I like name of this topic xD About line
Printable View
I like name of this topic xD About line
Yes- application theory. How does ANYONE know what portion of the bell curve or where in the ror formula a machine is? You play a session and through good luck skim by with a few dollars profit. Or by good fortune or just plain sensible play hit a nice winner. What's wrong with cashing out in short term? Are you guaranteed that "variance" has finally turned your way? That "measly" win may have been the apex of ror and now headed even worse. The single play strategy is the only strategy of his that comes close to AP play but on good days shortens the session considerably.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
"Application reality?" LOL. "Rob Singer" knows more than math theory, folks. And what he knows transcends math. Because, you know, he's one of a kind. Like Da Vinci or Stephen Hawking. Only with Hawaiian shirts. Bad Hawaiian shirts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerThe double up glitch was a real threat posed by anybody who came upon it. And in every case other than the two boisterous big mouths who got caught--IE, me--it was an unsustainable threat had it continued.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
With a strategy such as mine, where discipline and ability are king and greed is a slave, it can go on with myself and others. I know of only one other player who plays it at my limits, and he's been successful for far more years than I played it. So no, there is no casino who sees it or would see it as a threat.
Two other points. First, your entire argument is based on a theory that has no practical application in the real world--even if it were correct, which it isn't. In aerospace applications for instance, math is used solely as GUIDANCE in many many instances but not all of course, while the true end product is provided by those that find a better way through creativity. For example, UHF radio transmission travels by line-of-sight. The math says that the strongest signal travels the shortest distance. However, aircraft have found that some of these signals propegate more efficiently and at an even greater distance if they're bounced off the ocean's waves. Not in every case, but some.
And that's exactly what my play strategy does, when it's played by someone like myself. If you're planting this bogus 61% into the ground, explain why the WoV math people would not bet me that I could win at least 8 out Of 10 sessions? In your world, wouldn't that be solidly +EV for them? But I expect you know why they walked away from it. They were smart enough to admit they couldn't accept a challenge where they did not know all that much about the data behind the strategy.
Math books and theory are great tools we use for basically everything we come across in life. But application reality sometimes requires much much more.
And that leads me to another bone I have to pick with "Singer." My God, man. You're shooting a Mendelson video regarding your super systems that you developed in private with no one's assistance. Let's presume your systems are better than math. Let's presume you won three million playing video poker with a glitch. Didn't Alan make any sartorial recommendations? I mean, I dress like crap. My wardrobe sucks. But my top 30 shirt options for shooting that video would be better than yours. What the hell!?! Didn't you hang onto some of that three million for trips to Macy's? Or Kohl's?
Rob frequently uses a posting technique that I call "muddying the waters". I think it is obvious what that means and why a person would do it.
Now in the above post (#559), Rob starts out with a statement about the double-up "bug" play. And then evolves into talk about his "Singer system". The two are very distinct discussions. The double up "bug" claim is without question a very +EV play. And the math easily supports and makes possible Rob's claim and in the amounts he claims (or even far greater). So for a change with Rob's claims the math works on this one. The only question that remains, would be is it true. Is it credible. And again, without some sort of supporting documentation, that is for each person to decide for themselves.
The second claim is entirely different. That continues to have serious problems mathematically. I often say "impossible". That is probably not correct, especially based on limited trials. But the math certainly doesn't support such a claim and if the explanation is that results are on the positive side of the bell curve or variance, then it really isn't much of a claim.
Now Rob frequently uses odd phrasing or terms to muddy the water. Or says things that really have no meaning in this context. In the above post a line such as "With a strategy such as mine, where discipline and ability are king and greed is a slave, it can go on with myself and others" is a perfect example. That means nothing. It says nothing. Maybe it sound good to Rob or some, but it explains nothing. Similarly his comments about higher level play, have no bearing. These things are designed to "muddy the water" because Rob has no mathematical supported answers. The comment about higher limits is saying "you can't understand what I do because you don't play my limits". Pure nonsense.
Other forms of muddying the water not from the above post are when Rob tells his story and says I was a losing player for 6 years and learned from that and spent 4 years developing my strategy. Hey that is a great line. :rolleyes: But as an explanation, it says absolutely nothing. It is a "muddying the water" technique.
And the inclusion of a single short paragraph about the double up bug and then immediately switching to discussion about the Singer "system" was an intentional "muddying" effort, attempting to give a little credit to the Singer System, which remains -EV, with no explanation of how anything changes that, by grouping it with discussion of the "bug" which is +EV. They are completely separate things, separate discussions. Lumping them together is just another "muddying technique".
I guess "deflection" is another term for what I call muddying the waters. That is what you do when you don't have an answer that is supported by math. And Rob Singer (person or persona) is a master of it. ;)
That's the problem with people like you who've never worked in the real world kew. Not everything is "supported by math". All you know is the numbers on cards, and your thinking never goes beyond what you see. You keep bringing up the double up glitch but you never apply any numbers to it. You know why? Because the edge is over 1000% in most cases, and aside from it being beyond your comprehension, it shows up in no books or in any forum chatter. It is not something you can deal with. Neither is my play strategy.
Again, for KJ's benefit, I will state that I do not believe Rob has a legit VP system that is a long term loser with both short term and long term -EV. If Rob is ahead then it seems obvious Rob has not played it enough yet he thinks he has therefor he remains confident it works given his personal sample size(is that called confirmation bias?.) I think that he really doesn't keep track very well and only notices when he wins big and forgets all the small losses.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayThe Kane/Nestor bug was a major threat to casinos so Casinos disabled double-up on vulnerable machines even though only a small number of people knew about the bug. A small number of people know about your system, and yet -EV VP is still available to play all over the place - the casinos didn't decide to eliminate it. Gee I wonder why ? I already explained that denominational and theme switching is a composition of flat bet same-themed mini-"sessions" (that have no chance of an 85% win rate), which, when combined, form the overall "session" but naturally you ignored that point. You state a -EV betting and theme system can be profitable - the burden of proof is on you, not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerYou haven't proven anything with your contrived and misrepresented "61%" guess. You have no idea what the correct data is to begin with. "$1 8/5 BP" all day long combined with "progressive betting (up or down or both??) means you "might win more sessions, but for me to feel good about this I have to add that you will have BIGGER losers too".Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
Then that dealer-turned-big-time-7 Stars AP, RS__, chimes in with his goofy support. Only critics like you two could talk yourselves into being mathematical analysts by guessing at what the data and parameters really are.
Tableplay, I find it never I have to disagree with something you say. I would think the casinos are going to do whatever is most beneficial to them. There would be no logical reason not to fix a bug that IGT is responsible for if the cost if of doing so and the time it takes makes sense. In this case, it seems as if it did make sense. Also, they might be in violation of the law knowingly allowing machines like this not to be fixed.
Actually, I bet everything is supported by some type of math. I bet they can even tie art and other crazy things to math, even if its a type of math we don't understand or know how to apply it yet. There's probably some mathematical formula we don't know how to apply yet that can even figure out your brain and thoughts. But never mind all that all. This gambling stuff you are talking about is nothing but math. You might argue that finding it and or coming up with some system isn't based on math and more about some outside the box thinking or luck, however, after that point, it's all about the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Cheers M8.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfAgain, for KJ's benefit, I will state that I do not believe Rob has a legit VP system that is a long term loser with both short term and long term -EV. If Rob is ahead then it seems obvious Rob has not played it enough yet he thinks he has therefor he remains confident it works given his personal sample size(is that called confirmation bias?.) I think that he really doesn't keep track very well and only notices when he wins big and forgets all the small losses.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayThe Kane/Nestor bug was a major threat to casinos so Casinos disabled double-up on vulnerable machines even though only a small number of people knew about the bug. A small number of people know about your system, and yet -EV VP is still available to play all over the place - the casinos didn't decide to eliminate it. Gee I wonder why ? I already explained that denominational and theme switching is a composition of flat bet same-themed mini-"sessions" (that have no chance of an 85% win rate), which, when combined, form the overall "session" but naturally you ignored that point. You state a -EV betting and theme system can be profitable - the burden of proof is on you, not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Tableplay, I find it never I have to disagree with something you say. I would think the casinos are going to do whatever is most beneficial to them. There would be no logical reason not to fix a bug that IGT is responsible for if the cost if of doing so and the time it takes makes sense. In this case, it seems as if it did make sense. Also, they might be in violation of the law knowingly allowing machines like this not to be fixed.
