The difference between 5% and 7% is 2%. I’m not sure how it could be much clearer.

If each flavor were only 2% worse than the better flavor, it would be no big deal. If the expected loss increased from $100 to $102, it wouldn’t hurt players that much. But triple-zero is truly 46% worse than double-zero, increasing a player’s expected loss from $100 to $146. There’s a huge difference between “percent” and “percentage points”, they’re not the same thing. From your writing on gambling for years it’s clear that you know this, which is why it’s puzzling that you’re using the wrong figures, which downplays the severity of the game change.

Good point. I think of it as triple zero roulette being two percent worse than double zero, double zero is about two percent worse than single zero.

About this: “…the triple zero game (about two percent worse than double zero for players)…”

Triple-zero is 46% worse for the player. (7.69% ÷ 5.26% – 1)

If you want to use the “two” figure, ten triple-zero is “two percentage *points* worse than double-zero”, not “two percent”.

I don’t even know why people go to Vegas anymore. Unless a new property is opening I’ve stopped. The rich, that the casino companies are pandering to, are getting ripped off. They aren’t getting a better product. They are getting the same product, that the middle class use to get, at a (much) higher price. The last time I was in Vegas, last year, a six night trip ran me over $1700 with minimal gambling. One night I went to Ellis Island and they had $15 min craps. Most of the people playing did not look like they could afford that.

My question is why go to Vegas when there are so many other places one could go. Vegas, for me, use to be about the value and fun. Now it’s expensive and the same thing over and over. Current companies do not do anything new and innovative. They just charge more. You can go to Hawaii or Europe, particularly during the off season, for a price point similar to Las Vegas.