Win Frequency Overrated

            Why does a good blackjack Player stick on bustable hands aginst a Dealer 6?  The quick answer is that with a 6 upcard, the Dealer is likely to bust.  Of course, this is not completely accurate.  The Dealer's bust rate with a 6 is 'only' 42%, which means 58% of the time, he won't bust.  So, first he is not 'likely' to bust.  He is just more likely to bust with a 6 than with any other card.  58% of the time, he will wind up with a 17 through 21 and will beat your hand.  So, why stick?  Well, we need to take into account how often the Player will bust if he takes a hit.  If the Player busts, it doesn't matter what the Dealer does.  This is all a wordy way of saying that the Player is more likely to win if he sticks than if he hits.  Or, in other words, his expected value is higher if sticks than if he hits.  Depending on his specific hand, it might be a relatively small difference between these expected values or it might be a big difference.  But, the difference doesn't matter.  The correct play is the one that has the highest expected value.  This is the key thing to learn for EVERY casino game.

            Blackjack is essentially a binary game.  You either win or lose your base wager.  With the exception of blackjacks itself and Doubles and Splits, the wager is a single unit and the outcome is either even money or the Player loses.  Thus, the critical factor becomes win frequency because for the most part, one win is worth as much as any other win.  In video poker, the outcomes are a bit more varied and thus the analysis is actually a good deal more complex.  If we define 'winning' as any hand that is Jacks or Better, that leaves us with a win frequency of 45% (roughly), but not all wins are created equal.  There are essentially 9 different levels of winning, ranging from Royal Flush down to a High Pair.  The payouts range from 800 for 1 down to a push (which is all you get paid when you have a High Pair). 

            This explains why when playing video poker the win frequency is not very relevant.  Take the following hand as an example:

8♣       9♣       10♣     Q♣      Q♥

            There are two ways to play this hand.  A Player can keep the pair of Queens and have a sure winner.  He'll still have a chance to improve to Two Pair, Trips, Full House or Quads.  But, his win frequency will be 100%.  His other choice is to go for the 4-Card Inside Straight Flush.  If he chooses to go this route, his win frequency will be around 30%.  Of the 47 draws, 8 will result in a Flush, 3 in a Straight, 2 in a High Pair and 1 as a Straight Flush.  The other 34 will result in a loss.  If you're motivated by win percentage, then the right play is to stick with the pair of Queens.  If you're motivated to use the proper strategy, you use expected value to guide you.  When the math is all done, we find that the 4-Card Inside Straight Flush has an expected value of 2.39.  The Pair of Queens has an expected value of 1.54.  It's not really much of a choice.  The 4-Card Inside Straight Flush is by far the superior play.

            Decisions for casino games are made based on the criteria of expected value.  This is not a concept unique to any particular game.  The same methodology that developed blackjack strategy is essentially the same one used for video poker or Three Card Poker or Ultimate Texas Hold'em.  Some of the toughest decisions are of the type I just described where the Player might have to give up a sure winner to go for a hand that in the long run will pay more, but will have a significantly lower win frequency.  The example I gave here is probably not all that hard to follow.  Since the sure win is only a single unit, it won't feel like you are giving up much.  

            But, you may have to make a similar decision if you are dealt a Flush that is also a 4-Card Royal.  If you're playing max-coin quarters, you'll be giving up a sure $7.50 to go for that big payout of $1000.   IF you're a dollar player, you'll be risking $30 to win $4000.  Definitely worth it, but it might just be a little harder to walk away from that sure $30.

The Cheap Cost of Entertainment

            I received an e-mail this week from a loyal reader who was questioning some of the numbers from my recent column.  The column was discussing the definition of payback and had the amount of the buy-in is irrelevant to the discussion of the payback.  The example I cited was discussing someone who sat down to play 100 hands of $5 blackjack.  With a payback of 99.5%, a Player can expect to lose $2.80.  The point of the column was to discuss how this $2.80 will not change no matter how much the Player buys in for.  If he buys in for $20 or $100 he will still lose the same $2.80.  All that changes is the percent of the Player's bankroll that he will lose.  The $2.80 is a fixed amount.

