My silly friend

[tensplitter]

Casino Royale's version of free slot play is worthless. I did it once and hit $800 on a $50 free slot play. Could only play certain machines and couldn't cash out unless either a jackpot hits or it goes over $4000. I stupidly sat at the machine for hours till the $800 was gone, betting $10 a spin. I guess the best +EV in that case would be to sit at it for a whole day betting $1 a spin until the jackpot hits or I lose it all. The only good thing from the free slot play is free drinks from the waitress. This free slot play promo is good for the average gamblers who like to put $100 in a slot machine and play it till it's gone or they hit a big jackpot.

However their $5 match play is high +EV. Assuming I could do it 20x an hour and 50% of the bets win, that's $60 an hour with little variance, way better than blackjack. And no heat whatsoever, just had to play at a different table each time I used it. The best games to play it is craps, roulette, or baccarat where the odds of winning one bet is near 50%.

Milk this while it lasts since I'm sure they will remove this offer soon. The best time to play is in the evening when it's crowded (coincidentally it's also the worst time to play blackjack when it's crowded). The blackjack there is unplayable 6-5 shoes with horrible pen, but even that is +EV with match play. Playing with a team of 3 or more people will be even better.

If you're with someone who just loves losing money at the slots, the nearly worthless free slot play won't dent your bankroll.

 

[pit15]

Oh, my mistake. I thought they were slot dollars good at any machine.

That sounds like a joke. Maybe if you hit something for like $800 you can sell the machine to someone LOL

I've heard about promo machines, some of them are especially bad with payouts as low as 10%, which is legal because technically you're not paying anything to play them (and if there's any question of legality, then the casino can call them "credits" instead of $).

If you get 2 or 3 free food coupons a day though, that definitely has value. Even if you earn the comps yourself, you can opt to play unrated. I've played both rated and as a refusal, and I have to say one of the nicest things about playing as a refusal is I'm not constantly looking for opportunities to rathole

 

[flyingwind]

Can't you just bet the matchplay coupon on the player at mini-baccarat, and a matching $75 on the bank, so that you will be in essence converting it to either $75 if player wins or $75 less 5% commission if the bank wins?

But then the net gain is zero. Am I misunderstanding this some how?

 

[flyingwind]

Free slot play & free match-play coupons

It's funny, it was only a month ago that I sought after free slot play & free match-play coupons because I was seeking as much comps as possible. After playing around with some of these, I'm no longer very impressed by free slot play or match-plays. The food and drink comps at the tables are still nice, but I hate arriving at the casino hungry, then having to play through an hour or two just to get a food comp. Poor timing.

 

[bigplayer]

Not to be a nit-picker, but you're both wrong: it's worth slightly less than $37.50!

You can get close to the full $75 value of your match play if the casino allows it to be used on odds bets. For example, if you can bet it straight up on a number at roulette you'd get $2625 if you win and $0 if you lose. $2625/38=$69.07 value.

If you can only use it on even money bets then the value is $75/2 minus the house advantage (magnified if BJ pays even money or other such restrictions in effect).

 

[bigplayer]

Offsetting via Baccarat

Can't you just bet the matchplay coupon on the player at mini-baccarat, and a matching $75 on the bank, so that you will be in essence converting it to either $75 if player wins or $75 less 5% commission if the bank wins?

Most casinos will not let you bet both player and banker with a match play. Second most match plays require you to match them on the same bet with your own money, so you would have $75 + $75 MP on banker and $150 on player to do a pure offset.

If Banker Wins
You would win $150 and keep $75 original bet minus $7.50 commission
You lose $150 bet on player
Net result -$7.50

If Player Wins
You win $150 and Keep $150 original Bet ($300 Total)
You Lose $75 bet on Banker
Net win $+75

$75 -$7.50= $67.50 / 2 = $33.75 value

 

[London Colin]

<i> Originally Posted by aslan View Post
Can't you just bet the matchplay coupon on the player at mini-baccarat, and a matching $75 on the bank, so that you will be in essence converting it to either $75 if player wins or $75 less 5% commission if the bank wins?</i>

Most casinos will not let you bet both player and banker with a match play. Second most match plays require you to match them on the same bet with your own money, so you would have $75 + $75 MP on banker and $150 on player to do a pure offset.

