Printable View
This is my new term for what I previously referred to as "recreational gambling." The previous term was always in quotes because I have never really bought into the vibe of it, just like I never bought into 9/6 Jacks or Better as "full pay." The previous term left out the addictive spin. This new term does not.
If any APs want to adopt my new term, please feel free.
I remember years and years ago when I heard that 9/6 was a Full Pay game (10/6 was around at that time as well) and for awhile I disagreed but at that time when players cards first came about the card was giving high cash back and comp so it wasn't hard to adjust. You could also find quarter 9/6 100 play with monster promotions. Of course it wasn't long that they created the deuces wild game that was 100.76 but higher variance so I found myself playing that more so but if you wanted to play higher denominations and huge progressives it wasn't hard for the 9/6 to go way over 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I like your new term wreckreational though.
I like the new term "wreck-reational gambling" as it applies to many, and unfortunately some on this forum, which is why they have turned so bitter (partially understandable). But I think there is room for both terms.
My late partner, has a sister in Pennsylvania. She is the perfect example of a 'real' recreational (old term) gambler. She has a good job (100k) in the medical field, her husband's income 200k+ (architecture field). She goes to a casino, I think Sands in Pa twice a month on a weekend with a friend and usually losses in the neighborhood of $200 (occasionally wins something). And we have hosted her for 4-5 days each October, where she blows anywhere between $1000 and $2000 (one year won $2000). She justifies this as her recreational money, which is fair. Her husband, does not gamble, but he is a big golfer and spends about similar amounts on gold outings several times a month and golf trips 2-3 times a year, so it seems fair.
Now unfortunately, while she is a perfect example of a true rec-reational gambler, she is a rarity, as most cross over into wreck-reational at least at times. Gambling is a highly addictive behavior. I don't blame the industry for that. But I do blame the industry for the lengths they go to 'prey' on players who have crossed over from rec-reational to "wreck-reational". Thinks like cashing paychecks and tax refund checks and social security checks back when they were paper checks. These are nasty predatory policies, not the behavior of an industry which is truly about responsible rec-reational gambling.
Don't forget the pushing of the credit lines. I cannot recall seeing this in Vegas but I have certainly seen from many locals elsewhere signs advertising them in the casinos and promotions in mailers pushing the convenience and offering incentives for signing up.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
While I can understand the convenience of having a line for those traveling to destination casinos, I do not understand the point for a local. If you live there your bank's gotta be there too.
You experts must be kidding--right? EVERYTHING a casino does is irresponsible towards addictive gambling behavior.
Anyone who uses a casino floor ATM is a fool....and most likely a problem gambler. The same with cage check-cashiers, casino credit line power-gamblers, and credit card cash-advance jockeys. Forget the array of pathetic, weak excuses we hear from these idiots, like "I don't like carrying cash" and "I didn't have time to visit my bank" or "it's super convenient". These people ALL take cash to casinos, McFly. Then they lose it and need more; that's all it is. They're addicts and they're doing exactly what the casinos want and expect them to do, which of course, makes them the casinos' favorite and most important customers. My guess is most or all of you hot-shot WoVers fall into that category....if and when you ever go into casinos, that is.
It's especially entertaining watching you clowns attempt to shuffle the gambling addict label away from yourselves by giving the obvious "I'm an expert on this subject because I see it happen to everyone else but me!" nonsense. From what I've seen here none of you have the discipline it takes to NOT be an addict. You can't stop talking about it, you make up stories about it when times are "slow", and you can't stand it when people don't talk about it like you want them to.
DENIAL is the :#1 trait of liars. Are you feeling it?
On the subject of gambling addiction: are full time AP's addicted to gambling?
IMHO if an AP is profitable considering all of his gambling activities he cannot be considered an addicted gambler because the most important thing that identifies a person as an addicted gambler is the fact that he has lost great and significant sums of money which in turn has adversely affected his entire life.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
On the other hand, if an AP, for example, (and I don't think this is all that unusual) makes money as a skilled poker player and then loses all that he has won and much more playing craps with a disadvantage, then yes, he can be considered an addicted gambler.