            My reader questioned this calculation.  Not so much for its pure math, but because I 'ignored' the situation where the Player might lose his first 4 hands be 'bankrupt.'  My reader is quite correct.  The situation I described ignored the numerous circumstances in which the Player will actually lose his entire buy-in before reaching 100 hands.  With a buy-in of only $20, this is fairly likely to occur.  Roughly 1 in 16 times, he will lose the first 4 hands and be done right then and there.  This doesn't even include the times he may double or split in the first couple of hands and go broke before even 4 hands. 

            That said, this was not really the purpose behind my calculation.  Since the point was to show how the expected loss rate does not change based on the buy-in, I could have just as easily used a $100 and $500 buy-in in my examples.  With a $100 buy-in, it is far less likely that the Player will go broke before 100 hands.  However, my reader does bring up a very, very important point about the importance of being properly bankrolled for any game.  The amount will vary greatly from game to game, mostly dependent on the volatility of the game.  Blackjack is a relatively low volatility game so $100 would be good enough most of the time.

            The second part that the reader questioned was my math regarding the anticipated loss while playing 1000 hands of full-pay jacks or better video poker at max-coin quarters.  I said that it would be $6.25.  My reader wished that his expected loss was only $6.25 and that this would make it 'cheap entertainment'.  Well, I stand by this number.  On a max-coin machine, the Player will wager $1.25 per hand.  Over 1000 hands, he will wager $1250.  A full-pay jacks or better machine pays about 99.5%.  Losing just 0.5% of his total wager brings us back to $6.25.

            Of course, this is the long term average.  Unlike blackjack, video poker has a much higher volatility.  Blackjack is a lot like a coin toss.  You win about half the hands.  You lose about half the hands.  Except for actual blackjacks, splits and double downs, all  payouts are even money to the original wager.  There tends not to be huge swings in how you will do.  After 1000 hands, you'd probably be very close to the theoretical 99.5% for blackjack. 

            Video poker is quite different.  You 'win' about 45% of your hands, but an overwhelming majority of these are really pushes (High Pair).  The rest of the payouts range from even money all the way up to 800 for 1 for a Royal Flush.  That Royal accounts for about 2% of the total payback.  This means that until you hit the Royal, you're only playing a 97.5% game which means the loss rate over 1000 hands would be closer to $20.  Eventually, you will hit that Royal and for that 1000 hands, you will have a significant win.  When you add up the TOTAL amount you wager and multiply it by 0.5% (the loss rate), the total amount you've lost should be very close to this number.  At the same time, if you hit more Royals than 'average', you'll probably be up significantly.  If you hit less than average, your loss rate is likely to be quite a bit more.

            When we tie together the two thoughts that my reader brought to me, we realize the importance of being properly bankrolled when playing video poker.  Given the volatility of the game, it becomes even more important to make sure you are in the game until you get to one of the big hands.  In jacks or better, this mostly means the Royal.  In double double bonus video poker, you have the luxury of a few of the Quad payouts AND the Royal. 

            I had an opportunity to experience this first hand twice this past week.  I ventured out on 2 separate occasions to play video poker.  In one case, I was down about $40-$50 when I hit two solid hands and came all the way back and left even.  In the other case, I hung around even most of the night.  I was down about $5 when I hit I was dealt 3 Aces on a five-play double double machines.  Short of being dealt quads, this is about all you can hope for.  Now all you have to do is hit the Quads.  On the fifth hand, I was dealt an Ace and a 3.  Not only did I hit the 4 Aces, I hit the bonus 4 Aces.  About 5 hands later, I left up with a nice victory.  In the case of my first night, if I had brought only $40 with me, my bankroll would've been gone and I never would've made it to the big hands.  Also, if I weren't using proper strategy, my losses up to that point would have been that much larger, and even a $60 or $80 bankroll might not have lasted as long as it needed to.

            Proper strategy and proper bankrolling are keys to achieving the theoretical paybacks of a casino game.  In turn, this is what can lead you have 'only' that much of an expected loss rate and get a cheap night of entertainment.

Customer Power

            There were two different articles that appeared today that on the surface appeared only marginally related.  Yet, to someone like me, I found that they were far more important to one another than meets the eye.  The first article discussed the upcoming building boom here in Las Vegas.  Several major casino building projects are in the planning stages and Las Vegas may, in a few years, welcome its first major new casinos in several years.  One of the sub-plots of this article was some local columnists discussing what they felt was needed to build a perfect casino.

