Better is Better than Best
/
A long time ago, I remember reading an article about
product marketing in which it stated that you'll never (rarely?) see a company
say that there product is better than a similar product. Why?
Because if you say something is better you have to prove that it is
better. If you, on the other hand, say
your product is the 'best' product then it is possible for the other product to
be 'best' too. Best, in marketing
parlance, simply means as good as, whereas, better means superior. So much for those Run, Spot, Run books which
talk about good, better and best. In
marketing it is more like good, best and better.
As bad as it is in the English language, I think it gets
even worse when it comes to math. You
can make numbers say just about anything you want them to. In the past couple of years, much has been
made about the 1% (or is it 2%) of the country that is the wealthiest members
of our society. Then there are those
that focus on the remaining 99% (or is it 98%).
I don't get political in this column, so please understand I am making
no political commentaries here - only mathematical ones. A friend of mine posted up on Facebook the
other day some statistics about what happens if you look at the top 1% of the
world instead of just the U.S.A. All of
a sudden a very significant portion of the country is in the top 1%. Which statistic is more relevant? I know people who are millionaires who think
they are doing 'ok' and I know people who make very modest salaries who are as
happy as can be. The relevance is more
likely in the message that someone is trying to send rather than anything
absolute.
In the case I just discussed, I'll assume that all data
presented was reasonably accurate. A
such, no lies were told. No
misinformation was disseminated. Data
was simply presented in a way to try and get some particular message
across. A few months ago, I wrote a
column in which I asked if the U.S. has had a Democrat or Republican President
more. In the past 5 years, it has been a
Democrat. But in the last 8 out of 13
years, we had a Republican. But, in 13
of past 21 years, a Democrat. In 20 of
Past 33 years, a Republican. I can keep
going backwards through the 20th century.
Someone attempting to make a political point is likely to use whichever
statistic backs his point the best, even though it may have only minor
relevance to the point.
When it comes to gambling, the numbers can be manipulated
just as much, if not more so. If I had
to take a guess, I'd say that the average video poker machine in Las Vegas
probably has a payback of 97%. Now, if
I'm a casino whose average video poker payback is only 96%, I might put
together some advertising that simply says 'come to Vegas where the video
pokers pay an average of 97%!' . The
implication is that the casino pays this as well, but that's not what they
said. On the other hand, a locals casino
that likely has a significantly higher average payback is much more likely to
say 'come to the XXX casino, where OUR video poker machines payback
98.5%'. Of course, we don't really know
how they calculate these averages. With slot machines they simply can present how
they paid in the prior month because there is no human error involved. With video poker machines do they simply take
a straight average of all their video poker paytables? Do they weight $1 machines more than nickel
machines? Maybe there is a uniform
method for doing this or maybe they have enough wiggle room to give you
whatever number they feel will send the right message.
Of course the 'average' payback has very limited value to
an Expert Player. In the simplest
example, let's assume we have 2 casinos with 2 video poker machines each. One casino boasts a 98% average and the other
a 97% average. So, should you head over
to the one with the higher average? What
if their 2 machines each have a 98% payback.
But the other casino has one paying 94.5% and the other paying
99.5%. The only machine out of the
bunch worth playing is this last one, even though the casino's average is lower
than the others.
One of the local casinos here boasts of having the most
machines paying over 100%. I'll assume
that they are telling the truth with this, but that doesn't mean that their
machines don't pay 100.01% and that all of the machines below 100% pay
96%. Now, to the experienced Player you
will still happily seek out the 100.01% machine, but this doesn't mean that you
can just show up and sit down at any machine and know that you are playing
100.01%. At the same time, you would be
better off finding a 101% machine at another casino that may have only 3
machines of this type and whose average machine pays 96%!
So, what's my point?
Don't be sucked in by numbers that can be made to say anything they want. The payback of a machine is an absolute
number, calculated with mathematical certainty.
It doesn't mean that every time you play (even if it is for a few
hours), that you will experience this payback.
It does mean that over time, your experience should begin to approximate
this theoretical payback, assuming you are using the right strategy. When you look at the paytable on a machine,
that tells you the payback of the machine.
This is all that matters.
Marketing numbers that the casinos produce are just that - numbers they
produce. After all, why trust the group
that has actually made better, better than best?