Some are and some are not. Let's not forget there are many AP's who go into AP because they were spending lots of time in the casinos losing. I see it much more in what we oftentimes refer to as machine hustlers and sclufflers. I have known guys who are very sucsessful but they always seem to have to be in action. Even if that means playing higher limit 9/6 to earn comps at break even they really dont need.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfSome are and some are not. Let's not forget there are many AP's who go into AP because they were spending lots of time in the casinos losing. I see it much more in what we oftentimes refer to as machine hustlers and sclufflers. I have known guys who are very sucsessful but they always seem to have to be in action. Even if that means playing higher limit 9/6 to earn comps at break even they really dont need.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Every "AP" who prides him/herself on being one is 100% a problem gambler who will be totally addicted until they alter their approach to gambling. Why you ask? Simple common sense. AP's allow themselves to constantly be controlled by the casinos. You think all those lucrative-sounding promotions, tournaments & drawings are directed at tourists and down-on-life locals?
Think again. Every casino has these promotions with the prime objective of roping in as many of these ap's as humanly possible, who by design will not only bring a large amount of cash in with them--they'll cash checks, use their casino credit lines, and even assault the ATM's with their colorful array of cash cards until they get one to work.
I interviewed casino execs up & down the Strip and throughout the local casinos about their approach to VP-ap's in the early 2000's, and they all said the exact same thing without hesitation: AP's are the primary reason why the juicy promotions continue on.
Now compare the truth to how ap's say they "hammer" these promos. By and large, it is the addict ap's who are getting hammered---over and over again. Just wait a few years and ask them nicely how their retirement income and lives are going. Of course, there's always the Bob Dancer model to follow: keep working because he can't stop playing, and since he pissed away most of his working life helping keep the LV casinos open, his retirement won't start until the moment he steps into his grave.
Of course, the conundrum regarding the above post is what to believe. Let's quickly review some of the language. Argentino "interviewed casino execs up and down the strip and throughout the local casinos..." Now, the word "interviewed" does suggest these were not anonymous sources. Therefore, one would hope, as a means of verification (and Argentino does have occasional issues with verification) that a name or two would be dropped who might be alive today and willing to go on record regarding "they all said the exact same thing without hesitation: AP's are the primary reason why the juicy promotions continue on."
Then, we have the seeming illogic. If the juicy promotions were so successful targeting APs, why have juicy promotions become an endangered species? That doesn't make sense. Did AP's die out, and take the juicy promotions with them? There does seem to be a faltering of the logic here. Unless, of course, there is a stealth population of Argentino disciples who hammered the juicy promotions and forced the casinos to cut them dramatically.
Yes, that must be the ticket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
You're generalizing, painting all APs with the same brush. Surely there are some who match the profile you've created and just as surely there are others who are highly disciplined.
From what I have been reading lately non-AP gamblers seem to be having the biggest financial problems. AP's actually have mostly winning years(at least the ones who know what they are doing and do it right). I can't speak for all AP's. I know I don't have a gambling problem or addiction nor do many other AP's. Many AP's don't retire because they enjoy beating the casinos and its not like a job to them, it feels more like a hobby that makes money.
Ya, I was going to touch on this before when Singer claimed the Maxim (or whatever it was called the time) won money on that promo. If that's the case, why not keep running it? Why wouldn't all casinos who are in financial trouble run similar promotions day after day? Why do they stop promotions and change the rules sometimes within hours of running one?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I'm fairly certain Johnathon Jossel admitted he made a mistake and they lost on the 28% JP bonus promo at the Plaza. 28% is low compared to many of the other similar type of promotions ( FYI the Bonus was given in FREE PLAY)
There is nothing wrong with recreational gambling. Get off your soap boxes.
Recreational gambling is not addicted gambling and that's the difference.
It's good we have an authority on the subject of why recreational gambling is not addicted gambling. It spruces up the thread.
