SICK OF MG

[wayram]

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 ?.

 

[Slotmachine]

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 ?.

A familiar feeling...but it's just slot variance playing tricks on you. When you play slots, you're very likely to lose it all in a short time, and when (rarely) you do build your balance up, that's when you need to stop and withdraw, because with each spin, you're more likely start losing again.

The MG software does not know whether you've been winning or losing, just churns out random numbers for you, and with slots, they're always likely to go against you. Also, if you increase your bets progressively when you win, that also increases your risk of losing it all back in a very short time.

Try jacks or better video poker or blackjack, less variance and therefore your bankroll will last longer.

Sometimes if I hit a good win in slots, I'll just lower my bet and maybe play some VP to cool down, then withdraw and just leave a little bit for low-rolling.
Otherwise you're pretty much guaranteed to lose it all back in the course of a really bad streak.

Cheers,
SM

 

[Simmo!]

A familiar feeling...but it's just slot variance playing tricks on you. When you play slots, you're very likely to lose it all in a short time, and when (rarely) you do build your balance up, that's when you need to stop and withdraw, because with each spin, you're more likely start losing again.

The MG software does not know whether you've been winning or losing, just churns out random numbers for you, and with slots, they're always likely to go against you. Also, if you increase your bets progressively when you win, that also increases your risk of losing it all back in a very short time.

Try jacks or better video poker or blackjack, less variance and therefore your bankroll will last longer.

Sometimes if I hit a good win in slots, I'll just lower my bet and maybe play some VP to cool down, then withdraw and just leave a little bit for low-rolling.
Otherwise you're pretty much guaranteed to lose it all back in the course of a really bad streak.

Cheers,
SM

Couldn't have said it better myself

We've all been there Wayram. This is the thing about gambling...you have to know when to get out. This is why casinos make their profits - its not the "House Edge" that makes the decent money - hell that probably doesnt even cover the casino's costs - its the fact that gamblers have a tendency to gamble back down following a win streak.

Simmo!

 

[Slotmachine]

is why casinos make their profits - its not the "House Edge" that makes the decent money - hell that probably doesnt even cover the casino's costs - its the fact that gamblers have a tendency to gamble back down following a win streak.
QUOTE]

Yeah, to refer to another recent thread, remember that 97% payout ratio means that if you deposit $30,000, wager $1,000,000, win $970,000, lose $30,000, you're out of money, nothing left, and the casino claims to have paid out 97%, is correct, and you've lost 100% of your money.

This is what usually happens. The only way around this is to set a deposit limit., e.g. monthly limit, and a withdrawal threshold, and not deviate from those.

EG deposit $500 twice monthly. Whenever you hit $1100, withdraw $1000, leave $100 for low-rolling. With the remaining $100 you can do whatever you damn well please, and you might just get lucky.

This is the only working "betting system" and it'll help you limit your losses.
You'll still lose, but not so much

Cheers,
SM

 

[Reef]

This is the only working "betting system" and it'll help you limit your losses.
You'll still lose, but not so much

Cheers,
SM

I respectfully disagree. There is no betting system that will prevent or slow losses. Your expected loss is HA * amount wagered. If you want to donate less, then wager less. If you want to gamble, then bet away.

 

[caruso]

There is no betting system that will prevent or slow losses. Your expected loss is HA * amount wagered. If you want to donate less, then wager less

Absolutely correct.

This is why casinos make their profits - its not the "House Edge" that makes the decent money - hell that probably doesnt even cover the casino's costs.

Au contraire by a long way: it is all, and only, and nothing but, the house edge.

EG deposit $500 twice monthly. Whenever you hit $1100, withdraw $1000, leave $100 for low-rolling. With the remaining $100 you can do whatever you damn well please, and you might just get lucky.

This is the only working "betting system" and it'll help you limit your losses.
You'll still lose, but not so much

Also correct; however, you can put it in more of a nutshell: wager less and you will lose less.