            In reading these suggestions, I can't say that I have a lot of hope that many (any?) of them would be implemented.  One of the suggestions dealt with the idea of putting the attractions near the front of the casino and the casino way in the back.  Another dealt with moving the restaurants closer to the self-parking garages.  Yet another suggested that casinos go smoke-free (I'm all for this one!).  The one that got my attention was the one that requested that casinos do away with blackjack that pays only 6 to 5 (instead of the traditional 3 to 2).  This one also mentioned better paying slots, but the focus was on blackjack.

            For those who have read my column over the years, you know I'm all for 3 to 2 blackjack and do my best to warn people about playing 6 to 5.  Roughly, 1 in 21 hands will be a blackajck.  That's about 2 hands per hour.  If you're a $5 player, this will cost you about $3/hour.  This may not seem like a lot, but it will increase your loss rate by about 300%!  A 99.5% game quickly becomes a 98% game and now you're playing a game that requires a great deal of strategy with a payback that is in the same range as many of the table games with little strategy.

            That brings me to the 2nd article I read today.  It talked about how gaming revenue in Las Vegas was WAY UP compared to last year, for the month of February.  A significant portion of this was due to the Chinese New Year occurring in February of this year vs. January of last year.  But, even when this is accounted for, revenue was still up.  Revenue on the strip was up even more than the rest of the city.  It is on the strip that we find virtually all of the 6 to 5 blackjack tables.

            6 to 5 blackjack was created because over time blackjack Players were getting better and better and the hold at blackjack tables was dropping.  Casinos have a lot of overhead to cover - from Dealer salaries to the massive electricity bills.  While every business should run efficiently, this is not exactly the case of they should keep the customer happy at all costs even if it means eking out a small profit.  Casinos are expected to make huge profits at the tables and slots to help offset many of the things they provide at low cost or free.  I have no idea what the cost is to present the pirate ship battle at the Treasure Island, but they've been doing for about 20 years for free every night.  The money to do these performances comes from the gambling side of things.

            So, the casino decided to come up with a way to greatly increase the house edge on blackjack.  They could have tweaked the rules a bit - use larger shoes, limit when the Player can double, etc..  But, these have limited practical impact to the house edge.  One of the most common Player errors is not doubling on soft hands when they should.  So, eliminating this as an option doesn't really help the casino at all.  So, they chose to pay blackjack at 6 to 5 and take a bit out of the bankroll of the good and bad player alike.

            Now, if you've been going to a buffet on the strip that give you free drinks included with the price of the buffet and all of a sudden they tell you that they're going to start charging you for your sodas, you might think twice about where to eat.  Yet, for some reason, paying 6 to 5 didn't have much of an impact to the amount of money people wagered on blackjack. 

            However, if we look at the report about Las Vegas gaming revenue for February, we find that the biggest spike occurred on the Strip.  If you head out to the casinos in the 'suburbs' where you find more local Players, you'll find almost NO 6 to 5 blackjack.  Local players tend to be better players (or they don't stay local very long) and the better player knows that playing 6 to 5 blackjack is very hard on your wallet.   You need to learn a complex strategy just to be able to earn a 98% payback?  A Player can sit and play a relatively simple game like Three Card Poker and earn the same payback and have a chance for a larger single payoff (with Trips of a 3-Card Straight Flush).  And, if you're not an accomplished blackjack Player, your real payback could easily drop to 95-96% which leaves a Player with very little chance of having a winning session.

            But, if nobody complains about having to pay for the soda, AND they have the same number of customers this month as they did last month (or more!), then there is little reason for the casino to go back and give out free drinks at the buffet.  This is even more true at the tables.  If a Player is just going to sit and take his 6 to 5 payout with little regard to the impact to his wallet, who can blame the casinos for making this their basic offering.

The Definition of Payback

            I never get through a holiday without a serious discussion of what I do for a living with someone I've never met before.  Family (and friend) functions tend to bring together people for a large meal leaving them with loads of time to discuss all sorts of things.  As I have one of the more unique jobs around, my vocation tends to take up a larger than proportionate amount of the time we spend together.  This past holiday season was no different.