I believe you are stating that you and unowme are not the same person. I took the position that you were both the same person.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
How did my name get attached to this quote?
When I click onto the blue double arrows next to my name,
it brings me to a quote by unowme...
Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Since this was explained to you by several people and you ignored the answers, it would be futile to answer you. For new forum members alone I answer this Ron. You could simply use a larger bankroll to achieve your $2500 "session" goal thereby "winning" 85% of your sessions. The sum total of the wins derived from 85% of the "sessions" would be less than the amount lost in the remaining 15% of the "sessions" however. This is why you would never accept a bet based on an absolute dollar amount.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Wait...what??? You deliberately edited a quote by unowme by deleting his name and typing in my name in its place, so that it appears that the quote he made was made by me?Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayI believe you are stating that you and unowme are not the same person. I took the position that you were both the same person.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
How did my name get attached to this quote?
When I click onto the blue double arrows next to my name,
it brings me to a quote by unowme...
Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
I'm not saying gambling isn't grounded in math, just like everything else is. I'm saying just as I found the double up glitch by using an other-than-the-math skill, wherein I then basically applied math in order to formulate an overall strategic plan based on how the machines operate, there are not exceptions....but additional aspects that warrant serious considerations in many mathematical situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfActually, I bet everything is supported by some type of math. I bet they can even tie art and other crazy things to math, even if its a type of math we don't understand or know how to apply it yet. There's probably some mathematical formula we don't know how to apply yet that can even figure out your brain and thoughts. But never mind all that all. This gambling stuff you are talking about is nothing but math. You might argue that finding it and or coming up with some system isn't based on math and more about some outside the box thinking or luck, however, after that point, it's all about the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
This may sound foreign to many people at least here. But it's been learned from the world I've worked in before becoming involved in professional gambling. I know a lot of people who aren't involved with gambling who would understand what I'm referring to in a heartbeat. I know I'm not getting through to people here, and I understand why. Yes I know I'm considered odd in what I do and say and how I do and say it. It was also very odd that I did what I did for 5-1/2 years. Everybody's different.
We're not speaking a different language--just a different dialect. There will be no conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplaySince this was explained to you by several people and you ignored the answers, it would be futile to answer you. For new forum members alone I answer this Ron. You could simply use a larger bankroll to achieve your $2500 "session" goal thereby "winning" 85% of your sessions. The sum total of the wins derived from 85% of the "sessions" would be less than the amount lost in the remaining 15% of the "sessions" however. This is why you would never accept a bet based on an absolute dollar amount.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
May I suggest everyone try to get this stuff out of their heads and enjoy the Memorial Day Weekend? I have a Wounded Warrior son here until Tues. I imagine that's different about me here also.
And fly the flag.
You honestly believe everyone would be fooled and think you made the statement under your Coach Belly alias right ?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyWait...what??? You deliberately edited a quote by unowme by deleting his name and typing in my name in its place, so that it appears that the quote he made was made by me?Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayI believe you are stating that you and unowme are not the same person. I took the position that you were both the same person.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
redietz....you know who I am from LV Advice. Tell these yahoos I'm not this Coach Belly character. Sheesh. What a welcoming bunch.
Thank him for his service for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerWe're not speaking a different language--just a different dialect. There will be no conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplaySince this was explained to you by several people and you ignored the answers, it would be futile to answer you. For new forum members alone I answer this Ron. You could simply use a larger bankroll to achieve your $2500 "session" goal thereby "winning" 85% of your sessions. The sum total of the wins derived from 85% of the "sessions" would be less than the amount lost in the remaining 15% of the "sessions" however. This is why you would never accept a bet based on an absolute dollar amount.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
May I suggest everyone try to get this stuff out of their heads and enjoy the Memorial Day Weekend? I have a Wounded Warrior son here until Tues. I imagine that's different about me here also.
And fly the flag.
First off, I've posted at lvadvice about once a week for 11 years, and most of them have to do with following Boyd offers and downgrades, since that's my primary LV stay. So I'm not exactly an expert on LVAdvice posters. Here's what I can tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
There's a "uknowme" at lvadvice.com, obviously different spelling, with roughly 1600 posts. I would not have surmised that "unowme" here is the "uknowme" at LVAdvice. My guess is that a writing analysis program would tag the "unowme" here as "coach belly." So that appears to be the issue. If a content/style analysis program did come to that conclusion, I'm not going to argue with it. I would have come to the same conclusion.
Frankly, if that's wrong, I wouldn't apologize, simply because I think the proper way to communicate as adults is with your real name. I'm R.E.Dietz (Robert Earl), therefore "redietz." My email address is available on other sites, and I make it available to quite a few people here. So if you want to avoid being mistaken for some anonymous other-dude, don't be anonymous in the first place. Be an adult. Use your real name if people confusing your identity bothers you. Simple solution. If that's too scary for you, too personal, all I can say is, "My God, man, what did you do before anonymous forums?"
Oh well. So much for my character witness. How about I just PM you over there. Whatever. Not that it matters to anyone. Since we both posted there for many years, I thought you'd remember me. I thought UKnewMe.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzFirst off, I've posted at lvadvice about once a week for 11 years, and most of them have to do with following Boyd offers and downgrades, since that's my primary LV stay. So I'm not exactly an expert on LVAdvice posters. Here's what I can tell you.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
There's a "uknowme" at lvadvice.com, obviously different spelling, with roughly 1600 posts. I would not have surmised that "unowme" here is the "uknowme" at LVAdvice. My guess is that a writing analysis program would tag the "unowme" here as "coach belly." So that appears to be the issue. If a content/style analysis program did come to that conclusion, I'm not going to argue with it. I would have come to the same conclusion.
Frankly, if that's wrong, I wouldn't apologize, simply because I think the proper way to communicate as adults is with your real name. I'm R.E.Dietz (Robert Earl), therefore "redietz." My email address is available on other sites, and I make it available to quite a few people here. So if you want to avoid being mistaken for some anonymous other-dude, don't be anonymous in the first place. Be an adult. Use your real name if people confusing your identity bothers you. Simple solution. If that's too scary for you, too personal, all I can say is, "My God, man, what did you do before anonymous forums?"
Just to be clear...you also think that unowme is a sock puppet that I created this month?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
After all this time, why would I need to create a sock now?
tableplay's fundamentally dishonest editing of quotes is something that Dan should be concerned about.
Consider the possibilities if this is permitted...
Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Unowme. If. That’s. Your. Real. Name. Welcome to VCT. We’re all bozos on this bus.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Well thank you. I really just signed up here because I have long had an interest in the double up exploit and thought I could contribute. Although I am a recreational gambler, I know math. I have known about this forum for a long time, and occasionally read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmUnowme. If. That’s. Your. Real. Name. Welcome to VCT. We’re all bozos on this bus.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
This thread was actually linked in another forum. That's what brought it to my attention. I have also known about Singer and his system ever since he was a nasty poster on Las Vegas advisor....so of course I also wanted to speculate about who would play him in the movie version of his latest adventure.
To Coach Belly...I apologize to you that somehow these people believe I am you. I'm sure no one would confuse us in person as I have have never been a coach and don't really have a big belly. I sometimes have some bad B.O. though.
If you know math it’s a cinch you are not belly. Lol. And Robert De Niro should play Rob.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeWell thank you. I really just signed up here because I have long had an interest in the double up exploit and thought I could contribute. Although I am a recreational gambler, I know math. I have known about this forum for a long time, and occasionally read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmUnowme. If. That’s. Your. Real. Name. Welcome to VCT. We’re all bozos on this bus.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
This thread was actually linked in another forum. That's what brought it to my attention. I have also known about Singer and his system ever since he was a nasty poster on Las Vegas advisor....so of course I also wanted to speculate about who would play him in the movie version of his latest adventure.
To Coach Belly...I apologize to you that somehow these people believe I am you. I'm sure no one would confuse us in person as I have have never been a coach and don't really have a big belly. I sometimes have some bad B.O. though.
