VIDEO POKER

What Should Casinos Do With Good Players?

That said, I don't think the casinos are going about it the correct way. The tactic being used by Arizona Charlie's and the Palms, and to a lesser degree by the Orleans and Suncoast (the difference is that the latter two casinos still offer full cash back), is to restrict the benefits to the players they believe are the strongest. This is a very shortsighted policy that is doomed to harm the future of video poker in general and these casinos in particular.

Here's why. There are a lot of reasons why players play video poker, but high on the list is that the game is potentially beatable --- at least if you get good enough. Money won in a casino is a lot more fun to spend than money earned at a job. But even though the game is potentially beatable, most players can't do it --- at least not yet.

A profitable (to the casinos) segment of the player base is made up of wannabe winners. These are players who are going through the learning process. They might be taking classes, practicing on the computer, and otherwise studying. They aren't winners yet, but they're working on it. Probably most readers of this column fit into this category.

Some of these wannabe winners will eventually become actual winners. Most wannabe winners won't. Most don't know for sure whether theyıll ever get good enough or not, but they want to give it try. They give it a try because they see a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Now imagine that this pot of gold evaporates. Imagine that it becomes a very common strategy used by casinos to restrict players as soon as these players become skillful. Do you think these wannabe winners will continue to try to learn the game? It'd still be just as difficult and expensive of a process to TRY to learn, but the potential rewards would be taken away. Should this happen, my guess is that far fewer players will take up the game. Video poker would become a much smaller part of the casino floor --- in the same way that blackjack is no longer a major game in many casinos because players know they'll be barred once they learn to beat the game.

Also, consider your reaction if you knew that two casinos had approximately comparable packages of games + slot club + promotions. The first casino allows everyone to play and the second only lets you play if they think you can't beat them. Many players instinctively avoid the second casino. After all, why go to a place that only likes losers. Who knows whether or not they'll find a way not to honor accumulated comps once they decide you're competent? That's happened at more than one casino in Las Vegas. It just may happen again.

The downside (from the players' point of view) to allowing all players to play is that the games will need to be tightened slightly to compensate. After all, if a casino allows a group of unprofitable players (from the casinos' point of view) to play unrestricted, the casino has to make this up somewhere else or learn to live with a smaller profit. The casinos will need to have SOME beatable games to keep the wannabe winners interested, but maybe not as many as they have now and maybe not quite as lucrative.

My "solution" --- slightly tighter games but allowing everyone to play --- will not be universally embraced by all players or all casinos. Indeed, I expect many emails on this column. But it's the solution that, from my point of view, allows both the casinos and players to survive and will allow for the growth of video poker --- which is good for both sides.