Ask the Slot Expert: Do you win more when you don't use a players card?

Question: I just won $300 bucks but spent $120 doing it. My boss won $3,500 from $80. I am a player's club member. My boss is not. It seems like I usually win more when I don't sign in.

Do you think something is amiss with that?

Answer: No, I don't think anything is amiss for many reasons.

First, weird things happen in small sample sizes.

I've had some NSU sessions in which I've hit three sets of deuces. I've lately been doing a slot floor tour, playing 100 spins on my two favorite Quick Hit machines, 100 spins on a Monopoly machine, and then 100 spins on a Game of Thrones machine.

After a streak of profitable tours, my luck turned and I was losing money on each machine. I used my card every single time I played.

The bottom line is that you have too few plays to be able to draw any kind of conclusion.

Second, the games you played and the amount you bet could have made a difference. Did you play the same machine, one after the other? Or, at least, the same game, maybe on side-by-side machines? Did you bet the same amount per spin? And, for that matter, did you play the same number of spins?

If you want to argue that using a card affects results, you have to hold all of the other variables constant. That is, card or no card is the only thing that can be different between the two sets of observations. Otherwise, you don't know whether card usage caused the difference or one of the other variables.

Finally, regulations for RNG-based games typically require that the RNG not have any outside influences. Day of week, holidays, conventions, time of day, usage of players card -- none of these things have any affect on the RNG and, thus, they don't have any affect on the results of a spin.

I've had many players tell me that it seems like they have better results when they don't use their card. Their reasoning is that the casino has to cheap out on what you win to pay for all the benefits you're earning.

Rare, but still out there, are players who tell me that it seems like they have better results when they use their cards. Their reasoning is that the casino wants to reward its regular customers and keep them coming back. There's a maxim in marketing that it is cheaper and easier to get a current customer to buy more than to turn a non-customer into a regular customer.

One group thinks you're better off not using a card. The other thinks the opposite. I call that the yin-and-yang of slot club card usage. Both groups can't be right. The truth is that probably neither is right and using your card has no affect on machine results.

I was recently playing my favorite Quick Hit Blitz Red machine. A lady sat down to play the Quick Hit Blitz Blue machine next to me. We were both hitting more than our fair share of Blitz bonus rounds. (Sometimes I go 100-200 spins with no bonus, sometimes I get multiple bonuses in far fewer than 100 spins.) We were both using our cards. She was winning far more (hundreds of dollars versus tens) in her bonus rounds, though.

I emphasized the words it seems in the statements above. Players' impressions about their play results are unreliable. People tend to remember events that confirm their theories, and place more weight on them, than events that go counter to their theories.

We don't have to rely on what seems to be happening. Players can keep track of their results with and without using a card. Then we'd have hard data instead of impressions.

One thing, though, is that you can't use amount won or lost as the measure being tested. Payback is far too volatile to test with a reasonable number (say, under 10,000,000) plays.

Hit Frequency, on the other hand, is perfect. We can compare the Hit Frequency of 500-1000 spins both with and without using a card. The frequencies should be very close, indicating that card usage has no affect on results.

Nothing is amiss in your experience. The only thing you can do is what I did with my Quick Hit Blitz neighbor.

I silently grumbled to myself that my luck in the bonus rounds wasn't anywhere near as good as hers. When I got up to try my luck on another machine, I wished her continued good luck.

Last week I wrote that some of the talking heads on TV are the source of Covid confusion, partly because of the limited amount of screen time they get. Consider this exchange between Wolf Blitzer and Dr. Leana Wen on January 14, 2022.

BLITZER: We're following breaking pandemic news right now. New mask guidance just released from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as the COVID omicron variant aggressively spreads in the United States, nearly 800,000 cases on average just yesterday.

[18:15:10]

Let's talk about the breaking news with CNN Medical Analyst Dr. Leana Wen. Dr. Wen, what do you make of this updated mask guidance from the CDC now encouraging Americans to upgrade their masks to the -- either the N-95 or the KN-95 for better protection?

DR. LEANA WEN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: I strongly agree with the CDC recommendation, although I wish that it came out much sooner because we have known for over a year that COVID is airborne and our quality of mask really matters, that it's best that if you wear an N-95, KN-95 or KF-94 mask. If you're unable to do that, at least wear a surgical mask with a cloth mask on top of that. But a single layer of cloth mask just is not enough.

I think back to the CDC had changed their guidelines months ago, we could have reduced the delta surge and we might not be where we are with omicron. So I wish this came out sooner and I hope the Biden administration will also make these high-quality masks widely available, free of charge.

BLITZER: Yes, because they're not all that cheap right now. Let's me get your thoughts also, Dr. Wen, on the Biden administration now announcing that Americans will soon be able to order a rapid test online, have them shipped directly to their homes. Is that the best way, do you think, to distribute these tests?

WEN: I do. I think it's a really big step in the right direction, because, otherwise, their other plan was to have people go to a pharmacy, find tests, get them reimbursed through an insurance company, which we know is not easy. This plan is going to have four tests delivered for free to Americans who want them, but it's four tests per household, which is not nearly enough. And it's certainly not going to come in time for us to stop the omicron surge.

What I would like to hear from the Biden administration is a plan going forward, as in, can we anticipate the next surge and then say that we will give all Americans who want them, two tests every week, if they want to take them. Something like that would be the moon shot kind of goal that we really need so that we stop being reactive but we're actually being proactive.

BLITZER: And what is the latest science, Dr. Wen, tell us about the accuracy of these rapid tests specifically against the omicron variant, which is obviously so dominant right now?

WEN: These rapid tests are picking up omicron, but we have to be using them the right way. The rapid tests are not as sensitive as the -- and as reliable as the PCR tests, if somebody is newly symptomatic. But here is how we should be using them. They are effective right before you do something. So, if you're getting together with friends and family, somebody who is vulnerable, take it right before you see them to see if you're currently infectious right now.

If you have symptoms and your initial test is negative, these tests are meant to be serial. So, take another test the next day. If that is still negative and you still have symptoms, take a PCR test for confirmation.

Something else that the rapid test is particularly good for is to see if you're still infectious after an illness. After an illness, you do not want to take a PCR test because that PCR test is going to still be positive for a long time. So, take the rapid test in that circumstance too.

BLITZER: Yes, excellent advice, as usual, from Dr. Leana Wen. Thank you very, very much.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

According to the timings in the transcript, five minutes elapsed between the start of her segment and the start of the next segment, including a commercial break. According to the clock on the screen, her segment lasted about three minutes.

Dr. Wen has criticized the CDC for confusing messages. Do you have any idea when to take the different types of tests after this segment? We have the luxury of re-reading the transcript. Thirty seconds at the end of her segment is far too little time to explain what she meant.

On January 17, 2022, Dr. Tom Frieden said this about CDC's messaging on CNN, "It's easy to criticize, but hard to do better." Last week I wrote that talking heads who say a message is confusing should rewrite it to make it clearer.

Later on the same program, Dr. Paul Offit said that rather than fourth doses, we should be trying to get the unvaccinated vaccinated. You get more bang for the buck in terms of an increase in protection giving the dose to an unvaccinated person than giving it to a triple-vaxxed person.

Okay, Doc. That's easy to say. How about some ideas about what we can say or do to persuade the unvaccinated to get vaccinated?

Click here for the latest Covid data.