Kj, this is a good point. I’ve noticed it too. I don’t know if it’s so much “mudding the waters” or “deflection”, as just saying something irrelevant to the point. I guess this is all saying the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
When I saw Rob say he looked for the “bug” or something that looks like a bug, this sounds technical but it’s meaningless. What’s looking like a bug mean? A bug is a bug.
Also, he tried to make a point that this was brought on by losing for four years and being upset at the machine and casinos. When you’re looking for bugs, it’s irrelevant if you’re losing or winning in the past. Bugs have to be present otherwise you aren’t going to find them.
If you follow Rob’s timeline, he had been looking for this bug (or something that looks like a bug, lol) for four years. Since the bug had only been in the game with the new update in 2003, that means Rob had been looking for the bug for 2 and half years when the game had no bug (or something that looked liked bugs, lol).
Most people wouldn’t keep looking for bugs (or things that look like bugs) after not finding one for four years. I’m still unclear why Rob would think a bug was in this machine when he hadn’t found one for four years.
So after four years looking for bugs or things that look like bugs, he finally found one. Personally, this is hard for me to believe.
Here’s the thing we all know: The wired article gave anybody who wants to a way to make up a story like Rob’s. It clearly stated this bug had been in the machine for 7 years before Kane and Nestor exploited in a drunken push bottom stupor, or that’s the story, which I’m starting to believe the more I read the article because neither one is very smart.
To compete Rob’s story, the only other thing someone would need to know is the right sequence of buttons to push, which apparently is incorrect in the article. Personally, I don’t think there was any intent on getting that wrong in the article. I mean the play is long gone so who cares. They didn’t do it protect anything or anybody. There would be no security reason to not reveal it in the article. And since so many people knew about this play anyway, as I’ve previously pointed out, I don’t think it’d be too hard to know what it was, as if anybody really cares.
Again, it doesn’t matter to me, other than I like a good detective story and this is a good one. I have no stake in the game.
One more think about math I was thinking about. As most know, I’m somewhat new on these forums, although I know I have my share of detractors (and a couple people like Mickey who have put me on ignore because he doesn’t like opinions different than his). It appears that Rob has been on these forums for 20 years or so and has his own system which most don’t agree with, even before this bug play or story was discovered.
From a math standpoint, it just doesn’t add up that the person who has a system most don’t think makes sense is also the same person who discovered a bug 5 and 1/2 years before anybody else. This is just looking at it from a math (statistical) standpoint.
All in all, an interesting thread. Good to see both sides and the way Rob comes back at his detractors.
Now it’s time for me to enjoy my Memorial weekend. A shout out to everyone who has served in our military or who has kids who served. I have the upmost respect for these people. They allow us the freedom to express our views in this great nation of ours!!! And Dan stays true to the principles of our country by allowing free speech and not censoring people on this site for differing opinions. Best site on the internet!!!
No need to apologize, not your fault...those guys believe what they need to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Members have a wide latitude to post whatever around here, but deliberately editing quotes to mislead others should be off limits.
Everybody already knew that tewlj is a cocksucker and the ditz is a flake, and now they know that tableplay is a scumbag.
Most, if not all know you are a whiny piece of shit as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyNo need to apologize, not your fault...those guys believe what they need to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Members have a wide latitude to post whatever around here, but deliberately editing quotes to mislead others should be off limits.
Everybody already knew that tewlj is a cocksucker and the ditz is a flake, and now they know that tableplay is a scumbag.
Cocksuckers, flakes, scumbags and whiny pieces of shit? Such a diverse group here. Maybe we can all have an epic meet and greet next time I'm in Vegas.
What about deliberately editing a name not to mislead others but to make the point that one thinks someone is a sockpuppet via a joke ?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyNo need to apologize, not your fault...those guys believe what they need to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Members have a wide latitude to post whatever around here, but deliberately editing quotes to mislead others should be off limits.
Everybody already knew that tewlj is a cocksucker and the ditz is a flake, and now they know that tableplay is a scumbag.
Fortunately for this board that it has KewlJ, Redietz, and tableplay as members who understand when someone is engaged in fabrications.
And, of course, this board is very fortunate to have Bobo, forum detective.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSoxQuote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyNo need to apologize, not your fault...those guys believe what they need to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Members have a wide latitude to post whatever around here, but deliberately editing quotes to mislead others should be off limits.
Everybody already knew that tewlj is a cocksucker and the ditz is a flake, and now they know that tableplay is a scumbag.
Fortunately for this board that it has KewlJ, Redietz, and tableplay as members who understand when someone is engaged in fabrications.
Thanks Bosox.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSoxQuote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyNo need to apologize, not your fault...those guys believe what they need to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Members have a wide latitude to post whatever around here, but deliberately editing quotes to mislead others should be off limits.
Everybody already knew that tewlj is a cocksucker and the ditz is a flake, and now they know that tableplay is a scumbag.
Fortunately for this board that it has KewlJ, Redietz, and tableplay as members who understand when someone is engaged in fabrications.
Same goes for Brian Bosworth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone
Yes there is all kinds lolQuote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyNo need to apologize, not your fault...those guys believe what they need to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Members have a wide latitude to post whatever around here, but deliberately editing quotes to mislead others should be off limits.
Everybody already knew that tewlj is a cocksucker and the ditz is a flake, and now they know that tableplay is a scumbag.
tableplay wrote in post #533
All you are doing is increasing the probability of a winning "session" at the expense of losing more when you do lose. Thus the aggregate loss is the same. There would be no point in pursuing this any further because of this. The only way to come out a winner is to win initially and then to never play again (on a -EV game). The wager to make with you is the aggregate $ amount won over a 1000 "sessions" (with say a million hands played) - not the percentage of "sessions" won or lost.
tableplay wrote in post #570
Since this was explained to you by several people and you ignored the answers, it would be futile to answer you. For new forum members alone I answer this Ron. You could simply use a larger bankroll to achieve your $2500 "session" goal thereby "winning" 85% of your sessions. The sum total of the wins derived from 85% of the "sessions" would be less than the amount lost in the remaining 15% of the "sessions" however. This is why you would never accept a bet based on an absolute dollar amount.
The two above quotes by tableplay put this debate into its proper perspective by telling the flat out truth. Especially for new members and loyal fans of Rob Singer such as slingshot and pahrump pete. Of course some people will not understand or I should say WANT to understand great work when they see it. All of this boils down to this following statement:
No matter how you try you cannot make a negative expectation positive over the long term.
You can disguise it in various forms of betting systems like the Martingale but unfortunately, they will all fail in the long run. The truth hurts sometimes.
It’s about time someone put this debate into the proper perspective and told the flat out truth. Thanks for pointing that out to everyone Bosox. Good job!Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSox
Thanks Bosox.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSoxQuote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyNo need to apologize, not your fault...those guys believe what they need to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Members have a wide latitude to post whatever around here, but deliberately editing quotes to mislead others should be off limits.
Everybody already knew that tewlj is a cocksucker and the ditz is a flake, and now they know that tableplay is a scumbag.
tableplay wrote in post #533
All you are doing is increasing the probability of a winning "session" at the expense of losing more when you do lose. Thus the aggregate loss is the same. There would be no point in pursuing this any further because of this. The only way to come out a winner is to win initially and then to never play again (on a -EV game). The wager to make with you is the aggregate $ amount won over a 1000 "sessions" (with say a million hands played) - not the percentage of "sessions" won or lost.
tableplay wrote in post #570
Since this was explained to you by several people and you ignored the answers, it would be futile to answer you. For new forum members alone I answer this Ron. You could simply use a larger bankroll to achieve your $2500 "session" goal thereby "winning" 85% of your sessions. The sum total of the wins derived from 85% of the "sessions" would be less than the amount lost in the remaining 15% of the "sessions" however. This is why you would never accept a bet based on an absolute dollar amount.
The two above quotes by tableplay put this debate into its proper perspective by telling the flat out truth. Especially for new members and loyal fans of Rob Singer such as slingshot and pahrump pete. Of course some people will not understand or I should say WANT to understand great work when they see it. All of this boils down to this following statement:
No matter how you try you cannot make a negative expectation positive over the long term.
You can disguise it in various forms of betting systems like the Martingale but unfortunately, they will all fail in the long run. The truth hurts sometimes.
Several of you people have me shaking my head---you are so very confused. I can only hope you guys aren't taking your misguided theories into the real world of work.