            First I listened to one person tell me how he has a system for roulette.  Admittedly, he didn't get a chance to explain it to me in much details when I had to tell him that it doesn't work.  No system does.  He told me how each time he came to Vegas, he would use this system and invariably walk away with a few hundred dollars.  Of course, his sample size was about 6-12 sessions, which isn't exactly statistically significant.  Based on what he told me, I commend my new found friend for his discipline which can be an important part of any successful gambling story.  Know when to get out when you are ahead.  But, that said, if you really have a system that nets you $400 in an hour or two, it is forever repeatable, which means you do it every night and then you send out a team of people to repeat your system.  No 'real' system could work only if you use it once every few weeks.

            Next up in the discussion came my favorite topic (ha!) - slot machines.  The system here was to attempt to outguess when the machine was going to pay off by altering the amount wagered for each 'pull'.  It was hard to keep a straight face when we got to this point.  I've heard of people varying their bet when playing blackjack in an attempt to guess the next cards.  If you do this well, it is card counting.  If you simply try to outsmart the shoe, you're just guessing.  If you try it with a slot machine, you are definitely guessing. 

            We've all seen the disclaimer that says 'past performance is not an indication of future returns'.  Nothing could be more true with slot machines.  What happened in the last spin has absolutely no bearing on what happens in the next one.  A slot machine is programmed to have a winning spin some percent of the time.  Every time you spin the wheels, the chance of winning is this exact percent.  With some combinatorial math we can also say that the probability of having X winning hands in Y spins will be some percent (assuming we know the probability of winning in any given spin).  But that is only true for the next Y spins.  We absolutely, positively CANNOT use any of the past spins in our calculation.  If the past 100 spins were losers, the probability of winning on the next spin is still whatever it is.  If the past 100 spins were winners, the probability of winning on the next spin is the same percent. 

            When I suggested to my new friend that he might want to avoid slot machines due to their 92+% payback, which makes them some of the worst payers in the casino.  Of course, when you look at the machine you have no way of knowing if it is programmed at 98% of 85%, which is as much as part of the problem as the average of 92+%.  My friend wanted to know how this payback was calculated especially when taking into account the way he plays - altering his wager from spin to spin.

            I explained that the payback used for any game is the highest payback that can be obtained by a Player assuming he plays using the best possible strategy he can.  For a game like video poker this means he uses perfect strategy to play each hand and that he plays max-coin in order to get the benefit of the 800 for 1 payout for Royal Flushes.  For slot machines, there is no strategy, so that does not impact the payback.  With slots, the impact of max-coin can frequently be even greater than with video poker.  Not only do you buy additional lines with additional wagers, you sometimes also buy additional combinations of winning hands.   As a result, playing less than max-coin can be even more punishing to your bankroll.  The payback of a slot machine thus assumes a max-coin play on each spin.

            Payback (for any game) is the amount that a Player can expect to have returned out of the TOTAL amount wagered.    The amount you buy-in for is completely irrelevant to this definition.  If you sit down at a blackjack table for $20 and play 100 hands of a $5 table, you'll wind up wagering about $565 (when you account for splits and double downs).  With a 99.5% payback, you can expect to lose about $2.80.  This works out to be 14% of your buy-in, but if you had bought in for $100 it would've been 2.8%.  Just further proof that the buy-in is not relevant to the payback discussion. 

            If you play 1000 hands of video poker (quarter machine, max-coin), you'll wager $1250.  If you're playing full pay jacks or better with a 99.5% payback, you can expect to get back $1243.75.  No matter how much you put into the machine, you should expect to have lost $6.25.  If you play less than max-coin, your expected loss will be higher.

            Slot machines are no different.  If you spin the wheels 1000 times on a nickel machine with 27 lines, you'll wager $1800.  You won't know the exact payback of that machine, but if we use a generous 95% payback, you can expect to get back $1710 of that $1800 wager and sustain a $90 loss.   If you choose to vary your bet from spin to spin, your payback might be even lower, raising your expected loss.