Don't take it personally redietz (because you do take every disagreement personally and as an attack on your pristine reputation) but recreational gambling and addicted gambling are two separate things.
You, editor Bob, are just trying to redefine it. Well the existing definition works just fine.
"refreshment by means of some pastime, agreeable exercise, or the like."
You write a lot about addicted gambling. To paraphrase a greater writer than you, why do you protest too much?
I must ask you, redietz, how is it that someone who is so concerned about addictive gambling and even takes part in university studies about it and purportedly appears in gambling studies costing mucho bucks, also happens to be selling sports wagering tips?
I put up a list for you on one of the other threads. Read through that list and see how you rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If your family members and or ex-wives/girlfriends complained about your gambling there is a good chance there's a problem.
I would like to add to that list: If one THINKS they have a winning system that beats a -EV games and situations.
It's your own business, either way, however, when someone spends so much time trying to debunk AP's and their claims who admits they have been gambling for years and in that time they have hit two 100k royals and some 20k's, but yet, never had a winning year.
They should probably STFU about gambling and just stick to talking about what they know best, like running their infomercial business.
it's too bad I didn't ask your son for the truth about "hitting 5 royals in one day and still lost" while he was still miffed at you. I have a feeling he would have laughed and said it was not true.
I noticed he has been on the forum after that discussion about the 5 Royals and he has never backed up that claim.
I have a feeling he doesn't even believe you saw 18 yo's in a row.
Maybe if Alan pays his kid what he owes the kid will backup his bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI put up a list for you on one of the other threads. Read through that list and see how you rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If your family members and or ex-wives/girlfriends complained about your gambling there is a good chance there's a problem.
I would like to add to that list: If one THINKS they have a winning system that beats a -EV games and situations.
It's your own business, either way, however, when someone spends so much time trying to debunk AP's and their claims who admits they have been gambling for years and in that time they have hit two 100k royals and some 20k's, but yet, never had a winning year.
They should probably STFU about gambling and just stick to talking about what they know best, like running their infomercial business.
it's too bad I didn't ask your son for the truth about "hitting 5 royals in one day and still lost" while he was still miffed at you. I have a feeling he would have laughed and said it was not true.
I noticed he has been on the forum after that discussion about the 5 Royals and he has never backed up that claim.
I have a feeling he doesn't even believe you saw 18 yo's in a row.
AND GIVE UP HIS GAMBLING FUND? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenMaybe if Alan pays his kid what he owes the kid will backup his bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI put up a list for you on one of the other threads. Read through that list and see how you rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If your family members and or ex-wives/girlfriends complained about your gambling there is a good chance there's a problem.
I would like to add to that list: If one THINKS they have a winning system that beats a -EV games and situations.
It's your own business, either way, however, when someone spends so much time trying to debunk AP's and their claims who admits they have been gambling for years and in that time they have hit two 100k royals and some 20k's, but yet, never had a winning year.
They should probably STFU about gambling and just stick to talking about what they know best, like running their infomercial business.
it's too bad I didn't ask your son for the truth about "hitting 5 royals in one day and still lost" while he was still miffed at you. I have a feeling he would have laughed and said it was not true.
I noticed he has been on the forum after that discussion about the 5 Royals and he has never backed up that claim.
I have a feeling he doesn't even believe you saw 18 yo's in a row.
You would have better luck getting money from a crackhead.