What I've developed is a way of winning very consistently at video poker only. You folks are running in circles with all your purported "facts" about SPS, trying SO hard to make unsubstantiated claim after claim with virtually no known data. OTOH, my historicals from playing 150-200 sessions run at a nearly 86% rate of winning sessions. Again, 61% my ass.
Am I really this much smarter about what the best methods I've used to win at video poker are, than you guys? I guess so. And I'm still waiting for an answer as to why the WoV math mensas wouldn't accept my challenge of winning at least 8 of 10 sessions, when Einstein himself is claiming 6 of 10 is almost guaranteed. What's the math say about THAT +EV play? Or are we gonna get the same old escape clause: +EV means win, and -EV means lose? If you only knew how elementary that makes you appear.....
Rob, give it a rest, will you?
He truly believes we have the word "SUCKER" on our foreheads. What a moron he is.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSox
I've argued over and over again with Rob about his system going back to 2006. Arci goes back to 2003 arguing with him about it. Lots of people have jumped in here and there with great arguments of why it doesn't work. vpFREE, LVA, Videopoker.com, WoV, Alanbestbuys and now Vegas Casino Talk. Rob has taken on all comers. I've argued and read the same great arguments against his system for 13 years. Rob has never given an inch. And he never will.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSox
It's the typical MO of any hucksters.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmI've argued over and over again with Rob about his system going back to 2006. Arci goes back to 2003 arguing with him about it. Lots of people have jumped in here and there with great arguments of why it doesn't work. vpFREE, LVA, Videopoker.com, WoV, Alanbestbuys and now Vegas Casino Talk. Rob has taken on all comers. I've argued and read the same great arguments against his system for 13 years. Rob has never given an inch. And he never will.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSox
If Rob truly won what he said he did, is because of simple variance. Nothing else. The longer he, or anyone applies it, the sooner it'll fail.
And if he really had "keys to the kingdom", why in earth would he waste time with millions of post, on a bunch of different message boards, under countless different sceen names, when he could just get wealthier than Jeff Bezos. And don't give me the "I'm retired" schtic. His hero Donald Trump is older and wealthier than Argentino and he sure as hell isn't retired. Face the facts. His whole "expert winning player" is a bogus made up lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbIt's the typical MO of any hucksters.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmI've argued over and over again with Rob about his system going back to 2006. Arci goes back to 2003 arguing with him about it. Lots of people have jumped in here and there with great arguments of why it doesn't work. vpFREE, LVA, Videopoker.com, WoV, Alanbestbuys and now Vegas Casino Talk. Rob has taken on all comers. I've argued and read the same great arguments against his system for 13 years. Rob has never given an inch. And he never will.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSox
If Rob truly won what he said he did, is because of simple variance. Nothing else. The longer he, or anyone applies it, the sooner it'll fail.
This is 31 pages and I'm only on the first page. I have to assume that there's a lot of crap in this thread, which I may or may not have time to delete, given that WSOP is starting for me in 2 days.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Anyway, here are my thoughts:
Obviously I think any form of true advantage play is totally fine.
I feel that blatant cheating -- such as using devices to give yourself and edge -- is wrong.
I feel that anything you can use your mind/senses to do (such as hole-carding) is also fine.
The toughest one to decide involves glitches in machines. There it's a true grey area, but here's my take on it:
- If you're being overcomped, it is fine. It is not up to the player to make sure he's being comped at a proper level. (At the same time, if the casino discovers the overcomping and corrects it, the player can't really cry foul.)
- If you find some misset paytable which makes a machine tremendously +EV, again it's fine. Again, it is not the player's responsibility to make sure paytables are set so odds are against him.
- If you find a glitch in a machine which makes it behave contrary to how it was intended, then I feel that's cheating and is wrong. An example was the Game King "double up" case. The guys busted for this deserved it. They were basically doing the same thing as repeatedly using an ATM which is overpaying. They're just lucky that the government was stupid and charged them with crimes which didn't apply to the case (lol computer hacking).
Dan Druff wrote:
- If you find a glitch in a machine which makes it behave contrary to how it was intended, then I feel that's cheating and is wrong. An example was the Game King "double up" case. The guys busted for this deserved it. They were basically doing the same thing as repeatedly using an ATM which is overpaying. They're just lucky that the government was stupid and charged them with crimes which didn't apply to the case (lol computer hacking).
I could not agree more. If a case could not have been made by the government in that instance for intent to defraud something is definitely wrong. The government messed up the case big time. If that was not a clear case to defraud, I don't know what the hell is, and this goes way beyond when is a hand is over in video poker. Is there anyone else besides Dan and myself who thinks that the Game King play was unethical? I am not affraid to say that if I was aware of the play 10 to 15 years ago I do not think I would have would have had the balls "on what I consider cheating" to carry it through and would have passed on the play. Personally, over the years I have seen many, many cases of unethical behaviour on the casinos part and really enjoy when they get burnt somewhat by advantage players, but where is the line drawn? Imagine finding and using something like that play in the Mob run casino days how it would turn out?
Bosox, I’ve seen APs say this over the years, but never really seen it myself. And, yes, I’m an AP and have been backed off and 86’d, one time fairly rudely and walked to my car by a big bouncer type, but I’ve never seen what I’d call unethical behavior. If I put myself in their shoes, I think they did the right thing by kicking me out. I mean after all, I’m not helping their business by being an AP and taking money from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSox
Maybe I’ve never seen what APs call unethical behavior because I’m a low level AP. Who knows? I’ve never seen a casino serve someone who is overly drunk. In fact, I’ve seen many casinos cut someone off because they have been drinking too much. I’ve had waitresses ask me if I thought someone I was playing with was getting too drunk, and when I said yes, they would get the host and she would politely tell him they would no longer serve him any more alcohol.
Bosox, I’d just like a couple examples of what you consider unethical behavior on part of casinos because I’ve never seen it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21Bosox, I’ve seen APs say this over the years, but never really seen it myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSox
Bosox, I’d just like a couple examples of what you consider unethical behavior on part of casinos because I’ve never seen it.
Bob, most everything I have seen wrong with unethical behavior on the casinos part involved TIMING. Always after the fact that the individual lost their money, too many examples "in higher levels of play" to be a coincidence. A little more compassion may infrequently be shown at lower levels of play. I know you are now going to say that it not the responsibility of the casinos to play nurse maids. Bullshit, this is a thin line that once again borders on ethics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThis is 31 pages and I'm only on the first page. I have to assume that there's a lot of crap in this thread, which I may or may not have time to delete, given that WSOP is starting for me in 2 days.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Anyway, here are my thoughts:
Obviously I think any form of true advantage play is totally fine.
I feel that blatant cheating -- such as using devices to give yourself and edge -- is wrong.
I feel that anything you can use your mind/senses to do (such as hole-carding) is also fine.
The toughest one to decide involves glitches in machines. There it's a true grey area, but here's my take on it:
- If you're being overcomped, it is fine. It is not up to the player to make sure he's being comped at a proper level. (At the same time, if the casino discovers the overcomping and corrects it, the player can't really cry foul.)
- If you find some misset paytable which makes a machine tremendously +EV, again it's fine. Again, it is not the player's responsibility to make sure paytables are set so odds are against him.
- If you find a glitch in a machine which makes it behave contrary to how it was intended, then I feel that's cheating and is wrong. An example was the Game King "double up" case. The guys busted for this deserved it. They were basically doing the same thing as repeatedly using an ATM which is overpaying. They're just lucky that the government was stupid and charged them with crimes which didn't apply to the case (lol computer hacking).
I agree with this except for the last example of the double up, and then I disagree only with the semantics. I agree with what would happen legally. If I were Nestor/Kane (or "Singer"), I would expect to be considered a criminal and would expect it to play out like an overpaying ATM case, as Dan said. Would I consider it a criminal act while I was doing it? Probably not. I'd probably have "Singer's" self-serving attitude that I had earned it by somehow "discovering" the glitch. So I'm being honest about the limits of my honesty (monet would approve). The more complicated the process necessary to exploit the error, the more I'd feel as if I'd "earned" it. But I would still expect it to fall into the legal category of the overly friendly ATMs and be pursued for a crime.