            In all these cases, the paybacks are expected 'long-term' paybacks.  Long-term can mean different things to different games.  In a 2-3 hour session of playing, your results can and will greatly vary from the examples shown here.

When 2 is better than 3

            When my father developed the first strategies for video poker, a few surprises definitely showed up.  Playing 4-Card Flushes over Low Pairs was not such a surprise, but playing the Low Pair over 4-Card Straights was.   One of the other significant surprises was how to play the numerous hands that contain High Cards.   If you had 3 High Cards of the same suit, it wasn't much of a surprise to hold all three.  Even if one of those 'High' cards was only a 10.  A 3-Card Royal is a pretty strong hand, even if it takes a bit of a long shot to actually hit the Royal.

            Without the mathematical analysis of video poker to guide the Player, most found themselves holding on to all cards Jack or Higher.  This would probably be the right play if you were sitting at a Poker table.  When playing Poker, there is little benefit to drawing a Royal over a Straight or a Flush.  All are very likely to leave you as a winner and the amount you win will not change based on your final hand value.  In the meantime, you'll increase your chance (or will you?) of grabbing a High Pair which will may be enough to win the hand.

            But video poker is not table poker and a Royal has a good deal more value than a Straight or a Flush - 200 to 130+ times as much.  This makes taking the risk of getting the Royal far more worthwhile in video poker than table Poker.  As a result, the decision of what to do when you're dealt a J♥, Q♦, A♥ not as clear as one might think.  Let's take a look at the detailed analysis.

            If the Player holds the 3 High Cards, there are 1081 possible resulting draws.  32.2% of the time the Player will wind up with a High Pair.  If the Player holds only the 2 suited High Cards, he will wind up with a High Pair 30.3% of the time.  So, the probability is a little less, but we're not talking a huge difference.  The Player may only have 2 High Cards instead of 3, but he will draw 3 cards instead of 2 helping to even things out a bit.

            Moving on, with the 3 High Cards, the Player will draw a Two Pair about 2.5% of the time.  With the 2 High Cards he will pull a Two Pair about 4.4% of the time.  The score has been quickly settled with the High Pair frequencies.  For as often as the Player will wind up with fewer Pairs he will wind up with more Two Pairs.  Given Two Pairs pay twice as much, this puts the 2 suited High Cards in the lead.            The pattern continues with Trips, with the Player drawing about twice as many by holding onto only the 2 suited High Cards.  

            Things turn around when we look at Straights.  It should be no surprise that the probability of drawing a Straight goes way up when you hold 3 High Cards as compared to 2 High Cards.   The exact probabilities will be impacted by the specific cards, but in this particular case the probability with 3 High Cards is about 1.5% vs 0.3% for 2 High Cards. 

            For the 3 High Card hands, the hands stop there.  There is ZERO chance of drawing a Flush, Full House, Quads, a Straight Flush or the Royal.  For the 2 High Card hand, we still have a 1% chance of drawing a Flush and slim, yet possible chances to get a Full House, Quads or the elusive Royal.  In this particular case, there is no chance for a Straight Flush, but if I had chosen a suited J-K for my example, this would exist as well.

            If we were to ignore all the hands Flush and above, the two hands would have nearly identical expected values, with the 3 High Card hand slightly higher, However, there is no reason to ignore these hands.  In fact, we specifically play the 2 High Card hand for the specific reason that we have the opportunity to draw all these relatively high paying hands simply by discarding the 1 off-suit card, all while barely impacting the overall expected value of the lower hands. 

            As a result, the decision is not really a hard one to make, even if it was an originally surprising part of the strategy.  Our 2-Card Royal with an Ace has an expected value of about 0.58.  Our 3 High Card expected value is a mere 0.46%. 

            This type of hand is a fairly common one and repeatedly playing it the wrong way will take a bite out of your bankroll.  This is why the 'seat of your pants' approach or using table Poker strategy can be quite ruinous to your results.  Sometimes, 2 can be better than 3.

VP Machines Playing Themselves

            This past week, I received an e-mail from a reader who told me about some video poker machines at the Soboba Indian Casino in Banning, California that sort of played themselves.  After being dealt the initial five cards, the machine would mark the cards that should be held (presumably according to some form of 'perfect' strategy).   If you wanted to hold a different set of cards, you had to 'uncheck' the hold buttons on those cards and hold the ones you wanted.  My reader wanted to know if this is the direction that video poker is heading.