Alan, It's your buddy, Rob, that's always going on and on about addicted gamblers. Why haven't you thrown that question at him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It was Lenny Frome that coined the term "full pay." He was the first video poker writer going back to the late eighties. He was a retired NASA engineer whose wife played vp. He started analyzing the games to give her a strategy and discovered deuces wild was a 100.76% game and 9/6 Jacks was a 99.6% game. He was off a little on the 9/6 Jacks but called both games full pay. This was when no one knew anything about video poker, not even IGT. They determined payback by paying people to play then looking at the results.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Well, first off, I addressed some of this in that paper I posted. So let's start off with the angle that I'm amoral regarding addiction. I point out addiction; I don't say addiction is bad or immoral or whatever. I'm hardcore on maintaining neutral values. I don't care if some American blows 30% or 40% of his income gambling. I don't see it as much worse than blowing 30% or 40% on some other kind of consumerism. In fact, I make the argument that, since time is money, it's illogical to have Gamblers' Anonymous for people who tithe to casinos and not a TV Viewers' Anonymous for people who sit and watch the box six or seven hours a day. Addiction is addiction. I'm a big Hunter Thompson fan, so it's not like addiction is always a bad thing.
I lean to the social exchange theory and sociobiological kind of looks at gambling in that paper. If somebody goes and blows 30K a year playing video poker, maybe it gets him laid via conspicuous consumption. Or maybe his personality swings wildly winning versus losing, and his winning days, he interacts with a certain cache that gets him respect and business contacts and sex. Maybe he trades material resources to the casinos for some kind of self-perception that he's a swingin' recreational gambler, another kind of non-material resource. Maybe he gets something out of it, just like people tithing to churches get something out of it. Social connections, certain boosts of self-perception, access to mates, business networking.
"Gambling" is just a word. It covers such a wide range of behaviors that it's almost useless when describing things. You have to be specific. Video poker is not betting sports futures. I cannot imagine two more different endeavors.
Now let's switch gears and assume I have some kind of Judaeo-Christian moral compass acquired from reading Captain America comic books since the age of five. Then, in a perfect world, I would not use phone sales, or email sales, and would work on a percent of profit basis. Ideally, I would not seek out clients, but respond only to those who seek me out.
The problem for most people is as much the lack of recognition of the addiction as the addiction itself. I recommend "Addiction by Design" by Natasha Schull.
Dream on, assclown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
there are people that throw the word "addicted" around as if they know what they are fucking talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
addicted to junk food
addicted to collecting beanie babies
addicted to spending 20k on cruises every year
I am sure there are plenty of people like me who gamble every week, and there have been times over the last 40 years that I tool a 3 month break...and you know what???...i didnt get any withdrawal reaction. no mental angst, no physical signs like the sweats or the shakes.
But some dickhead from a distance can say oh yeah LarryS is addicted....or people like LarryS are addicted, or people that gamble on negEV games are addicted.
Often no more addicted than the poor investors of beanie babies or junk food eaters or perpetual cruise travelers or opera goers.
Yet people love to elevate themselves by pointing out those "other guys" are "addicts" and I am not so I am better off than them.
blanketing a group of people as "addicts" is just ignorant.
redeitz is the "smart one"///the "healthy one"...he is not an addict. But everyoone else playing -EV games weekly are for certain....they have to be. They couldnt just be people getting their kicks. doing something they like.
Playing games for money isnt an addiction by itself. People are out there that constantly play golf for money. Its a game they like to play and money adds excitement. Are they "addicts"? Of course not. But if someone throws dice for money then THEY are addicts. I fail to see the logic or the medical basis for that theorem
LarryS, evidently you didn't read my last post, or the paper in the Retro thread. The paper I mention took a completely non-judgemental position regarding "gambling addiction." I put it in quotes because (1) I don't think the word "gambling" is useful as a definer of behavior, (2) I don't think a gambling addiction, if such a broad-based thing exists, is somehow worse in an objective sense than an addiction to TV-watching or posting in a forum, and (3) I'm actually not a fan of those who try to build industries by defining behaviors as diseases.Quote:
Originally Posted by LarrySthere are people that throw the word "addicted" around as if they know what they are fucking talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
addicted to junk food
addicted to collecting beanie babies
addicted to spending 20k on cruises every year
I am sure there are plenty of people like me who gamble every week, and there have been times over the last 40 years that I tool a 3 month break...and you know what???...i didnt get any withdrawal reaction. no mental angst, no physical signs like the sweats or the shakes.
