• The abortion non-issue
• A new kind of surge
• Congrats Cap'n!
• Game over, man!
• Regarding Education
• Trivia Question of the Day
• What Right to Privacy?
• John McCain is 72 years old! [laughter, applause]
• Bug Braaaaaaaaaains!
• Sarah Palin
• Reich's advice to Democrats
• Women's Lib
• On Barak Obama and Joe Biden
• Late Night Punchline Imbalance: the details undermine the headline
• Better questions about climate change

• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005

« Sprachgefühl | Main | Atlantis Is a Go »

Harrah's Bans Microsoft Word Creator for Being Lucky

Harrah's Entertainment has banned Microsoft Word creator, Richard Brodie, for "being lucky."

I've meant to blog about this for some time.

I'm a quite-a-bit-better-than-average Texas Hold 'Em player (at least I'd like to think so...I think my poker buddies would agree). I also know the textbook best-odds video poker strategy, and play it consistently (when I get tired of live Texas Hold 'Em).

My Libertarian nature tells me that a casino should be able to deny service to anyone it darn well pleases, but it still annoys me that casinos routinely ban people from their establishments not because they're cheating, but because they are smart players. Wouldn't it be wiser for them to just change the rules of the games they run, to make sure players, on average, lose more money than they win?

On May 10, Harrah's sent certified letters to several high rollers informing them that their business was no longer wanted at Caesars Palace or any of the other Harrah's properties in Nevada, California, and Arizona. I was one of them. I called the office of Tom Jenkins, regional vice president, and got a call back from Terry Byrnes, the VP of customer service. He told me I was being 86ed because they couldn't figure out how to make a profit off me.

Now understand, the only games I play are poker and video poker. In poker, the house makes a 100% guaranteed profit straight off the top. In video poker, the house controls every aspect of the game: the pay tables, the amount of the house edge, and the promotions and incentives they offer. There is no way to use skill - or even cheat - to beat video poker. You can't count cards. You can't peek at the dealer's hole card. It's a machine. The best you could possibly hope for is to play computer-perfect, which I don't, and even if that were possible the machine still has a maximum theoretical payout chosen by the casino. The only thing the casino can't control is luck. One reason I like video poker is because you can get lucky and win. You hit a royal flush every 40,000 hands or so. If you're lucky enough to hit two, you're ahead! If you hit three, you're ahead for a long time!

Boy, have I been lucky at Harrah's.

I hit four huge royal flushes in the last year at three of the Las Vegas Harrah's properties. Not surprisingly, I'm ahead, although I've put 80% of it back. This seems to rub them the wrong way. But I have trouble imagining the thought process that would cause someone to decide that kicking out one of your most loyal customers is an appropriate solution to the problem of him having extremely good luck. If they think the machines are too loose, make them tighter. If they think they are giving me too much in comps, give less. They control every aspect of the game. Except luck. And kicking out players who have been lucky makes about as much sense as banning people from playing the lottery because they win it.