craps player rating

[Mzamba_Slim]

(This might be a good title for a seperate debate?)

Good question Maverick - here are the two answers -

1. Scientifically - No
2. Artistically - Maybe - Depends how many rooms I have available - Do I know this guy? Is he likely to ever bet again? What's his bankroll like? It's a 'soft' comp (v hard comp - i.e. those that actually cost money like a Rolex watch etc) so I might take a flyer and put it down to 'player development'. I could go on .......

The artistic answer to any question is "it depends".
Everyone is looking for definitive answers to an infinite number of questions - that's why I contend the gaming business is an art not a science, because the answer is always the same - "it depends".

Knowing what it depends on requires an understanding of the science.
Examine the arty questions scientifically - if this guy has an unlimted bankroll and no history of play this is not player development - it's gambling - I'm not in that business.

Let's say he visits 10 times a year and makes only one bet of 10k each visit (all the time looking for a free room). Your chances of 6 heads v 4 tails are not reliable enough to take to the bank - let him pay for his room - he's got plenty of money! He's got 100k in action per year but I'll take the guy who bets $100 a thousand times a year every time. We need to talk about what mathematicians call 'measures of dispersion' to fully understand why, but you and I both know why - it's just common sense.

'Risk', by the way, is a great board game, but not part of the equation that determines theoretical win.

[123]

Originally Posted by Maverick

On tables due to the impracticalities of monitoring every bet you have to take the average of each bet, REGARDLESS of how they bet, the $25 bank and $30 player doesn't hold water, what happens when he covers the layout with 500 chips, he ain't putting 500 chips at risk?

Yes he is, he is putting exactly 2.7% of his chips at risk each time they are played, regardless of what combination or in what quantity.

Lets say ten tables with each player betting 50 chips against one player betting 500 on one table. Both scenarios generate the same theoretical win but your suggesting the revenue from the single player should have been rated at a lower average and is deserving of less comps.

[welshchris1963]

Look this is really getting stupid.Anyone in the business for more than a couple of years can pretty much see by the action a player gives what he is good for.Its neither art nor science just simple obervation.Does he buy in big and play small looking for comps?Does he buy in big and play big?Does no-one ever watch a game anymore? Here's one.A customer comes in and NEVER plays but his entire family are big players.What do you do when he asks for a comp?Bye bye computer system there I think.