But some dickhead from a distance can say oh yeah LarryS is addicted....or people like LarryS are addicted, or people that gamble on negEV games are addicted.
Often no more addicted than the poor investors of beanie babies or junk food eaters or perpetual cruise travelers or opera goers.
Yet people love to elevate themselves by pointing out those "other guys" are "addicts" and I am not so I am better off than them.
blanketing a group of people as "addicts" is just ignorant.
redeitz is the "smart one"///the "healthy one"...he is not an addict. But everyoone else playing -EV games weekly are for certain....they have to be. They couldnt just be people getting their kicks. doing something they like.
Playing games for money isnt an addiction by itself. People are out there that constantly play golf for money. Its a game they like to play and money adds excitement. Are they "addicts"? Of course not. But if someone throws dice for money then THEY are addicts. I fail to see the logic or the medical basis for that theorem
And I don't think I'm any mentally "healthier" than anyone else. Far from it. I like to think I'm channeling Hunter Thompson on occasion; nothing intrinsically healthy about that.
Seriously, LarryS, reread what I wrote or check out the paper. I think you blew through my posts and misinterpreted them. Your beanie babies line is something like I would argue. Also, if you think behavior-as-disease has become overblown, check out Thomas Szasz. He's considered quite unfashionable these days, and he did go a bit off the rails pushing his themes too strongly as time went on, but some of his early writings are really interesting. They slap you in the face and make you rethink how mental health gets defined.
So.... redietz wrote a paper.
So... Mendlebread seen 18 yos in a row.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Those are two truthful statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by monetSo... Mendlebread seen 18 yos in a row.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Alan, you have endured a lot of criticism and dare I say it, abuse, for claiming to have seen a random roller roll eighteen yo's (elevens) in a row at Caesars.
The first I recall reading about it was when you mentioned it at WoV, not in a new post proclaiming to having just seen it, but in response to another's claim of having witnessed an unlikely event.
I have a couple of questions.
How much time had passed between the time you saw it until you first mentioned at WoV that you'd witnessed 18 yo's rolled in a row?
Given that such an event would be, for lack of a better phrase, "stunningly astounding:" why didn't you post a new thread at WoV immediately after witnessing it?
Given your penchant for the limelight one would think you'd have jumped at the chance to tell all the world about it ... had it actually occurred.
Actually MrV I never thought it was an astonishing event so I said nothing until I caught on that it was special. To me rolling a yo happens 1/18 times. That it happened and kept happening while the dealers kept count only got interesting after, I think, 12 rolls when the dice were checked for the first time by the stockman.
At Red Rock someone threw 8 yos in a row. What are the odds of that? The box men and dealers talk about it whenever anyone throws more than three in a row. They talked about it again the other day when someone rolled five in a row.
Also at Red Rock someone the other day threw Aces three times in a row.
If you ever got into a casino instead of just talking about casinos on a web forum you might see some whacky things too.
Want to know what really amazed me? The time I was at a full table at Caesars. Ten Players. And all ten did point-seven. One after another.... point-seven. What are the odds of that?
Oh and don't forget the four and a half hour roll by the guy in town for an electronics convention at Caesars. A pit boss at Caesars told me about it. It broke the Atlantic City record. Did Caesars put out a press release? No.
Did Caesars put out a press release about the two million dollar roll? No.
If a tree fell in the forest and no one was around did it make a sound?
There is a Seinfeld episode where George Costanza is trying to beat a lie detector test. George says "It's not a lie if you believe it". That's all we have here. Denial to the point of a "fantasy" alternative universe. It is that same denial and fantasy beliefs involved in Alan's gambling addiction (and denial of).Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
It's surprising that you keep deflecting the obvious mickey. You're the one who does nothing else in life but talk about, dream about, write about, and eat gambling. I'd have included drinking but there's no question whatsoever you only drink alcohol still.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmAlan, It's your buddy, Rob, that's always going on and on about addicted gamblers. Why haven't you thrown that question at him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I try to imagine a life that revolves around one simple subject, and it becomes mind-boggling. I at first thought you might be interested in old muscle cars or bikes or whatever, but just as with your dis-interest in trying to be presentable to women throughout your life, you're not interested in cars or anything else, primarily because you never gave two nickels to rub together that doesn't end up in some dumpy bar or Indian casinos machines.