 

[liquidsoap]

i see where wayram is coming from, it does seem like that they have a switch but i wouldnt go that far

i say they dont need one for house advantage, but it seems a little different from vegas and other land based casinos.

ive lost alot more then ive won, that doesnt seem like the payout percentage they advertise, id say the only people who are up are people who have won big jackpots, and kk

i am kinda interested to see the answer, to the polls i go.

 

[BrianC]

I can relate 100%.

As someone who has built very large balances in my account MANY times
allow me to give you some advice.

Cash everything out except a SMALL amount to "sample" things.
I will usually keep only $50 in at a time. Since I play mostly Dbl Bonus
and Dbl Dbl Bonus Poker, I sample how things are going. I look for "activity"
such as several flushes, full houses, straights, etc.... If the $50 tanks
w/out any activity, then it's a cold cycle and I leave for a few hours then
try it again. I'll do this sometimes over the course of a few days until I
start hitting the 4 of a kinds again.

Also vary your slot games. I find usually when some types are hot, others are cold. If your small "sampler" bankroll tanks quick then comeback the next day. I do absolutely find that different days yield different results. For example: for about 3 solid months I found that on the days that my casino was awarding loyalty points the video poker was hot as hell. Constant 4 of a kinds, Ace Bonuses and 3 Royals. Then, everything went cold each time. The last and first day of a month usually does well for me to. I always figured if they made a lot of money they'd loosen things up to stay within their stated payback percentages - then again, it might be just a fluke.

I don't think everything is as random as they say. Afterall, it's a known fact that a computer can't even generate a random number so there is some other factors involved such as computer algorithms.

BTW: Have more then one casino installed. When you've won at one of them cash all the way out and play at the other. I use 3 of them - all MG casino's.
I do much better this way and have even built both of them up over $4,000 each at the same time. Usually though, one will be cold while the other is better so I balance out rather well.

-Brian

 

[spearmaster]

Au contraire by a long way: it is all, and only, and nothing but, the house edge.

I have to au contraire this... LOL...

The house edge is what gives the casino an advantage over the long run. But the reason casinos make money is what Simmo said - they run you down. Keep in mind casinos have deep pockets, and can outride almost any losing streak - while you, the punter, can be wiped out by a short bad streak.

If you have unlimited funds, then this of course is not the case. But most punters who go to the casino tend to say "$500 this trip", "$50 on Megabucks" and so on... and then STILL overrun their budget by pulling out the ATM card they conveniently forgot to leave at home, or by taking out expensive cash advances on credit cards because they DID leave the ATM card at home, and then they take bigger risks hoping to get back to even.

(trust me, been there, done that).

Of course, if there was no house edge, there would be no casino either - and ultimately, the more churn, the more they make. It's a bit of both - but it's definitely not only the house edge.

As for BrianC's advice (hello fellow Jersey boy) - it is almost exactly the method I follow. I deposit $50 at a time, almost never more or less. Any time I can run that to $500 or more, I cash out in increments of $500. And when I hit a cashout level, I cash out and move on to another casino if I still feel like playing.

 

[BrianC]

Spear - didn't know you were Jersey too. I thought you was really in Heaven...lol. What part? I'm by Seaside Hts.

Just to clarify my method. My initial deposit is usually $150. I head straight to
Video Poker (Double Bonus). If I manage to pull a 4 of a kind, I immediately
send all except $50 to the withdrawal. I then play off the quads and switch to
Double Double Bonus using the $50 I left in there. If I hit another quad, I bank again the $250. If I just hit some fulls/flushes and go over $100, I bank $50.
Always leaving $50 to play with. If I tank the $50, I then switch games and reverse $50. I keep doing this back and forth. It basically money management more then any kind of 'system'. When Vid Poker is poor, then off to some of the 'looser' slots like the 5 line reels or games like Sunquest, Carnaval and What-a-Hoot.