If Banker Wins
You would win $150 and keep $75 original bet minus $7.50 commission
You lose $150 bet on player
Net result -$7.50

If Player Wins
You win $150 and Keep $150 original Bet ($300 Total)
You Lose $75 bet on Banker
Net win $+75

$75 -$7.50= $67.50 / 2 = $33.75 value

To get the same outcome whether player or banker wins, you need to bet roughly 50% more actual cash on the side where you do not use the matchplay.

So if you bet $75 + MP on player, then you need to bet:
($75 + $37.50 + a little bit to account for the commission) on banker. I make it $115.38 on banker for a perfect hedge.

If you bet $75 + MP on banker, then you need to bet:
($75 + $37.50 - a little bit to account for the commission) on player. I make it $108.75 on player for a perfect hedge.

 

[Mr. T]

Error

 

[pit15]

It's funny, it was only a month ago that I sought after free slot play & free match-play coupons because I was seeking as much comps as possible. After playing around with some of these, I'm no longer very impressed by free slot play or match-plays. The food and drink comps at the tables are still nice, but I hate arriving at the casino hungry, then having to play through an hour or two just to get a food comp. Poor timing.

Yeah, but at most places you can "bank" your comp dollars for a future visit, and most vouchers are good for some amount of time. Plus I spend 4 - 5 days at a time in casinos (staying at the hotel too) so I WILL be eating at the casino.

 

[aslan]

Most casinos will not let you bet both player and banker with a match play. Second most match plays require you to match them on the same bet with your own money, so you would have $75 + $75 MP on banker and $150 on player to do a pure offset.

If Banker Wins
You would win $150 and keep $75 original bet minus $7.50 commission
You lose $150 bet on player
Net result -$7.50

If Player Wins
You win $150 and Keep $150 original Bet ($300 Total)
You Lose $75 bet on Banker
Net win $+75

$75 -$7.50= $67.50 / 2 = $33.75 value

So you agree, if you do it this way, your maximum risk is $7.50 (or $3.25 if they let you do it with matchplay on one side and $75 cash on the other)? If you do it the way they want you to do it (MatchPlay plus $75 on one side), you risk $75 out-of-pocket. My way allows you to convert your MP to cash risking only a relatively small loss.

 

[aslan]

But then the net gain is zero. Am I misunderstanding this some how?

If you put the match play on the bank, you should either lose $3.25 if the bank wins, or win $75.00 if the player wins. What you are doing is minimizing potential losses. If you were to put the MatchPlay and $75 on any single bet (baccarat, roulette, blackjack), you would be risking $75 to gain $150. My way you are risking $3.25 to gain $75. If they won't let you split in on both sides of the bet, then you will have to play MP + $75 on one side, and $150 on the other. Then you are risking $7.50 to win $75.

 

[London Colin]

If they won't let you split in on both sides of the bet, then you will have to play MP + $75 on one side, and $150 on the other. Then you are risking $7.50 to win $75.

Why not do it the way I described? The EV is higher (though still not as high as if you play the MP alone) and the risk entirely disappears; your return is guaranteed.

 

[aslan]

Why not do it the way I described? The EV is higher (though still not as high as if you play the MP alone) and the risk entirely disappears; your return is guaranteed.

To tell you the truth, I never thought of it. You could also design it to either yield nothing or $72+ by increasing the bank bet to include the interest factor (say, $158).

In your calculation, of course, $115.38 won't get it. You'd have to bet $115 even (ie, no penny chips).

So it's a choice of winning something for sure, or possibly winning twice that amount or nothing, neither requiring the risk of anything out-of-pocket. Which is better? A bird in the hand, or two in the bush? The rhyme says they're equal, but are they?

 

[London Colin]

To tell you the truth, I never thought of it. You could also design it to either yield nothing or $72+ by increasing the bank bet to include the interest factor (say, $158).

I've become slightly confused regarding some of what you've been suggesting, so apologies if I've misunderstood. But if you mean:
Your original idea was $75+MP on Player and $150 on Banker, and this could now be modified to $75+MP on Player and $158 on Banker, then ..

Why not start with $75+MP on Player and $75 on Banker, and adjust this to $79 on Banker?

