Gambling Forums

[MaryP]

This is one of the most interesting articles I have seen and I'm glad you posted it. I think Michael G. is on the right track as far as his thinking goes. I guess being a step ahead of other casino owners is the result of being in a family that has owned casinos for so many years. I think his father Jackie Gaughan is still alive and living in one of their casinos, but I could be wrong.

I think having shorter playing time to keep a bigger casino hold is the wrong way to increase profits and agree with what Gaughan has to say. I do not understand the math well enough to know if a low volatility game is the best way to go. In video poker people find these games boring and maybe would result in games with more frequent low pays. I would rather have a 99% slot with some chance of a big hit.

I play slots sometimes, but they aren't really penny slots as advertised. In fact I have yet to see anybody put in a penny for a game. Mostly I bet the maximum so I am eligible for the big jackpot. Usually that is $3 per game. I really have to laugh when somebody brags about winning $100 on a penny slot when they bet $3.

I hope strip casinos have enough sense to stop having slots with such a big hold that you won't get any enjoyment at all from your play.

[maybenexttime]

Did anyone read the recent article in the LVSun: South Point's Michael Gaughan gambles on looser slots"
>
> http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/06/gaughan-gambles-looser-slots/
According to the article: Machines that pay back 97 percent of wagers may be better for gamblers than 99 percent machines if they have a lower standard deviation — a statistical term meaning that game outcomes are less volatile and trend toward the preprogrammed payback percentage more than those with higher standard deviations.

I am curious to know whether setting the payback automatically sets the standard deviation, or can the s.d. be set independently. Maybe someone who understands the math can help me with this.
Maybenexttime