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

Aug 12, 2008

Subtitle: Hoisted on my own Petard!

In last week's column, available a few mouse clicks away at http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2008/0805.html, I spoke about winning the Jumbo Jackpot at Green Valley Ranch while playing on Shirley's card. In that column, I mentioned that I was sure that there was some rule against someone winning the jackpot on someone else's card, and I speculated on the reasons why GVR decided to pay me, when maybe they didn't have to.

As an aside in the article, I mentioned that I did all of Shirley's and my monthly play this week to improve our chances in the drawing that was taking place on Friday and Saturday nights in August.

Friday, as you probably recall, was 8-8-08, and by the time the 8:15 p.m. drawing came about I had already played 14 hours at South Point. I came out a little ahead, but I was beat. And neither Shirley nor I were called for the drawing. Darn!

At the drawing I saw Johnny Walker, the Director of Slot Operations at GVR. I needed to chat with him about an email somebody sent me and he said that was very convenient because he wanted to chat with me too. Afterwards, I figured that talking to me was a major reason he was at the drawing.

After we dispensed with what I what I wanted to talk to him about (perhaps we'll discuss that matter in a future column), it was his turn to tell me a few things. There were two major pieces of information Johnny gave me. First of all, he said, there was never a question of me being paid for the Jumbo Jackpot. The way the promotion is currently set up, if a card is in the machine, whoever is playing it collects the money. "Officially the casino makes the decision on a case-by-case basis, but almost always whose name on the card isn't a factor."

My statement in last week's article that you needed to be playing on your own card was incorrect. My speculation on why they paid me anyway was totally off because it was based on a faulty assumption.

Being told I was wrong wasn't too ego-shattering. I gave up claiming perfection decades ago. But since I am a well-known writer who is ASSUMED to be correct by many of my readers, since I was so incorrect I felt it necessary to print a retraction. Which this is.

The second piece of news Johnny gave me was more painful. He requested that I no longer play on Shirley's card. I asked him if I should take that as an official warning by the casino. While he didn't explicitly say yes to this, his expression led me to believe this would be wise for me to do.

Johnny didn't specify penalties for refusing his "request," but I'm not stupid. I'm a well-known strong player and there have been casinos that have asked me not to play. Disobeying a direct request from a casino executive could easily become grounds for them to ask me not to play there. I don't want that. So I won't play on Shirley's card any more at that casino.

After the fact it is easy to see that last week's article prompted this request. Had I not published that I was playing on Shirley's card, likely I would have been able to continue. But since I did, I made it public that I was bending the official rules of the club and the casino decided they couldn't have this.

This "restriction" was quite a surprise to me. Perhaps it shouldn't have been, but it was. Since the casino hadn't said anything for so long, I figured it was okay to play on a spouse's card. But when they tell me, "Starting now it is no longer okay," then that's the way it is. There aren't any "do-overs" in life. I'm stuck with the consequences created by my article. (And there will be many people who NOW tell me that they knew it was a mistake to write last week's article, but for the most part these folks did NOT tell me this before the penalty was imposed.)

The consequence of "don't do it anymore" is in many ways just a wrist-slap. Still, I would prefer to not to have any restrictions at all. It requires certain logistical inconveniences to make a trip to pick up free play. Once that trip is made, it is better to be able to pick up free play for two people rather than one. Alas, no more. Not a tragedy to be sure, but a disappointment.