Sunday, February 25th, 2007
Issue: 12   Editor: Nyx


Casino: a fraction of fame, Part III iAir
By now I am to guess that you have read Part I&II of this article, in Issue#10&11.

To cover what has been said in the previous articles, Part I&II, I will briefly explain. In Part I it was simply mentioning about how people are starting to realize that casino owners are keeping constant low maxes that are becoming a huge annoyance to the players. It was then mentioned that a new set-rule should be implemented into casino's just like the Keno rule. (Keno rule was explained in the article) Part II went further on to discuss and show evidence of these low maxes but was also implied that maybe it isn't entirely down to the Administration of Bootleggers to fix the problem... but to the players, themselves. This meant more killing.

So what is the real answer? According to Sabin's response to my question in last week's Elite Guard Interview, "the biggest and most effective solution lies in the hands of the players: kill for it."

Sabin later caught up with me about the issue.

In Part II, I included a brief examination of casino's and their maxes. Due to this proof Sabin said that "given the wealth of the average player, the maxes you posted in issue #11 (except the roulette) are very reasonable" because "casino owners are just players too".

It was also mentioned that "anything over $100 for roulette, $1000 for blackjack, $100 for slots, and $200 for races is fairly decent."

So according to Sabin, the above maxes (or anything over that) is perfectly fine. We, as players or gamblers, do forget that the casino owners are just players too but this is the sole reason to what this 3-part article was about. Casino's aren't being used for their real purpose.

The low maxes indicate that people only want casino's to be noticed above others. If we were to take into consideration how they are only players too, then we should be expecting at least some max-drifting. Meaning they raise and lower their maxes to try and gain some profit. Are we seeing that?

No. Which further leads into my reasoning of fame over casino's. If the owners really wanted to have a casino to gain profit (which is what they should be for), then if they are going to use low maxes we should be seeing a mixture of low and high together. Not $100 bets.

Now despite that, Sabin did say something that can be taken into consideration and I will leave us on his word to close the article. I don't plan to make this a 4-part article but if you have any feedback on this issue and want something done, BootMail me. If I get enough feedback I will go for Part IV and maybe, if the majority do agree, something extra can be done to solve this issue.

"Why do I think people are mad about low maxes? I don't think boredom plays a role. I think that a lot of players are mad that the lower maxes don't give you enough room to use a doubling strategy that lets you beat the house. You can't scam the casinos anymore, and you're not happy.

This isn't everyone, but most. There are a few who are legitimately bored by low maxes, but they are in the minority."