It may or may not have been unethical, but like I said before, ethics to me is just a cost/benefit like anything else. I'll happily reevaluate my ethical integrity when I'm sitting on two million dollars, or so, and I would certainly have plenty of time to do so. I'll call into question my sense of right and wrong during my post ninth hole cup of tea on my second round of golf that day at the country club where I would live.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSox
As far as crimes applying (or not) to the case, again, there were simply no (criminal) crimes that fit the boundaries of the case. It wasn't a matter of failing to charge them with something that's on the books and is strictly applicable, it was a matter of them trying to charge them with the thing most likely to be the case. They can't charge them with a crime that doesn't exist nor make a new crime definition apply retroactively.
Just look at the states, in particular Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania had Nestor up on some 600 individual counts (including theft) and dropped every single one of them. Why would they do this? Because there is no crime on the books (or wasn't at the time) that actually describes the events that took place.
Just because something might be considered, even if Universally, 'Wrong,' or, 'Unethical,' doesn't automatically make that thing a crime.
Finally, any of the casinos could have in theory brought a civil suit. Not that they would have prevailed, but you can bring a civil suit for pretty much anything you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21Bosox, I’ve seen APs say this over the years, but never really seen it myself. And, yes, I’m an AP and have been backed off and 86’d, one time fairly rudely and walked to my car by a big bouncer type, but I’ve never seen what I’d call unethical behavior. If I put myself in their shoes, I think they did the right thing by kicking me out. I mean after all, I’m not helping their business by being an AP and taking money from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSox
Maybe I’ve never seen what APs call unethical behavior because I’m a low level AP. Who knows? I’ve never seen a casino serve someone who is overly drunk. In fact, I’ve seen many casinos cut someone off because they have been drinking too much. I’ve had waitresses ask me if I thought someone I was playing with was getting too drunk, and when I said yes, they would get the host and she would politely tell him they would no longer serve him any more alcohol.
Bosox, I’d just like a couple examples of what you consider unethical behavior on part of casinos because I’ve never seen it.
Here's some examples of unethical behavior by casinos. And I'm bypassing the whole addiction, plying people with alcohol/hookers/love stuff. These are simple and get repeated:
1) The Palms trickeration mentioned currently in Guy Incognito's thread.
2) The misreporting of what'll happen to your comps/points when ownership changes occur. I've been told repeatedly one thing (your comps'll be increased/better) by multiple casino personnel at different levels, and then something completely different (whoops, they've zeroed out) occurs after the fact. Happens all the time.
3) Rigged drawings that serve the casinos' interests(monet will love me for this). Happens all the time. Has happened historically. Has happened recently. Will continue to happen in perpetuity. Rarely exposed, and when exposed the consequences (generally a hefty fine) have no real negative PR effect and do not outweigh the benefits to the casinos of the rigged drawings.
That's five minutes worth of unethical casino behavior. Give me a few hours and I could write a book. Bob21, want to contact a vanity press so we can co-author a tome? You pay, I write.
How is this any different morally or legally from exploiting a dealer who exposes a hole card or finding and exploiting a biased roulette wheel? Both cause the game to behave contrary to how it was intended. Both are basically flaws the gambler has identified and unfairly taken advantage of the casino. No different, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I'll argue exploiting a software flaw in a gaming machine is far different than keeping money from an overpaying ATM in a financial institution....at least from a legal perspective The ATM situation and all banking errors are covered by specific state and federal laws. That's why the Feds were trying to apply laws that govern hacking to this, but could not....because a Gaming Machine is just not the same as a personal computer or an ATM. It's a device that's very nature includes wagers, winning payouts and risk to the player and the casino. It's supposed to be fully tested and approved by manufactures and gaming authorities. An ATM's very nature does not include wagers, winning payouts and risk to either consumer or owner. If what they did was actually criminal, you can bet they'd be in jail by now.
Now morally is a different story. I'm not perfect. I just can't criticize them for legally taking unfair advantage of these casinos. Game King should have done a better job of testing. The casinos should have been more vigilant and not paid these major payouts for flawed wins. Just like it's their responsibility not to set the pay tables so nickle VP pays $4000 for royals. Just like they should do a better job of training their dealers not to show their hole cards. On the grand ethical scale, I'm not sure this even registers....compared to all of the really serious criminals and assholes that walk this earth. To me it's like not speaking up when the blackjack dealer overpays you. It's not my job to correct your mistakes.
I have oft wondered about the rigged drawings. I gave in and went to one of the "weekend" tournaments to try for prizes and free play. When my round came up, I was surprised to notice we had to play at a machine chosen beforehand and our contestant number above it. The object was to "slap" bubbles as they appeared on the screen and the machine would tally up your points. The big spenders-who were obvious by their screaming and prancing- had bubbles constantly appearing on their screens. I think I got 5-6 the whole session. It was my first and last tournament.
My opinion on whether my finding of and then using the double up glitch was legal or not? It probably doesn't come from the same perspective as anyone else here. I have never led the life of a law-breaker, yet I sat at machines and closely examined two home machines and casino machines after finishing my weekly SPS play for the better part of 4 years, not really knowing what I was doing or looking for. I did, however, expect something could be done in the ONLY machine mode where when a hand is "over" it really isn't over. But when that light upstairs suddenly came on (ie, I caught the bill feeder light being on out of the corner of my eye before the hand was "really over") then my efforts seemed worth it.
To be honest, I truly didn't know and still don't, if what I did was illegal or not. I do not know if just because the feds dropped the case, if that meant what I did was legal. I always felt the state could keep pursuing a case. I try to rationalize the fact that I refused to ever use an existing hand I did not play for or hit, and how I never used any winners I hit more than once, as the moral equivalency of it possibly being legal. But that's all I have. The way the Kane case closed down helped, but because it seemed sloppy and you can never 100% trust anything when it comes to issues like this, it didn't guarantee anything to me. That's why I waited out the 10 years.
Dan, ATM's are a COMPLETELY different animal. You know that.
You jbjb are the typical Nestor-type player who would never know how to strategically plan your approach after finding a play like this, and would not have the slightest clue on how or why to limit what you are doing. If there's anything here you've ever shown, it's density, illogic, and confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbAnd if he really had "keys to the kingdom", why in earth would he waste time with millions of post, on a bunch of different message boards, under countless different sceen names, when he could just get wealthier than Jeff Bezos. And don't give me the "I'm retired" schtic. His hero Donald Trump is older and wealthier than Argentino and he sure as hell isn't retired. Face the facts. His whole "expert winning player" is a bogus made up lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbIt's the typical MO of any hucksters.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
If Rob truly won what he said he did, is because of simple variance. Nothing else. The longer he, or anyone applies it, the sooner it'll fail.
It looks like Dan hasn't yet caught up with the fact that Rob is claiming to have worked the same glitch as Kane and Nestor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I'll tell you guys what my problem is with some of the takes on here, mostly because I just worked it out for myself.
In essence, it does stem from a, "Them and us," mentality...but not with the casinos, but rather with the court system and law enforcement. Here we have an event that people are swearing up and down should have been illegal, or some kind of criminal act and people stating that Kane/Nestor were just charged under the wrong criminal statute. The reality is that no existing criminal statute (as I've said before) could be bent into the framework of the events that actually took place.
Even for those who may accept that explanation, there seems to be some notion that what was done should have been illegal. Arguably, you could pass new criminal statute, or amend existing ones, such that the events in question would become criminal in nature. I perhaps wouldn't have a problem with that in the event that those modifications would encompass precisely what Kane/Nestor did, or something very close to that. What concerns me is whether or not they would make any new statutes have the reach and scope of what Kane/Nestor did or, in what I consider a more likely event, those statutes become even more overreaching to the point of being all-encompassing. I envision verbiage such as this:
...to use any gambling device other than the way that was intended by the casinos or the manufacturer of that device...
If the verbiage were something like that, then you could make an argument...especially if an overzealous prosecutor...that something as simple as straight up vulturing becomes illegal because it involves only selectively playing a gambling device in a way not intended by the manufacturer. Certainly the manufacturer doesn't intend for an individual to ONLY play when he/she is at an advantage.
In terms of borderline crazy overreaches of the law, all we have to do is look at the way Colorado handles abandoned slot credits. It's nonsensical.