There is a symmetry here - either the side with the MP, or the side without it can be the one that yields a profit (or we can aim for the middle and profit either way) - and you seem to be approaching from the wrong direction, so to speak. It's a negative EV game, so we want to put down as little extra money as we can, since it is all subject to the house edge.

To get rid of the possible negative outcome, you only need to add $4 to the $75, instead of $8 to the $150, if you see what I mean.

In your calculation, of course, $115.38 won't get it. You'd have to bet $115 even (ie, no penny chips).

Of course, I just wanted to show the balance point (I nearly went to several decimal places)

So it's a choice of winning something for sure, or possibly winning twice that amount or nothing, neither requiring the risk of anything out-of-pocket. Which is better? A bird in the hand, or two in the bush? The rhyme says they're equal, but are they?

There's a whole spectrum available. You start with no hedge at all, just your $75 + MP on Player. This maximises the EV. If you add a hedge bet on Banker, then the EV falls as you increase its size, and the two possible outcomes move towards one another. When the hedge gets to about $79, the worst outcome has reached zero; when it gets to about $115 the two outcomes have converged. So there is no point in ever betting more than that, as you are just causing them to diverge again.

 

[Mr. T]

To tell you the truth, I never thought of it. You could also design it to either yield nothing or $72+ by increasing the bank bet to include the interest factor (say, $158).

In your calculation, of course, $115.38 won't get it. You'd have to bet $115 even (ie, no penny chips).

So it's a choice of winning something for sure, or possibly winning twice that amount or nothing, neither requiring the risk of anything out-of-pocket. Which is better? A bird in the hand, or two in the bush? The rhyme says they're equal, but are they?

Colin, much as I respect you I must side with Aslan here.

A bird in the hand, or two in the bush? It all boils down to this.

I know what you are saying about hedges and the more money you have on the table the higher your penalty gets, because of the build in House Edge. And instead of the -EV you should add in just a liitle more to zero EV.

I now think for this $75 MP you should not play Baccarat at all. You should be playing BJ. With all the hedges you are using in Baccarat you are paying a high penalty. Furthermore the HE is only about 0.50% for the BS player in BJ whereas in Baccarat it is an average of 1.15%. If you are a card counter with about a -1% EV at high count it makes it an even better propositon.

So once again forget about Baccarat with/wthout hedging. Play BJ instead.

 

[London Colin]

Colin, much as I respect you I must side with Aslan here.

I'm not sure what you mean. What is the dispute?

A bird in the hand, or two in the bush? It all boils down to this.

I know what you are saying about hedges and the more money you have on the table the higher your penalty gets, because of the build in House Edge. And instead of the -EV you should add in just a liitle more to zero EV.

It sounds like you got the gist of what I was trying to say, though that last sentence is a little confusing. (zero EV) ....

The max size of any hedge is roughly 150% of the cash part of the matchplay bet. You can achieve any sort of partial hedge that you desire by betting less than that; there is no reason to ever bet more.

The less you comit to any hedge bet, the more value you extract from the matchplay coupon, but the bigger the up-and-down swings, depending on which side of the bet wins.

I now think for this $75 MP you should not play Baccarat at all. You should be playing BJ. With all the hedges you are using in Baccarat you are paying a high penalty. Furthermore the HE is only about 0.50% for the BS player in BJ whereas in Baccarat it is an average of 1.15%. If you are a card counter with about a -1% EV at high count it makes it an even better propositon.

So once again forget about Baccarat with/wthout hedging. Play BJ instead.

No one is being forced to do any hedging. It's entirely voluntary. No penalty need be paid. So that really isn't a factor in figuring out which game extracts the most value from the matchplay.

The best game depends on the precise rules of the matchplay. In some circumstances BJ is better than baccarat; in some it isn't. And if the MP is not restricted to even-money bets, neither BJ nor baccarat should be your choice. Read the article I linked to and take a look at the table it presents. It's all very enlightening!

It's true however that there is no table to show how things change for blackjack with the true count. In cases where blackjack is a close second, maybe there's an index at which blackjack becomes first choice. So if you are playing bj in any case, you just have to choose the right moment to deploy your coupon!

 

[aslan]

I've become slightly confused regarding some of what you've been suggesting, so apologies if I've misunderstood. But if you mean:
Your original idea was $75+MP on Player and $150 on Banker, and this could now be modified to $75+MP on Player and $158 on Banker, then ..