I am often VERY down before I end up making money which is key also.
You have to stomach large losses but there is often light at the end of the tunnel because I make it up when I enter a hot cycle on the Dbl and Dbl Dbl Bonus games. Last month I hit the Ace bonus 2 days in a row. Each time they were dealt to me!

I attached one here I got recently:

 

[Slotmachine]

Au contraire by a long way: it is all, and only, and nothing but, the house edge.

I agree with Caruso; it's absolutely all about the house edge. It's the house edge that runs players down the way Spear described. I described the same mechanism above using numbers. The house edge can (and will) take every single player to the cleaner's eventually. Risk of ruin=100%. Exception to the rule, you can win in the long run playing low house edge games and making use of bonuses and comp points. Or by being as lucky as Gramma, although she is probably just slightly up after all those years of depositing $36,000 a year.

I'm in it for the excitement, so my main concern is limiting my losses. The simplest way to do this is to determine a monthly deposit limit and knock myself out with it. I don't usually abide by my own "system". If and when I get a big hit, I'll withdraw it and use the winnings to buy something nice since it was surplus money anyway (if there ever was such a thing), and fund my next few month's gambling.

Of course, there is always the element of luck - it's (very remotely) possible to score a very big win, bringing you way ahead in the game, even rich. That's what keeps it interesting.

Also correct; however, you can put it in more of a nutshell: wager less and you will lose less.

Exactly right. That's what my "betting system" is about. You can only lose as much as you deposit. The less you wager, the slower you lose and the longer you get to play.

Cheers,
SM

 

[caruso]

I have to au contraire this... LOL...

The house edge is what gives the casino an advantage over the long run. But the reason casinos make money is what Simmo said - they run you down. Keep in mind casinos have deep pockets, and can outride almost any losing streak - while you, the punter, can be wiped out by a short bad streak.

If you have unlimited funds, then this of course is not the case. But most punters who go to the casino tend to say "$500 this trip", "$50 on Megabucks" and so on... and then STILL overrun their budget by pulling out the ATM card they conveniently forgot to leave at home, or by taking out expensive cash advances on credit cards because they DID leave the ATM card at home, and then they take bigger risks hoping to get back to even.

(trust me, been there, done that).

Of course, if there was no house edge, there would be no casino either - and ultimately, the more churn, the more they make. It's a bit of both - but it's definitely not only the house edge.

As for BrianC's advice (hello fellow Jersey boy) - it is almost exactly the method I follow. I deposit $50 at a time, almost never more or less. Any time I can run that to $500 or more, I cash out in increments of $500. And when I hit a cashout level, I cash out and move on to another casino if I still feel like playing.

Ted, I must au contraire you back again.

A player who is short-pocketed is a DISadvantage to the casino because he can only churn so much. Following your argument, the less the player brings with him the better the casino has of it, as they can "bust" him quicker! Taking this scenario to a rather absurd conclusion, players would bring nothing and walk straight out the door.

If a casino can choose between 20 players with $50 and 20 players with $5000, which does it choose? The low-roller for the "rundown" factor or the high-roller, who will bust less quickly assuming similar betting, but churn more? Clearly the high roller. And we know that Vegas courts its whales, the multi-million dollar rollers, so the eating of the pudding seems to be the proof.

OK, an individual $50 roll may last only a short time, but in that event, say $500 wagering, it represents only $10 overall at 2% house edge. The individual roll means nothing to the casino - all they see is one huge roll. They want all those rolls, as one big roll, to be churned as much as possible to generate maximum income. That $50 roller will come back next week with another $50; would not the casino rather he brought $200, for $40 house edge income?

You rather counter-argue your point when you say "... and then STILL overrun their budget by pulling out the ATM card they conveniently forgot to leave at home, or by taking out expensive cash advances on credit cards because they DID leave the ATM card at home, and then they take bigger risks hoping to get back to even.". Exactly: they churn more by so doing. They may get even, they may lose, but they churn more, and in the long run, lose more. They are "run down" LESS quickly, as they have accessed more funds, but they will lose MORE. Hence, "rundown factor" is to the player's advantage, not disadvantage, as he will wager less, stuck as he is with that lower roll.