What you already have in many cases is law enforcement who will bend over backwards any time a casino snaps its fingers. In some areas, you have law enforcement who will confiscate large sums of cash from players who were doing nothing even remotely illegal under some premise of, "Suspicious activity." Some areas treat the mere act of having large amounts of cash as suspicious.
We have two guys who can put one in the, "Win," column in terms of an act not being illegal and yet we have people here, some of whom are advantage players, clamoring up and down that it should have been illegal. Why would we want to make more stuff illegal?
In terms of wanting to see the two guys punished, I don't get what sense that makes. I'm not one to look at casinos as, "The enemy," but nor am I heartbroken when the supposed victim of an act that did not end up being criminally illegal is a casino.
So, that's my problem. People have to worry about having money seized or being unlawfully detained already, so why would we want to put more stuff on the books that could easily and foreseeably result in any number of overreaches?
No need to bypass the 'whole addiction stuff'. That's at the heart of most everything the industry does. Here's an article from a couple of years back. "How casinos enable gambling addicts"Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...it-all/505814/
It discusses the many ways the casino industry attempts to manipulate compulsive gamblers. It's a good read. Here's an interesting quote..."The business plan for casinos is not based on the occasional gambler. The business plan for casinos is based on the addicted gambler." Just like the Tobacco industry has made billions selling poison to addicted smokers. Is that ethical? Is it moral? It's clearly legal.
Making the Casino Industry out to be some paragon of ethics and virtue is really blind to what they do. They do anything possible to legally separate gamblers from their money...from targeting compulsive gamblers to plying whales with alcohol until they are blackout drunk. I'm not going to judge them for that though. As long as it's legal. Just like I'm not going to criticize gamblers for doing everything they can do legally to separate the casino from their money. Turnabout is fair play.
I'm surprised you never consulted an attorney for an opinion on your potential legal jeopardy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
This posts and the attached articles are classic liberalism 101. Using this logic, the airline industry is trying to make people “addicted” to flying with their frequent flier program; hotels are trying make people “addicted” to staying in their hotels with their frequent point programs. I guess you could say all retail shops are trying to get us “addicted” to shopping at their stores since they all have loyalty cards. Casinos aren’t the only industry trying to drive business through loyalty cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeNo need to bypass the 'whole addiction stuff'. That's at the heart of most everything the industry does. Here's an article from a couple of years back. "How casinos enable gambling addicts"Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...it-all/505814/
It discusses the many ways the casino industry attempts to manipulate compulsive gamblers. It's a good read. Here's an interesting quote..."The business plan for casinos is not based on the occasional gambler. The business plan for casinos is based on the addicted gambler." Just like the Tobacco industry has made billions selling poison to addicted smokers. Is that ethical? Is it moral? It's clearly legal.
Making the Casino Industry out to be some paragon of ethics and virtue is really blind to what they do. They do anything possible to legally separate gamblers from their money...from targeting compulsive gamblers to plying whales with alcohol until they are blackout drunk. I'm not going to judge them for that though. As long as it's legal. Just like I'm not going to criticize gamblers for doing everything they can do legally to separate the casino from their money. Turnabout is fair play.
Here’s another business lesson for the all the APs that don’t understand how business works. All businesses make the majority of their profit from their most loyal customers. In liberal jargon, these are consider “addicted” customers. Of course, the casinos are trying to drive more business from their most loyal customers. All businesses do this. Amazon is really good at this. I’m “addicted” to many of their programs. I wonder if there is a seven step help program to help with my Amazon “addiction”. Lol
Like I said, I never knew the AP community was so liberal. I get all of them aren’t liberals, but the vast majority are. They don’t believe in personal accountability. It’s always the business fault when an individual does something stupid. Liberals don’t believe people are capable of thinking for themselves.
Being a proud conservative, I have more respect and confidence in the individual than most people. I also believe in freedom, which I know isn’t the case for most liberals. They want to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.
Lovely rant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21This posts and the attached articles are classic liberalism 101. Using this logic, the airline industry is trying to make people “addicted” to flying with their frequent flier program; hotels are trying make people “addicted” to staying in their hotels with their frequent point programs. I guess you could say all retail shops are trying to get us “addicted” to shopping at their stores since they all have loyalty cards. Casinos aren’t the only industry trying to drive business through loyalty cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeNo need to bypass the 'whole addiction stuff'. That's at the heart of most everything the industry does. Here's an article from a couple of years back. "How casinos enable gambling addicts"Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...it-all/505814/
It discusses the many ways the casino industry attempts to manipulate compulsive gamblers. It's a good read. Here's an interesting quote..."The business plan for casinos is not based on the occasional gambler. The business plan for casinos is based on the addicted gambler." Just like the Tobacco industry has made billions selling poison to addicted smokers. Is that ethical? Is it moral? It's clearly legal.
Making the Casino Industry out to be some paragon of ethics and virtue is really blind to what they do. They do anything possible to legally separate gamblers from their money...from targeting compulsive gamblers to plying whales with alcohol until they are blackout drunk. I'm not going to judge them for that though. As long as it's legal. Just like I'm not going to criticize gamblers for doing everything they can do legally to separate the casino from their money. Turnabout is fair play.
Here’s another business lesson for the all the APs that don’t understand how business works. All businesses make the majority of their profit from their most loyal customers. In liberal jargon, these are consider “addicted” customers. Of course, the casinos are trying to drive more business from their most loyal customers. All businesses do this. Amazon is really good at this. I’m “addicted” to many of their programs. I wonder if there is a seven step help program to help with my Amazon “addiction”. Lol
Like I said, I never knew the AP community was so liberal. I get all of them aren’t liberals, but the vast majority are. They don’t believe in personal accountability. It’s always the business fault when an individual does something stupid. Liberals don’t believe people are capable of thinking for themselves.
Being a proud conservative, I have more respect and confidence in the individual than most people. I also believe in freedom, which I know isn’t the case for most liberals. They want to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.
You know, if we couldn't measure physiological responses including chemical levels and electrical neural responses before, during, and after certain gambling activities, if we couldn't actually measure addiction, then we could all go through life firmly believing whatever fairy tales about our "independent behavior" we prefer to believe. As always, I recommend "Addiction By Design" by Natasha Dow Schull. It does a great job of summarizing machine-gambling research of the last 20 years or so. Wonderful book.
Seemed like a good picture for the discussion.
I don't see how you can possibly turn my post into some 'liberal vs conservative' diatribe. Did you even read what I wrote? "They do anything possible to legally separate gamblers from their money...from targeting compulsive gamblers to plying whales with alcohol until they are blackout drunk. I'm not going to judge them for that though. As long as it's legal. "Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21This posts and the attached articles are classic liberalism 101. Using this logic, the airline industry is trying to make people “addicted” to flying with their frequent flier program; hotels are trying make people “addicted” to staying in their hotels with their frequent point programs. I guess you could say all retail shops are trying to get us “addicted” to shopping at their stores since they all have loyalty cards. Casinos aren’t the only industry trying to drive business through loyalty cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeNo need to bypass the 'whole addiction stuff'. That's at the heart of most everything the industry does. Here's an article from a couple of years back. "How casinos enable gambling addicts"Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...it-all/505814/
It discusses the many ways the casino industry attempts to manipulate compulsive gamblers. It's a good read. Here's an interesting quote..."The business plan for casinos is not based on the occasional gambler. The business plan for casinos is based on the addicted gambler." Just like the Tobacco industry has made billions selling poison to addicted smokers. Is that ethical? Is it moral? It's clearly legal.
Making the Casino Industry out to be some paragon of ethics and virtue is really blind to what they do. They do anything possible to legally separate gamblers from their money...from targeting compulsive gamblers to plying whales with alcohol until they are blackout drunk. I'm not going to judge them for that though. As long as it's legal. Just like I'm not going to criticize gamblers for doing everything they can do legally to separate the casino from their money. Turnabout is fair play.
Here’s another business lesson for the all the APs that don’t understand how business works. All businesses make the majority of their profit from their most loyal customers. In liberal jargon, these are consider “addicted” customers. Of course, the casinos are trying to drive more business from their most loyal customers. All businesses do this. Amazon is really good at this. I’m “addicted” to many of their programs. I wonder if there is a seven step help program to help with my Amazon “addiction”. Lol
Like I said, I never knew the AP community was so liberal. I get all of them aren’t liberals, but the vast majority are. They don’t believe in personal accountability. It’s always the business fault when an individual does something stupid. Liberals don’t believe people are capable of thinking for themselves.