            A little over a year ago, I received an e-mail from a company called Incredible Technologies that asked my opinion on a video poker game that they were offering at Red Rock Station.  It allowed the player to 'earn' strategy tips through winning hands.  This is not quite the same as the first situation as this only provides the Player with tips that he still has to listen to as opposed to going out of his way to ignore the strategy.   Is this the direction that video poker is heading?

            I tend to doubt it, and quite frankly a significant part of me certainly hopes not.   Just to be clear, my reasons for hoping this is not the new wave of video poker machines is NOT any fear of being made less relevant to video poker strategy or fear of losing some revenue.   While most of my columns for Gaming Today deal with video poker, most of my income is derived from table games.  In the 10+ years that I've been analyzing games, I think I've left my mark in that arena and don't have to worry about being the video poker guru that my father was.

            No, my reasons for hoping that this is not a new trend is that I think it is bad for Players.  Well, bad for good Players.  I supposed it might be good for bad Players.  The problem with this is that it tends to move video poker machines a few steps closer to slot machines.  There will still be significant differences.  The biggest being that we will still be able to know the payback of a video poker machine by looking at the paytable.  However, if all Players begin to play very close to the theoretical payback because the casinos hand the Player the strategy, then there will be NO way that they will be able to continue to offer 99%+ paybacks.  Casinos can offer games with high paybacks because they know that such a small number of Players utilize these strategies.  They can rely on human error to drive profits while still (truthfully) claiming paybacks near 100%.  It is the best of both worlds for them. 

            That brings me to the reasons why I doubt this is going to be a new hot trend that will overwhelm the video poker market.  Why would the casinos want to mess with what already is such a great situation.  They get to advertise machines with paybacks at near or over 100%.  Yet, they know that the games are almost never played anywhere near this amount.  Just like blackjack with a 99.5% payback but holds 9-15%, video poker machines do about the same.   Given the speed that video poker can be played, the profits that can be gotten from even quarter machines can easily outpace blackjack. 

            Most casinos are well aware that people such as me exist.  We write articles trying to get people to play the proper strategy.  We sell books and software to make Players, well, better Players.  At the same time, casinos know that despite this wealth of knowledge that is out there, most Players either don't bother with it at all or make some half-hearted attempt to use it or use it and then abandon it when they don't break the bank.  I've often surmised that I could hand out free copies of Expert Strategy for Three Card Poker at the entrance of a casino and STILL 75% of the Players who would sit down at a Three Card Poker table would not bother to follow the strategy in the least.   So, on the whole, casinos are not very afraid of Players bearing strategy because they are such a minority.

            However, handing the Player the strategy and then daring them to pick a different one may be far more than casinos are willing to do where strategy is concerned.  It is one thing to question when a Player wants to stand on a soft 16 in blackjack.  It is something all together different when a big flashing light comes on to say STICK when a Player has a 16 vs. a Dealer 2, and then only way the Dealer can hit is if he is willing to turn off the stick sign and go out of his way to hit.  In the case of video poker, if a Player really wants to not use the house strategy, then he is likely to find a different machine altogether.  After all, who wants to have to turn off the machine's decisions before entering his own on every hand?  So, there is a good chance that the actual payback of the video poker machine is going to quickly approach whatever the theoretical payback is.  Since the casinos will never allow games to be offered at 99% in this case, there only choice would be to greatly reduce the payback of video poker, which in turn will scare off all the good Players while at the same time, probably increasing the payback of many of the bad Players, as their errors will no longer be a factor.

            So, the only way I can see casinos adopting this concept is if they have some crazy reason to scare off some of their most loyal Players and want to reduce profits.  Nope, I don't see this as a big trend.  At best, perhaps some casinos will use them as a great marketing ploy, but that is it.

            

Beware the Ides of March

            I have to be honest, I had to look up the historical significance and meaning of the "Ides of March."  I knew it occurred on March 15th, but I had no idea what it meant.  It turns out that Julius Caesar was assassinated on March 15th, more than 2000 years ago.  Not a good day for Rome.  2000 years later, it would be not a good day for Frome either.  It was 15 years ago, on March 15, 1998 that my father, Lenny Frome, passed away.  I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, but it is poosible that Las Vegas has changed more since my parents moved here in 1985 than Rome changed since Julius Caesar began his rule.

