CasinoGaming.com


	Sundays: Inside Gaming Tuesdays: Video Poker Wednesdays: Off the Shelf Fridays: Richard Eng, Player's Edge Saturdays: Pocket Aces

VIDEO POKER

Columns

• Back to Bob's index

• Back to columnist index

Bob Dancer writes a video poker column for beginners to experts. He also writes a column with Jeffrey Compton, "Player's Edge", featuring information on promotions at various Las Vegas casinos. Player's Edge is published each Friday in the Neon section of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Click here to send Bob Dancer an e-mail.

For a 3,000-word preview of Bob's juicy new novel, "Sex, Lies, and Video Poker", visit www.bobdancer.com.

For more details and a schedule of Bob's free classes, visit www.bobdancer.com.

Dec 12, 2006

Does the Rooster Crowing Cause the Sun to Rise?

In October of this year, I ran an article in Casino Player magazine that addressed a situation at Caesars Palace that I found interesting. Because of the way they structured their bonus points, I explained that it was more profitable to play 9/6 Jacks or Better (99.54%) than it was to play NSU Deuces Wild (99.73%). This is a highly unusual situation and hence provided fodder for an article.

My purpose in the article was to teach players how to play smarter. Upon rereading the article, I still believe it presents useful information that was not readily available from other sources. That is, for me, a major goal in my writing. I WANT to teach players how to play smarter. I believe that players who study my writings will find their game improving.

About a month after the article appeared, Caesars Palace undertook a scorched-earth policy towards playable video poker. Virtually all 9/6 Jacks machines (except for a few in their high limit area), NSU Deuces Wild, and even 8/5 Bonus Poker (99.16%) were removed. Caesars used to have a considerable number of good games to play. No longer.

So far, there is not much dispute on the sequence of these events.

Over the Internet, some very strong players have expressed the opinion that they were very disappointed that I addressed bonus points so frankly. One of the arguments was that the relationship between bonus points and "theoretical" at Harrah's properties is understood by strong players but not by Harrah's management. Any reference at all to bonus points risks educating Harrah's management. In fact, the argument went, my article educated Harrah's management so much that they pulled all of the good games. (My article never addressed "theoretical." The only person who mentioned it was the one criticizing me the most.)

The chief proponent of this argument is a man (I think) who calls himself "Paladin." I'm not opposed to using pseudonyms. I've written many times that "Bob Dancer" is not the name on my driver's license, but thousands of people have taken classes from me and know me by that name. Paladin keeps his identity a mystery and has refused to meet with me to discuss our differences. I likely know Paladin by another name, but right now I don't know who he is.

In addition to Paladin criticizing the article for educating casino management, Paladin is opposed to educating up-and-coming players. His argument seems to be that he personally had the information I wrote about and the information was worth more to him if thousands of other people didn't also know about it. And he's undoubtedly correct about this, at least in the short run. Having knowledge that few others have is definitely profitable.

My goal as a teacher is to increase the size of the player base. This will cause casinos to compete with each other for the business, and in the process will generate more opportunities for strong players as well. Good players will end up with more profitable opportunities than they would if the player base was shrinking.

Most writers find that at times people have disagreements with what they write. That comes with the territory. If you can't stand people disagreeing with you, you shouldn't express yourself in a public forum. Disagreeing with my article is one thing. Paladin and everyone else has that right in this country. Arguing that the article CAUSED Caesars to decimate their good games is quite another. And likely quite incorrect.

The Harrah's properties in Las Vegas have been tightening their games for some time. In the past six months Bally's and Paris removed all 9/6 Jacks lower than $25 and slightly longer ago than they removed NSU Deuces Wild and Pick'Em Poker. The Rio stopped awarding bonus points on 9/6 Jacks a few months ago, and Harrah's Las Vegas did the same thing recently. The Flamingo removed their $5 Joker Two Pair (99.92%) game within the past year, and the only 9/6 Jacks they have shortchanges the straight flush to 239 coins. While this makes some sense on a $5 game, as some players prefer getting $1,195 rather $1,250 and a W2G for a straight flush, it makes no sense at all for other denominations. All it does is cut the return to the player.

Caesars has had quite a few more good games than other properties in the Harrah's family for quite some time. Since the companies merged recently, most players believed it was only a matter of time before Harrah's management had their way with the Caesars video poker inventory and slashed it to meet corporate standards. Conversations with Caesars hosts over the past several months indicated that there was considerable grumbling among management about the 9/6 Jacks games there and eventually they would likely all be gone. For savvy players it was not a question of IF. It was only a question of WHEN.

And the WHEN turned out to be November of 2006, about a month after my article came out. Is it possible that the article had some affect on the timing of this? Yes, it's possible. Without the article, it might have happened a week earlier or maybe a week later. Is it possible that the article had no affect at all on the timing of this? Yes, that's possible too, and in my mind a more likely scenario. It takes a while for management to make a major decision on significantly changing pay tables. Nobody knows for sure unless they are a member of Harrah's top management or have a "Deep Throat" informant. I don't have such knowledge and I doubt that Paladin does either.

It's easy to know that one event came before another. It's considerably more difficult to prove that one event CAUSED another. Farmers know that the rooster crows just before the dawn, but no intelligent farmer seriously believes that the rooster CAUSES the dawn to happen.