"Rundown factor" is only a short term consideration for the player, and an income-stunter for the casino. Clearly, ultimate casino heaven is a bunch of unlimited bankrolls wagering endlessly. The "$50 and bust in 20 minutes" club? Nay.

 

[spearmaster]

While you're not exactly wrong, I shall yet again point out that they are counting on you to bust out before they are. A high roller, churn or no churn, can hurt them a lot more than a low roller.

Also, you might ask yourself why, in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, is a minimum of 75% of floor space dedicated to slot machines - not something high rollers generally get involved with. Not to mention that slot club cashback is higher... even online, at most casinos, slot cashback or comp points are higher.

I'm not going to go into a more detailed explanation because I don't want to go through all the intricacies (besides which I'm busy as hell for the next few days) - your opinion could well be based on what you see in UK casinos (ie. very few slot machines and all fruit for that matter) but I assure you that, at least from a North American and Australian perspective, I am correct.

Sure they entice the whales back - no question about that. But when they are beaten badly, a la Kerry Packer, they are also banned from further play... think about that for a bit Ain't no way a low-roller, especially playing slots, will ever be chased from the casino.

By the way, I forgot to mention that North American casinos have an added advantage - free alcohol. Also, the point of the exercise is NOT churn - it is to bust the player. Churn does NOT guarantee a return. A busted player is money in the bank.

 

[elscrabinda]

I accept everything written about house edge but it is far from the whole story. Imagine a completely fair zero house edge roulette wheel (one with no zeros). I would contend that this would still be profitable for the casino for the reasons above that gamblers tend not to cash out when up.

To take caruso's point above,

Exactly: they churn more by so doing. They may get even, they may lose, but they churn more, and in the long run, lose more.

What makes you think the player would cash out and leave once they get even again? They would be on a winning streak at that point and unlikely to stop without a lot of self discipline. phyngster gave an example in another thread of a player who had won $280k at an RTG casino before gambling it all back down again. I would contend that it wasn't the house edge that beat him, it was his inability to stop once ahead and that he would likely have cashed out zilch on a zero house edge game as well.

 

[gfkostas]

Sure they entice the whales back - no question about that. But when they are beaten badly, a la Kerry Packer, they are also banned from further play... think about that for a bit Ain't no way a low-roller, especially playing slots, will ever be chased from the casino.

Too right

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

 

[tencardcharlie]

I accept everything written about house edge but it is far from the whole story. Imagine a completely fair zero house edge roulette wheel (one with no zeros). I would contend that this would still be profitable for the casino for the reasons above that gamblers tend not to cash out when up.

This is only correct if the said gambler NEVER cashed out, but continued to double up into infinity - thus giving her a risk of ruin of 100%. Otherwise, the expected reusult for the casino is zero.

Lets do the math:
One player - A - plays the roulette wheel until she has either doubled up her deposit or busted which gives her a 50% chance of winning. The expected result is (where d is the deposit):
2d*0.5 + 0 * d * 0.5 = d

since she has 50% chance of losing d and 50% chance of winning d.

Now, another player - B - will not stop before she has broken the bank. Lets say that means she has to win 10.000 times her deposit, before the casino has to close down for the night. The expected result is:

10.000* d * 0.0001 + 0 * d * 0.9999 = d

Which is the exact same result as above. Now this player is of course much more likely to make a loss during each session, but once in a blue moon she will hit a win thats so huge it on average evens out the losses. You can plug in any finite numbers in the calculations above and the reults will still be the same.

With a house edge of zero, the casino cannot expect to make a profit. With a house edge, on the other hand, the casino will profit much more on player B than A.

 

[Slotmachine]

What makes you think the player would cash out and leave once they get even again? They would be on a winning streak at that point and unlikely to stop without a lot of self discipline. phyngster gave an example in another thread of a player who had won $280k at an RTG casino before gambling it all back down again. I would contend that it wasn't the house edge that beat him, it was his inability to stop once ahead and that he would likely have cashed out zilch on a zero house edge game as well.