Why not start with $75+MP on Player and $75 on Banker, and adjust this to $79 on Banker?

There is a symmetry here - either the side with the MP, or the side without it can be the one that yields a profit (or we can aim for the middle and profit either way) - and you seem to be approaching from the wrong direction, so to speak. It's a negative EV game, so we want to put down as little extra money as we can, since it is all subject to the house edge.

To get rid of the possible negative outcome, you only need to add $4 to the $75, instead of $8 to the $150, if you see what I mean.



Of course, I just wanted to show the balance point (I nearly went to several decimal places)


There's a whole spectrum available. You start with no hedge at all, just your $75 + MP on Player. This maximises the EV. If you add a hedge bet on Banker, then the EV falls as you increase its size, and the two possible outcomes move towards one another. When the hedge gets to about $79, the worst outcome has reached zero; when it gets to about $115 the two outcomes have converged. So there is no point in ever betting more than that, as you are just causing them to diverge again.

D#&mit, Colin! You're making me think. Yeah, same difference, but from the other side, placing the MP on the player side. The result is still zero on one side and about +$71 on the other. A bird in the hand or two (almost) in the bush. A sure thing or a chance on doubling that amount with no out-of-pocket risk in either case. Or you could just wait for a plus count at BJ to bet it. Of course, that is time consuming if you want a quick resolution, and of course you have no option to take half and run.

It's really a personal choice. For $75, who cares?--the gambling side of me might prevail--I'm not perfect. But if it were $750,000 or a chance at $1million $500 thousand vs. zero, could anyone pass up the sure $750,000? It does clearly set forth the difference between non-gamblers and gamblers, and since advantage players are still basically gamblers (short run, at least), there may be different choices. Far be it from me to pass up a sure $750,000. I'm the guy in the quiz show audience yelling, "Take the money and run!"

 

[aslan]

I'm not sure what you mean. What is the dispute?


It sounds like you got the gist of what I was trying to say, though that last sentence is a little confusing. (zero EV) ....

The max size of any hedge is roughly 150% of the cash part of the matchplay bet. You can achieve any sort of partial hedge that you desire by betting less than that; there is no reason to ever bet more.

The less you comit to any hedge bet, the more value you extract from the matchplay coupon, but the bigger the up-and-down swings, depending on which side of the bet wins.


No one is being forced to do any hedging. It's entirely voluntary. No penalty need be paid. So that really isn't a factor in figuring out which game extracts the most value from the matchplay.

The best game depends on the precise rules of the matchplay. In some circumstances BJ is better than baccarat; in some it isn't. And if the MP is not restricted to even-money bets, neither BJ nor baccarat should be your choice. Read the article I linked to and take a look at the table it presents. It's all very enlightening!

It's true however that there is no table to show how things change for blackjack with the true count. In cases where blackjack is a close second, maybe there's an index at which blackjack becomes first choice. So if you are playing bj in any case, you just have to choose the right moment to deploy your coupon!

The reason baccarat was chosen is because some casinos allow the match play coupon to be played on one side and the matching cash to be played on the other. Although when I tried this at one AC casino they required the cash to be played on the same side as the MP, so it forced additional cash for the other side. The other reason was for quick resolution of the coupon. Also, BJ does not, as Colin points out, allow for a hedge wherein a profit is made no matter which side wins.

 

[aslan]

Why not do it the way I described? The EV is higher (though still not as high as if you play the MP alone) and the risk entirely disappears; your return is guaranteed.

The more I think about it, the more I like the way you described. A sure thing is always better than a 50/50 chance IMO.

 

[pit15]

The more I think about it, the more I like the way you described. A sure thing is always better than a 50/50 chance IMO.

How is it better? You're losing EV on the hedge!!

Except in the rarest of situations where the match play is far larger then the typical amount an AP wagers, I would have zero respect for anybody who hedges a match play. If you can't tolerate the risk on it, you should get out of the business and stay out.

Reducing variance on a match play isn't free, therefore it shouldn't be done. Even in the case where you're allowed to play 2 match plays on opposite sides of a bet, you shouldn't do it. The attention you attract by doing that is -EV as well.