            In 1985, there was no Bellagio, no Treasure Island, no Excalibur, no New York New York, no Luxor, no Stratosphere and no Venetian.  The hotels that still stand looked quite different than they do today.  Today they reach right out to the Strip. Then, many were set back hundreds of feet.  I believe Caesars was the first to attempt to build a 'people mover' (a moving walkway) to bring people from the street 'all the way' to their front door.  It didn't take long to realize that the walkway only worked in one direction.  There was no assistance in leaving the building.  The overhead walkways that now exist at Flamingo and Tropicana didn't exist either.  Of course, those streets weren't quite as wide as they are now.  If I recall correctly, there were about 500,000 people living in Las Vegas back then as compared to over 2 MILLION today.

            When I tell my friends who live in Vegas that my parents lived on the East side, they want to know why not the 'newer' West side.  Well, the west side was mostly desert when they moved to Las Vegas.  Where I now live was only built in the early 1990's, several years after they moved here.  Some things have stayed the same.  There's still Harrie's Bagelmania (albeit without Harrie, who passed away a few years ago).  Ethel M is still here, although, I think their building got a bit larger in all these years.  The chocolate is still just as good!  Of course, the Hoover Dam is still here, but now it has an incredible concrete suspension bridge which overshadows it a bit.

            Truth be told, my father had little to do with these changes.  But that doesn't mean he didn't leave an incredible impact on Las Vegas.  What he changed was the INSIDE of the casino.  In 1985, if you walked through a Strip casino, you'd hear the clinking of coins from slot machines.  As you meandered through, you'd see almost exclusively Craps, Blackjack and Roulette tables, with an occasional Big Wheel or maybe Pai Gow Tiles game.  Somedays I wonder how the casinos thrived on such meager offerings. 

            Today, you don't hear the clink of any coins because the slots take in cash and give back paper tickets.  If you pay attention, you'll note that many of those 'slots' aren't even slots, they are video poker machines.  Slots got an upgrade and the Player got a fighting chance.  Instead of 92-93% slot machines that require no thinking or skill, a significant amount of the casino floor has become video poker machines, where strategy rules and paybacks can go up over 100%.  Nothing is hidden from the Player and Player's can make informed choices.

            On the table game side of things, the casinos went from effectively 3 choices to literally dozens.  It is a potpourri of games - Three Card Poker, Four Card Poker, Spanish 21, Blackjack Switch, Caribbean Stud Poker, Let It Ride, Crazy 4 Poker, Ultimate Texas Hold'em, Mississippi Stud Poker, etc....  If you are reading Gaming Today right now while still in a casino, please go down to the casino floor and take not of how many of the table games are NOT blackjack, roulette and craps.  Then think about how much more fun the casino is with all of these new games.   Back in the 90's, my father helped to develop Three Card Poker, Let It Ride, Caribbean Stud and Spanish 21.  These games opened the floodgates for all those that followed.

            His impact to the casino was absolutely immeasurable.  About 15 months ago, I nominated my father to the American Gaming Association's Hall of Fame.  Much to my disappointment, they did not pick him.  Two years ago, they elected Blue Man Group to the Hall of Fame.   I recently saw their show at the Monte Carlo.  It was quite entertaining.  But, has Blue Man Group really changed the make up of Las Vegas or casinos in general the way Lenny Frome has?  If not for my father, it is highly likely that Video Poker would never have become nearly as popular as it is today.  Games like Three Card Poker and Let It Ride might not have succeeded, and all the games that followed may never have been given an opportunity to succeed if not for the impact one 'retired' electrical engineer had on the industry.

            Many of you have written to me over the past decade telling me how much you enjoyed reading my father's column in Gaming Today way back when.  If you're one of those people who recognize the impact Lenny Frome had on the casino, then I'm asking you to send an e-mail to Brian Lehman at the American Gaming Association (blehman@americangaming.org) and let him know that you think it's time to induct my father into the Gaming Hall of Fame!