Quiet Lion Gets Banned From Wsop By Harrahs

[mrdannyg 274]

no, i think it boils down to harrahs only wanting the business of careless, sloppy players -- the guys who play a little bit reckless, the whales who may play when heavily intoxicated.Brodie and the others on that hit list don't match up with harrahs idea of a "good customer"

i agree with this in a sense. From Harrah's perspective, these guys playing huge stakes at only marginally -EV games are not making them any profit, considering the comps are equal to the amount the casino makes.However as another commenter on Terrence Chen's blog pointed out, the more of these people the better, as the consistent play of all these players would serve to smooth out the variance of casino's revenues, as opposed to exacerbate it. More importantly, I think we can all relate to the fact that gambling begets gambling. Not exactly rocket science to suggest a bunch of high rollers might encourage -EV gambling from the rest of us suckers, even if it doesn't directly result in profits.3 possibilities I guess:1 - the "list" is actually a select few people, and not random high-rollers. Maybe people Brodie knew or worked with, others who played at this particular game, or just a small amount of unrelated people they decided to ban together for 'abusing' comps.2 - This game was not -EV, and rather than admit to Brodie that they had to alter it so they could profit off him, they decided they could do without his business. Again, Brodie mentions another high-roller he knows, playing this particular machine, on a schedule. Maybe a group of them found a way to get a non -EV game into the casino, then started abusing the crap out of it. Maybe this was the entire ban group, or just part of it. This is purely hypothetical of course, i do not pretend to have any real info or contacts.3 - He was using some sort of more blatant cheating system. Rigging the game in some way, knowing he's too high-profile to get stuck in a desert hole somewhere even if he gets caught. Pretty damn unlikely.

[mrdannyg 274]

Correct me if im wrong But no matter how perfectly he plays the casino still has the edge. I assure you there is more to this story.

meh. playing his 'favourite game,' even at high stakes could mean his expected loss was not particularly large. if he's getting a ton in free rooms/food/etc, they might not be making any money off him. especially if he was playing close to perfectly at a machine others play significantly worse.

[cubsfan44 0]

according to brodie he gave back 80% of his winnings. his player's card would back that up. 20% up on his money is well within reason.here, brodie, talks about losing $150,000 to the machines in a couple of days..."..........I thought I had to bottom out eventually but I finally gave up stuck a whopping $150k."http://www.brodietech.com/liontales/2007/04/lucky-me.html(doesn't sound like cheating to me. )

Brodie and the others on that hit list don't match up with harrahs idea of a "good customer"

so which is it?

[doox 15]

Correct me if im wrong But no matter how perfectly he plays the casino still has the edge. I assure you there is more to this story.

Keep in mind that this is the same company that supported the US online poker ban. They believe that making it harder for new players to learn the game and cutting down the number of online qualifiers for the WSOP is actually going to help their bottom line. I get the feeling that they have ZERO long-term vision.

[grocery_mony 8]

There is gotta be more to this story. My guess is they told him to stop playing vp because he is an expert at it(vp is +ev under some circumstances) and he ignored them and kept coming back to play there high limit machines. They then had no choice but to give him a no trespass order to keep him from taking there money which extends to all there properties. Still total BS that they can keep him from playing in the superbowl of poker. Maybe he can take up his case with the Nevada gaming control board but casinos are private property and they can refuse service to anyone they choose.

[ObeyTheDog 0]

There is gotta be more to this story. My guess is they told him to stop playing vp because he is an expert at it(vp is +ev under some circumstances) and he ignored them and kept coming back to play there high limit machines. They then had no choice but to give him a no trespass order to keep him from taking there money which extends to all there properties. Still total BS that they can keep him from playing in the superbowl of poker. Maybe he can take up his case with the Nevada gaming control board but casinos are private property and they can refuse service to anyone they choose.

He's still eligible for the Super Bowl of Poker. Just not the World Series. Jury is still out on World Cup of Poker, The Masters of Poker, and the Westminster Dog Show of Poker, which was won last year by this man.

[vbnautilus 48]

(vp is +ev under some circumstances)

which circumstances are those?

[QED 4]

Keep in mind that this is the same company that supported the US online poker ban. They believe that making it harder for new players to learn the game and cutting down the number of online qualifiers for the WSOP is actually going to help their bottom line. I get the feeling that they have ZERO long-term vision.

I'm not going to I disagree with your view on Harrahs but are you assuming that the size of the WSOP could never get so large as to make running it cost prohibitive?

[David_Nicoson 1]

I'm not going to I disagree with your view on Harrahs but are you assuming that the size of the WSOP could never get so large as to make running it cost prohibitive?

I think that's a good assumption. Harrah's owns half of Las Vegas. They can find places to rent chairs for $500 or whatever the juice is.

[grocery_mony 8]

which circumstances are those?

There are machines that are over 100% payout with optimal play. Very small edge something like 100.1%. You basically gotta play like a machine to make money. But if you are also getting cash back with your comp card It can add .2%. There are actually people who do it for a living but the casinos are making it harder for them every day.

[rgold79 0]

There are machines that are over 100% payout with optimal play. Very small edge something like 100.1%. You basically gotta play like a machine to make money. But if you are also getting cash back with your comp card It can add .2%. There are actually people who do it for a living but the casinos are making it harder for them every day.

Yeah good luck finding one of these anymore. Also a lot of the value that comes from making these machines +EV is stuff like a progressive jackpot for a royal flush. Once you hit the royal flush you will be ahead over the long term, but you can dump a ton of money trying to get there.

