400 dollar start. The only way to do this is bet big and hope you win something right away and then lower your bet to let the TRTP work for you instead of against you. If you take one of these bonuses and spin low even wagers on slots you're theoretically doomed right from the start.

There is no guarantee that betting high in roulette will achieve your goal but if you're allowed to bet a large portion of your bonus and you get lucky a few times it can happen. Casinos know this and should be able to work the same doomed to fail formula into the table games.

If a player is allowed to bet 10% of his bonus he would have to double up his wager 20 times more than he loses it to reach that 400 dollar start. That's no easy task with only a 48.6% chance of winning. If a player is allowed to wager 30% of his bonus he would only have to double up his wager 7 times more than he loses. This is pretty basic math that the casino should be able to do and there is no reason why an exact number can't be given that a player is allowed to bet.

But I don't believe that trying to jack up your initial bankroll while staying within the terms and conditions of the bonus is any more unethical than offering a bonus with a wage requirement that theoretically guarantees you'll go broke before you clear it. People are supposed to use their heads when they gamble and they're supposed to find the best ways to win.

The next time you sit down at a poker game try sliding a piece of paper across the table that says "Irregular playing patterns include raising your bet when you have a good hand and then substantially lowering it when you have crap" and then see if the other players are willing to void these hands and return their wagers when someone does it. No, it's not exactly the same thing but it is using your brain to figure out what the best way is to win and it is within the rules of the game.

Advantage players are not bacteria. They're just gamblers who have the ambition and the brains to do the math before they start.

Now bonus whores and multi-account holders are an entirely different thing. This is where the casino's tolerance threshold should be. Simple solution. Boot them out for fraud or limit their bonuses. But if anyone who is not a fraud is offered a bonus and stays within the terms and conditions that person has to be paid regardless of how they managed to come out ahead. Sometimes players win even when they take bonuses. Tough.

 

[Nifty29]

If a player deposits $100 dollars and takes a 100% deposit bonus with a 30xD+B wage requirement the player starts with 200 dollars and must wager 6000 before cashing out.

That's 6000 $1 spins and with an TRTP 95% the player will (theoretically) go broke after 4000 - winning back 95 cents each spin. In fact even a 98% TRTP will (theoretically) leave you with less than your original deposit after 6000 one dollar spins.

Gamblers win by not continuing to wager while they're ahead. The purpose of wage requirements are to not let them do that.

If a player actually achieved an RTP of 95% after 6000 one dollar spins he would have to start with 400 dollars just to be left with his original 100.

Advantage players are simply trying to give themselves more than that 400 dollar start. The only way to do this is bet big and hope you win something right away and then lower your bet to let the TRTP work for you instead of against you. If you take one of these bonuses and spin low even wagers on slots you're theoretically doomed right from the start.

There is no guarantee that betting high in roulette will achieve your goal but if you're allowed to bet a large portion of your bonus and you get lucky a few times it can happen. Casinos know this and should be able to work the same doomed to fail formula into the table games.

If a player is allowed to bet 10% of his bonus he would have to double up his wager 20 times more than he loses it to reach that 400 dollar start. That's no easy task with only a 48.6% chance of winning. If a player is allowed to wager 30% of his bonus he would only have to double up his wager 7 times more than he loses. This is pretty basic math that the casino should be able to do and there is no reason why an exact number can't be given that a player is allowed to bet.

But I don't believe that trying to jack up your initial bankroll while staying within the terms and conditions of the bonus is any more unethical than offering a bonus with a wage requirement that theoretically guarantees you'll go broke before you clear it. People are supposed to use their heads when they gamble and they're supposed to find the best ways to win.

The next time you sit down at a poker game try sliding a piece of paper across the table that says "Irregular playing patterns include raising your bet when you have a good hand and then substantially lowering it when you have crap" and then see if the other players are willing to void these hands and return their wagers when someone does it. No, it's not exactly the same thing but it is using your brain to figure out what the best way is to win and it is within the rules of the game.

Advantage players are not bacteria. They're just gamblers who have the ambition and the brains to do the math before they start.

Now bonus whores and multi-account holders are an entirely different thing. This is where the casino's tolerance threshold should be. Simple solution. Boot them out for fraud or limit their bonuses. But if anyone who is not a fraud is offered a bonus and stays within the terms and conditions that person has to be paid regardless of how they managed to come out ahead. Sometimes players win even when they take bonuses. Tough.

I agree with much of this, except to reiterate what I previously posted.

The bet big, hit big, then grind small is a good method to improve your chances of a cashout. However, it is not the optimal method to extract maximum value from bonuses over time. The best way is to meet the WR with as few actual bets as possible, thus limiting your exposure to the house edge. In the long term, you end up further ahead, even though you cashout less often.