Being a proud conservative, I have more respect and confidence in the individual than most people. I also believe in freedom, which I know isn’t the case for most liberals. They want to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.
I'm just pointing out to the moralists who think exploiting the double up flaw is somehow immoral or cheating that the Casinos are not Angels either. And I'm OK with that. How you could possibly divine that I am a liberal from pointing out the obvious fact that Casinos try to legally take advantage of some gamblers and some gamblers try to legally take advantage of the casinos? Just like I don't have a problem with Cigarette companies selling poison to addicted customers. That's their business.
But don't you go moralizing about a Video Poker play that appears to be perfectly legal but the poor casinos lose money on because they screwed up. Don't you think the Casinos and Game King have a responsibility to make sure their machines work the way they think they do? Or is it the Gambler's job to point that out to them? I don't think so. Responsibility works both ways.
Now, if you really are a proud conservative who believes in personal responsibility, then I'm sure you agree all drugs should be 'legalized' and it's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to use or abuse them....as long as he isn't hurting anyone, why should the Government even be involved, right? Same goes for prostitution. Same goes for gambling. Right? That's what I believe anyway. Not some liberal nanny state where the gubmint tries to run our lives.
Unowme, you did attach an article from Atlantic Magazine which is a nut case liberal magazine. Here’s the thing you’re still not getting. Casinos sell gambling. They are not taking “advantage” of anybody. That is the business they are in. They want everybody to gamble as much as possible, just like airlines want people to fly as much as possible and hotels want people to stay in their hotels as much as possible. Casinos are doing NOTHING morally wrong targeting their most loyal customers, or trying to make non-loyal customers loyal, or in liberal jargon “addicts”. This is not “taking advantage” of anybody, like the Atlantic magazine tried to say. This is just good business.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeI don't see how you can possibly turn my post into some 'liberal vs conservative' diatribe. Did you even read what I wrote? "They do anything possible to legally separate gamblers from their money...from targeting compulsive gamblers to plying whales with alcohol until they are blackout drunk. I'm not going to judge them for that though. As long as it's legal. "Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21This posts and the attached articles are classic liberalism 101. Using this logic, the airline industry is trying to make people “addicted” to flying with their frequent flier program; hotels are trying make people “addicted” to staying in their hotels with their frequent point programs. I guess you could say all retail shops are trying to get us “addicted” to shopping at their stores since they all have loyalty cards. Casinos aren’t the only industry trying to drive business through loyalty cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowme
Here’s another business lesson for the all the APs that don’t understand how business works. All businesses make the majority of their profit from their most loyal customers. In liberal jargon, these are consider “addicted” customers. Of course, the casinos are trying to drive more business from their most loyal customers. All businesses do this. Amazon is really good at this. I’m “addicted” to many of their programs. I wonder if there is a seven step help program to help with my Amazon “addiction”. Lol
Like I said, I never knew the AP community was so liberal. I get all of them aren’t liberals, but the vast majority are. They don’t believe in personal accountability. It’s always the business fault when an individual does something stupid. Liberals don’t believe people are capable of thinking for themselves.
Being a proud conservative, I have more respect and confidence in the individual than most people. I also believe in freedom, which I know isn’t the case for most liberals. They want to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.
I'm just pointing out to the moralists who think exploiting the double up flaw is somehow immoral or cheating that the Casinos are not Angels either. And I'm OK with that. How you could possibly divine that I am a liberal from pointing out the obvious fact that Casinos try to legally take advantage of some gamblers and some gamblers try to legally take advantage of the casinos? Just like I don't have a problem with Cigarette companies selling poison to addicted customers. That's their business.
But don't you go moralizing about a Video Poker play that appears to be perfectly legal but the poor casinos lose money on because they screwed up. Don't you think the Casinos and Game King have a responsibility to make sure their machines work the way they think they do? Or is it the Gambler's job to point that out to them? I don't think so. Responsibility works both ways.
Now, if you really are a proud conservative who believes in personal responsibility, then I'm sure you agree all drugs should be 'legalized' and it's up to the individual to decide whether he wants to use or abuse them....as long as he isn't hurting anyone, why should the Government even be involved, right? Same goes for prostitution. Same goes for gambling. Right? That's what I believe anyway. Not some liberal nanny state where the gubmint tries to run our lives.
As far as the double up bug on the Game King, I didn’t criticize Nestor or Kane or anybody else who tried to get away with it. I would have probably done the same thing, even though it definitely is in the grey area. Many people have pointed that out already.
I see it kind of like what Phil Ivey did with edge sorting. What he did was not illegal, but it was still scamming the casinos. He tricked (or manipulated) the casinos into altering the game so it gave him an unfair advantage. He was basically playing the game the way it was NOT intended to be played, and he knew that. What can I say, Phil’s a scam artist.
Have you read the court’s ruling on this? I have, and I thought the courts got it right. They said Phil did nothing illegal, but he still needed to give all the money back. Both courts (USA and England) pretty much ruled the same way. Good to see we have some courts with good ’ol common sense.
The Golden Phoenix had fantastic blackjack rules. Unfortunately they remained in business only 5 years or so IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boz
Seemed like a good picture for the discussion.
Oh I get it. Cigarette Companies sell tobacco. They are not taking 'advantage' of anybody either. Only they know people get addicted to their products and it kills them. Is it moral? Is it ethical? Or just a company that employs a bunch of people trying to make a profit? Nothing wrong or immoral about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
Whether or not you reject the Atlantic article, there are in fact addicted gamblers in this world and the casinos purposely target them. All I'm pointing out is that when you try to say exploiting the bug is unethical or immoral or just plain wrong....if it's legal...(and it appears to be), they are no more unethical or immoral or wrong than the casinos trying to legally separate gambling addicts from their money.
How does that matter? I'd have no problem taking casino money if I found such a legal flaw in a game. I would consider that an advantage over the casino, but I'd have no problem taking it. They are in the business of offering casino gambling games it's their responsibility to make sure the games work as they want. Not mine It's my responsibility not to blow all my money gambling or not to get so drunk I don't remember blowing all my money gambling.
There are lots of organizations and individuals I would have a problem exploiting any kind legal advantage. Casinos don't fit into that category for me. Is it situational ethics? Maybe. Or maybe it's just playing a game and it didn't work out the way the Casino intended. Not my problem....Because Freedom & Responsibility. Just like it's not my problem if weak or sick or impaired gamblers lose their fortunes to the Casinos. They should have made better choices. I really don't think we're that far apart on this. The issue is when we start moralizing about the legal actions of players and casinos. Maybe neither are truly ethical, but I don't care.
Unowme, you’re getting me mixed up with someone else. I have never said exploiting a bug in a slot machine is unethical. In fact, I’ve said I’d probably do the same thing if I found one, but I think I’d be smarter than Kane and Nestor in how I exploited it.
Me and most people are criticizing Kane and Nestor for being stupid. Kane sat at one machine and got 8 jackpots in an hour and a half. The casino is obviously going to be alerted that something is wrong with that machine. Nestor went back to the same casino again and again taking half million dollars in a couple months. Anybody with half a brain knows the casino is going to know something isn’t right. They got caught within a couple months of finding the bug. The surprising thing is they didn’t get caught sooner. The only crime they are guilty of in my book is stupidity...and the last I checked being stupid is not against the law.
As far as the Atlantic article, it’s how it “spins” marketing. All companies do marketing studies to target people that are more prone to buy their product. Casinos are no different. If it makes you feel better to say casinos target “addicts”, then go for it...that’s what the writers of the Atlantic magazine choose to believe.
Here’s the point most have been missing. There is NO way to run a casino in a free society without hurting the weaker people in our society. That’s a fact! The ones who can not eat in moderation, not drink in moderation, not gamble in moderation, etc, will be hurt when a casino opens. It’s not the fault of the casino industry that there are some weak members of our society. Call them “addicts” if that makes you feel better.
If you are upset at casino, then you should take your angry out on our government for allowing them. Don’t blame casinos for doing what they’re supposed to do, which is trying to sell more gambling to the people who like to gamble, and trying to get new customers to gamble.