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. Caruso's "one big roll" analogy is good: there's this amount of $$ walking in through the door in the form of high rollers, low rollers and bingo players, and at the end of day, the day's wagers are counted as one big wager, and the casino's take is the house edge (say 5%) of those wagers, no more, no less.

However, 2,800 nickle slot players are more likely to play down $280k in one night than one person with $280k in his pocket. Hence Spearmaster's observation that the casinos prefer to allocate more floor space for slots. Also slots have high house edge, about 8% on the Strip. (Spear, of course, knows these things). No question - slots are the business. High house edge, absolutely no way to take advantage of them, no way to get a player edge. Latest: Roadhouse Reels online casino, slots only!

If the house edge is zero, the casino's profit will be zero. There is absolutely no question about it: it's all about the house edge. The casino's profit is defined by the house edge.

The Casino calculates its profits like this:
Income (total wagers) - Payouts = Profit/Loss
Profit/Income approaches house edge in the long run. The more wagers, the quicker the profit will approach house edge.

Say 10,000 gamblers all depositing $100 tonight, wagering 20x on average.
Income 10,000*100*20= 20,000,000
Given a 5% house edge, payout = 0.95*10,000,000 = 19,000,000
Profit = 20,000,000 - 19,000,000 = 1,000,000

Not bad! And 10,000 gamblers depositing $100 per day is probably not an outrageous number for some of the biggest online casinos. It's an amazing business. Unique in that randomness guarantees profits. All you have to do is get the players to come in through the door (or log in) and stay in. Hence the free drinks.

Cheers,
SM

 

[nafanny29]

your opinion could well be based on what you see in UK casinos (ie. very few slot machines and all fruit for that matter)

In the UK are casinos not restricted to a certain number of slots, or has that now changed?

 

[aodat2]

You guys are getting yourself confused here.

1. US Casinos prefer smaller players because they know that if you bring $100 and lose today, you'll be able to come back next week or something like that, thus you'll be bringing in more $$$ in the long run. This is totally different with whales. How many $200,000 can a whale afford to lose? They catch him once and that's it! That's why as Spearmaster said, casinos prefer smaller players.

2. Casinos generally would love to see money churning over and over as they know that in the end of the day, the money will most probably be taken up by the commission or house edge. So $200,000 from a whale churning compared to 2000 $100 players is the same thing to the casino.

Speaking from experience, I could tell you for a fact that Harrah's Entertainment do not prefer WHALES compared to Bellagio/MGM/Venetian and etc. Why? Well simple, they do not want to see a dent in their Quarterly Financial Report, whereas Bellagio/MGM and Venetian do not care about that and would rather catch them than the smaller players. It's just a matter of concept and what the casino's aim is set at. Nothing great, nothing bad either.

Hope this say a little for everyone. I'm sorry if I did deviate from the topic but heck, I'm seeing the confusion and would like to just clarify a little.

 

[spearmaster]

In the UK are casinos not restricted to a certain number of slots, or has that now changed?

As far as I can recall, casinos in the UK are limited to 6 fruit machines - and every single UK casino that I have been in has the maximum number. This of course excludes amusement arcades masquerading as casinos - I believe there is a limit there as well but I am not sure of that number.

Regarding churn - keep in mind this is a theoretical figure we are talking about. The longer you churn, the closer you get to the theoretical house edge. Obviously, if you take $100 and run it through 20x, you will probably lose most, if not all, of your hundred. But if you busted out after 3x playthrough, the casino has your $100 - they could care less if through churn you should only have generated them $9, assuming 3% edge.

Ultimately, churn works in the casino's favor - but their goal is to get your money, they don't care whether it takes them 5 days or 5 minutes, $100 is $100. If anything, churn costs them more money, not only in human resources, but in comps.

 

[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