KK used to be a grinder, until he saw the light (via Enzo IIRC) and realised that even though he did pretty well out of those juicy pre-UIGEA bonuses, he could have done a lot better.

A decade ago or more, online casinos were AP fodder with 5x or less WR and no max cashouts on freebies etc. Unfortunately, the APs became too greedy and created entire websites and syndicates that systematically hit operators to the point where it was becoming unprofitable. As a result, we now have 30x or more WR and draconian terms everywhere we look.

True APs aren't criminals....but they absolutely ARE the reason for the extinction of decent bonuses and the confiscations of winnings from genuinely innocent players who's only "crime" is that they're either too lazy or stupid to read the rules. APs basically "shat in their own nests", and collectively killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

[skiny]

I agree with much of this, except to reiterate what I previously posted.

The bet big, hit big, then grind small is a good method to improve your chances of a cashout. However, it is not the optimal method to extract maximum value from bonuses over time. The best way is to meet the WR with as few actual bets as possible, thus limiting your exposure to the house edge. In the long term, you end up further ahead, even though you cashout less often.

KK used to be a grinder, until he saw the light (via Enzo IIRC) and realised that even though he did pretty well out of those juicy pre-UIGEA bonuses, he could have done a lot better.

A decade ago or more, online casinos were AP fodder with 5x or less WR and no max cashouts on freebies etc. Unfortunately, the APs became too greedy and created entire websites and syndicates that systematically hit operators to the point where it was becoming unprofitable. As a result, we now have 30x or more WR and draconian terms everywhere we look.

True APs aren't criminals....but they absolutely ARE the reason for the extinction of decent bonuses and the confiscations of winnings from genuinely innocent players who's only "crime" is that they're either too lazy or stupid to read the rules. APs basically "shat in their own nests", and collectively killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

I think they're the reason for the extinction of the big welcome bonus with easy WR. Which I never thought was the best marketing tool to begin with because they're destined to attract advantage players and bonus hunters and advantage players and bonus hunters are not usually all that loyal. There's no reason casinos can't offer nice bonuses to existing players based on loyalty.

If casinos really want to attract a good client base that will remain loyal they should be fighting for the best loyalty programs. Let the fly by night advantage players find a new hobby. Offer cash back on deposits, higher comp points than the competition instead of having to wager 10 thousand dollars to earn back 10. Free draws for cash or prizes.

The best companies don't need a great big hook to drag people in. And even if players do wander off to take one of these big welcome bonuses elsewhere they're only going to end up right back where there was more incentive to stay.

 

[AmarrEmperor]

i think people who complain like you are the cancer, always annoy

There is NO SUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN AP AND A NORMAL PLAYER

Get that through your head!

Alert, Alert, We have detected an AP

 

[jshort]

1.

funded by 'free' bonus money, using that said bonus money to have a few 'free' spins at large stakes which IF yielding the player a large multiple x stake then result in an unnaturally enlarged balance

2.

which the player then (sensibly) grinds our on low stakes in order to make a substantial cash out which he/she wouldn't have done without the presence of bonus funds

In general I agree with #1 (wagering large with bonus funds to try and hit big), but #2 is irrelevant. Even if the player doesn't drop his stakes after hitting, his expected loss is still the same, despite the fact that he's much more likely to possibly lose his entire win. I can understand psychologically why a player doesn't want to risk losing their win by continuing to bet high (indeed it ruins the "high" one gets from winning) but mathematically it makes no difference and being en emotionless and calculating business, there is no reason why the casino should care either.

If a casino has a "no dropping your wagers" rule, it increases the possibility that it wont have to payout a players win because some players don't read the T&Cs and thus might have their winnings voided by breaking them. This is the only reason an online casino would have this rule.

 

[skiny]

funded by 'free' bonus money, using that said bonus money to have a few 'free' spins at large stakes which IF yielding the player a large multiple x stake then result in an unnaturally enlarged balance

A few free spins that you have to pay for by making a deposit at a large stake where the house still has the edge regardless of what game you play.

If the odds were that good that those first few large spins would yield a win there would be no point in taking the bonus. You could just make those spins with your deposit. You take the bonus because the odds of winning with those large spins are against you and if you lose you've just wasted the bonus money and are now stuck with a huge wage requirement and half your starting balance.

No matter how you play the game the odds are never going to be in your favour. Some casinos seem to forget this. Rather than worrying about how a small hand full of players are wagering their bonuses they should understand that in the long run the TRTP is going to put them on top. The WR on the bonuses guarantees this provided everyone plays within the terms and conditions.