As far as the tabacoo industry, why are you upset st them too? They sell a legal product that many feel add value to their lives. If it’s legal, they should have the right to sell as much tabacoo as possible using all legal means possible. Why do you have a problem with that?
I know liberals don’t like McDonald’s too, and really pretty all businesses. One liberal goofball, Michael Moore, made a movie attacking McDonald’s called “super size it”, blaming McDonald’s for why our country has fat people. Are you upset at McDonald’s too?
>It’s not the fault of the casino industry that there are some weak members of our society.
The flesh of the weak is food for the strong.
Home from a long weekend of camping in the Canyon. Pretty damn cold at night. booked 3 months ago and didn't know we would have 20 degree colder weather than usual. What are you going to do. Can't argue with Mother Nature. And I am proud to say I didn't waste 1 single minute online reading this crap. Looks like the same crap as when I left. The exception would be Dan Druff has finally shared his thoughts after 31 pages. Way to go Dan. Who said he was a lazy Canadian? :D
Although it took a while, I agree with our forum owner. He is spot on. I always liked that guy. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Bob21 don't confused whether something is unethical or wrong with the fact that "you would do it". I think that has happened a lot in this thread. AP's want to do this play, precisely because they ARE AP's. They want to find a reason that it is ok (justify). But I refuse to believe that most of you really don't know the difference in right or wrong. IF this is really the case then Monet is right and I am wrong in that AP's really are just generally "bad" people. Or maybe it is "bad" people are drawn to AP. Either way. Sad. I don't believe that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
If you read what I actually wrote you'd see I don't have a problem with either of these industries. The OP here was making exploiting the double up flaw into a MORAL and ETHICAL issue. Right and Wrong. My point in bringing up the morality of the industry was that if you believe legally taking advantage of the weakness in the Game King Machines was Immoral, Unethical and Wrong like the OP claimed then you'd have to conclude that the Casinos aren't exactly Moral and Ethical in their behavior. I don't believe either. I'm not the morality police. I try not to be hypocritical though and for whatever reason, I would never legally exploit another individual or even a company unless I had a good reason....not just to make money. I see Casinos as different maybe because they are in the business of Gambling and I do see it as the Gambler vs the Gambling Hall. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but I can live with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
I wish you guys (bob21) wouldn't demonize people by placing the liberal or conservative label on them. Mickey does this with the WoV thread but at least he is doing so in reference to political threads at WoV, where people comments pretty much declares their position. In this context, we aren't discussion politics and such a label just because someone has a differing view has no benefit. And even if you are basing it on a particular view expressed, like one's view toward the casino industry, people can lean liberal on one topic and conservative on others and come down in the middle on others.
It is bad enough you guys went off on your religious sidetrack last week. (talk about your hijacking). And while I started this thread, it isn't my threat. The subject matter is of my dear friend Rob Singer, making it his thread and I hate to see him disrespected with such hijacking. :cool:
I don't ever try to justify anything to myself. I know what's what and I can't trick myself into thinking a different way. Whenever I beat a casino as an AP, I don't try to justify it by saying they are evil and deserve it or whatever. I want to make some money and that's that.
Someone might want to make up a bunch of bullshit to justify and convince others what they are doing/did is okay, therefore, they are not unethical, I guess. As long as Im not hurting an individual personally, and I'm not going to jail for doing it, I'm good with it. example: If I bought something at WalMart and I broke it on the way home I would not have any problem taking it back and saying it was like that when I bought it. does that activity hurt everyone in the long run and push up prices? Probably. I could try to justify it by saying everyone else is doing it and I pay for that I do it myself. I won't do that because the truth is... I just don't care.
If you believe in the traditional God, just stepping foot into a casino is unethical.
Valid comments kJ. I guess it’s just my pet peeve when I see people blame businesses for people’s actions. You did it too Kj. You blamed the casino industry for Leonard Tose (one time owner of Philly Eagles) gambling loses. No one held a gun to Leonard’s head and made him gamble so much he had to sell the Eagles. He did it with his own free will.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Personally, I think the casinos should be commended for being able to convince Leonard Tose to gamble so much he lost everything and had to see his Eagles. I’m sure the Eagles ended up going to a more compentent owner.
In my book, the casinos get a gold star for this and Leonard Tose gets a Darwin Award. lol
TBH the idea of it being "immoral" or "unethical" makes it more exciting and more fun. It feels GOOD to be "getting one over" on the world for a change.
We’re on the same page then. I didn’t agree with the OP either. If I found a bug in a casino (or something that looked like a bug, lol) and could exploit it, I probably would, but I’d hope I’d be smarter than Kane and Nestor.Quote:
Originally Posted by unowmeIf you read what I actually wrote you'd see I don't have a problem with either of these industries. The OP here was making exploiting the double up flaw into a MORAL and ETHICAL issue. Right and Wrong. My point in bringing up the morality of the industry was that if you believe legally taking advantage of the weakness in the Game King Machines was Immoral, Unethical and Wrong like the OP claimed then you'd have to conclude that the Casinos aren't exactly Moral and Ethical in their behavior. I don't believe either. I'm not the morality police. I try not to be hypocritical though and for whatever reason, I would never legally exploit another individual or even a company unless I had a good reason....not just to make money. I see Casinos as different maybe because they are in the business of Gambling and I do see it as the Gambler vs the Gambling Hall. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but I can live with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
When you attached that article from Atlantic Magazine I probably didn’t read close enough to what you were saying. I’ve seen so many APs post that article it’s not even funny. Well really it is. Lol. That seems to be the go-to article APs post to show me casinos are evil or unethical. Talk about a slanted article. Basically, the Atlantic writer took what all businesses do (market to their most profitable customers) and painted this like some evil thing. If that’s wrong, then all businesses are evil.
Bob's arguments seem very strange to me.
He concedes all of the allegations of dirty tricks by casinos, but is angry that people blame casinos for these actions, because casinos exist to make money and anything done legally to make money is ok?
This is a particularly strange attitude for a conservative Christian. He must be a great fan of abortion clinics which are both legal (for now) and typically non-profit I believe.
Not that I really care but I do see a lot of APs that seem to use the harmfulness of casinos (which is real) to justify or even valorize their way of making money. It's a little silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
You’re missing my point smurgerburger. I have never conceded casinos use “dirty tricks”. Where did you get that? I said casinos do the same thing every other business does. They use marketing to try to sell more product to the customers. They use loyalty programs, and other marketing tools. All companies do this. I do not see this as “dirty tricks”. Apperantly you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
I’ve said many times I try to keep casinos out of my local community. I fault our government for allowing casinos to operate. Governments, state and local, are why casinos exist. Governments know the weaker members of society (the one liberals label as “addicts”) will be negatively impacted when they let casinos in, but they still approve them. That should tell you something about our government, which is a reflection of us, since we’re a democracy.
I will not fault a casino for doing what it is intended to do, which many APs don’t understand. One more time for you since you appeared to miss it: A casino’s business model is to extract money from people by giving them entertainment through negative EV games. It’s that simple. Since casinos make a lot of money, people most enjoy this experience since they keep coming back.
I may have said before...when casino's stop fucking me over, I'll stop fucking them over. However, that's not true, I would still do my thing. I don't have to worry about it since casino's will never stop their shenanigans. However, that's not why I do what I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerNot that I really care but I do see a lot of APs that seem to use the harmfulness of casinos (which is real) to justify or even valorize their way of making money. It's a little silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Not that it matters smurgenburger, but how did you go off into abortion with your logic. You must be a liberal because liberals argue like that. They go off into left field and it’s hard to follow their logic.
For the record, I am strongly pro-life.
Although people may not want to understand that this is EXACTLY how I've felt about "AP'ing" all along, it is one of the primary reasons I chose axel first to discuss what I've really been doing with vp with when the limitations etc. clock was up. You could literally put my name up on the left as the author of this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob21
Do you extend the same indulgence to pimps, crack dealers, sex traffickers, etc.? You don't fault them because they're doing what they're "intended" to do?
You blame governments for permitting casinos and degenerate gamblers for gambling at them, but you don't fault the entity that actually makes a profit from the activity?
For some reason you treat casinos as mechanical entities just automatically doing what they were "intended" to do, but you blame every other group that has any role in the gambling industry. It seems very strange to me.