[Gonefishin55 0]

There is website run by someone who is obsessed about beating these machines. He tells you which machines at which casinos have the smallest -EV with optimal play. There are no +EV machines left in Vegas. If there are, he wouldn't mention it on his website I guess. From what I remember the casinos seem to be removing the machines with small -EV and replacing them with machines with higher -EV.True story, couple years ago I had a client win a sequential royal and take home 116K, he said next trip the progressive jp for this was gone. Funny thing I just realized this was Harrahs/

[sp227 0]

LOL at Brodie cheating at Video Poker. I am the Slot Analyst at Wynn, and I do all of the reporting for slots...paytable changes, variances, player win/loss, jackpots, etc. etc. I have had multiple conversations with Mr. Brodie. Very nice guy, but always trying to get a LEGAL edge on the house through paytable selection. He looks for the paytables with the best payouts, and is very knowledgeable when we change one and he will not play it. He says he does not play perfect video poker and he is right (I have stood behind him and observed his play). That being said, there is very little edge the house has in Video Poker at a $1 denomination and higher, so a player can get very lucky and run well for months on end and be profitable. Then again the house always makes money in the long run so it balances itself out which is why I am dumbfounded by Harrah's decision to bar him. Mr. Brodie will not make or break a month for this casino, he wouldn't even make or break our day so I have no clue why they are doing this. It just solidifies in my mind that they have no clue how to run a business (ie my WSOP experience to date!) Sam

[snooptoddd 0]

which circumstances are those?

The Palms has some 10/7 video poker machines that are positive EV ... they are rare, and are usually far outnumbers by those that are negative EV.

[Gonefishin55 0]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/That's the link for VP info. It looks like the palms does have some over 100%

[a__thekevlar__2 0]

anyone that thinks there's something else going on or that harrah's has done something right is not thinking straight. harrah's blows. I'll make it a point not to gamble at any harrah's property(other than poker). harrah's management is retarded, end of story.

[Czech Razor 0]

I skipped over most of these replies but here's my two cents.1. Unless he went into the machine and altered it, he did not cheat.2. There have been a couple of "Vegas Insiders" who claim video poker is the best game to play in order to beat the house so there may very well be some optimal strategy that can lead to profit based on altering bet sizes according to how many payouts you've hit lately and so on and so forth. There are some books out there if anyone is really interested in diving into it further. Some people wrote something to the effect of the house always winning -- that is only true if you were to never vary your bet size, ever. Then the math would take care of itself so that even if one whale had a winning sessions, others would not and the house would profit, obv. That's why the house will never, ever, ever make any table game no-limit for a whale. They know one single bet can break the bank, but a steady amount of large bets that the house can handle will eventually lead to all of that $ going into their vault. That's just common sense, but it gets overlooked a lot. The concept holds pretty true in most forms of gambling like Blackjack, sports betting, roulette, etc. etc. - any game designed to pit the player against the house rather than against another player. ---------I just read some of the Page 3 replies and I wish those were on Page 1 because I skipped most of this thread due to the initial content (and I use that term very liberally) being posted about the subject. But, per the status quo, I'll close with this: LOL BANAMENTS.

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

So, you why do you love the fact that he isn't there? You agree that he should be banned for the reasons they banned him, or you're happy he's banned because he's a bad poker player?

I'm happy he is banned out of sheer spite, because he is a poker celebrity who has done nothing in poker.. It's my firm belief that he's a full tilt "pro" because he invested in the company, and he's in the PPL because he's a rich fish they are buttering up. I can understand perfectly why it's good to butter him up, but I personally think he's a hack and I'm gleeful when bad things happen to hacks.

[chgocubs99 0]

I'm happy he is banned out of sheer spite, because he is a poker celebrity who has done nothing in poker.. It's my firm belief that he's a full tilt "pro" because he invested in the company, and he's in the PPL because he's a rich fish they are buttering up. I can understand perfectly why it's good to butter him up, but I personally think he's a hack and I'm gleeful when bad things happen to hacks.

But it isn't bad except for in the sense that he wants to play, and can't. When if he's in fact a bad player it is +EV for him NOT to play, so it is the opposite of what he believes, which means you shouldn't be gleeful, but pissed. I know you get all that, but I don't think you really GET it.

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

But it isn't bad except for in the sense that he wants to play, and can't. When if he's in fact a bad player it is +EV for him NOT to play, so it is the opposite of what he believes, which means you shouldn't be gleeful, but pissed. I know you get all that, but I don't think you really GET it.

Um.. since when do I have a personal interest in who the fck is in the PPL? You think BigDMcGee is Eskimo Clark's screen name? I'm not in Quiet Lion's fcking games, there for I am only a poker fan, and as a fan, I think he's a complete hack...

[BigDMcGee 3,355]

And if you mean that I should be pissed that a fish can't play in the WSOP, I'm not sure what his exact skill lvl is, but I would, to be generous, say it's better than average in a large field event ( but well below average in some of the large buy in, small field events).. and the amount of EV I would lose by him not playing is no where close to the +EV I get from the happiness the idea of him not playing brings me

[ratwastard 0]

I'm happy he is banned out of sheer spite, because he is a poker celebrity who has done nothing in poker.. It's my firm belief that he's a full tilt "pro" because he invested in the company, and he's in the PPL because he's a rich fish they are buttering up. I can understand perfectly why it's good to butter him up, but I personally think he's a hack and I'm gleeful when bad things happen to hacks.

man, you're a bitter angry person

[Marchione 0]

2nd that