Hmmmm....LOSER!
Alan, I gamble at casinos fairly frequently, two or three times a month on average for the past 20 or so years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I've seen some unusual things, but certainly nothing which comes close to what you claim to have seen.
Your comment that "I never though it was an astonishing even so I said nothing" rings false, I'm afraid.
MrV you haven't agreed with me in any forum since Al Gore invented the Internet. For heaven's sake why should you start now?
This may sound oxymoronic, but I disagree that we've always disagreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
You'll recall I applauded your decision to marry at a craps table in Caesars, i.e. I agree with your decision to do so.
It was an advantage play. Caesars paid for the wedding and the party.
Also we got to play craps with $5 minimum bets when the other tables were all $25.
Life's a journey: enjoy it while you can.
The wedding was an advantage play? This is proof you have no idea what an advantage play is. :rolleyes: How did that wedding work out by the way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
$5 minimum bets? Wait now. Sometime in the past week, you posted that you believe you have an advantage when playing craps did you not? I might be able to find the quote unless Dan Druff has deleted it to protect you. :rolleyes: So if you are playing with an advantage, why would you need....why would you want.... the lowest minimum? Something doesn't smell right here Alan.
Your ignorance about craps is on full display, KJ.
Alan posted he felt he had an advantage at BONUS CRAPS, i.e. all, tall, small.
That bet was not available at Caesars when the nuptials were performed on site.
What makes it an AP is that it was free and fun.
That the marriage didn't last is irrelevant: snarky comment, that.
Regarding an event at a craps table of 18 yos in a row.....somebody said"
[U) I never thought it was an astonishing event so I said nothing until I caught on that it was special.[/U]
was it Nathan?
was it Alan M
was it a kid with Downs Syndrome that was standing at a craps table with his dad.
any guesses?
Sorry LarryS but that was what I always said. Only after reading WOV did I realize what happened. Otherwise I would have IMMEDIATELY gotten the tape. When I did ask for the tape a few weeks later it was taped over. Jimmy the stickman had retired and I didn't remember the two per diem dealers. It's all on WOV. I'm not going through it again.
And yes my biggest mistake was not betting $1. But I don't make crazy crapper bets and who would have thought ANOTHER yo was coming?
APs are only considered addicts because of the taboo on gambling still perpetrated by society's pearl-clutchers.
Nobody considers the lawyer who works 80+ hour weeks for several years, neglecting their health and family, to make partner by 30 to be addicted to THEIR job, but that's only because they're in what's deemed to be a respectable profession.
regarding the occurance of 18 yos in a row at a craps table...the following was said
Only after reading WOV did I realize what happened.
who said it?
Nathan
Alan M
A man that that had a cinder block drop on his head from 4 stories above.
an aborted fetus
Alan does not have an advantage at craps. He cannot even articulate why he thinks he might have one.
I cannot imagine a tackier thing than getting married at a craps table, even at Caesars Palace back in the day, but to each his own. If one gets married on a regular basis I suppose it makes sense to change the venue.
Making high variance bets against house edges of 7-20% just looks foolish and idiotic.
Dankyone wrote "Alan does not have an advantage at craps. He cannot even articulate why he thinks he might have one."
You may be 1000% correct. All I've asked for is someone to monitor my rolls and do an analysis.
This has gotten lost on the brain trust here. My original request has been met with insults and with challenges that include wagers of thousands of dollars.
In the old days we'd meet at a cssino, track our play and talk about it over lunch.
Now everyone wants to bury everyone else.
So sad.
Oh but you take no responsibility for that, which is to sat....The culture that is this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Why would anyone want to “monitor your rolls and do an analysis?” Over time your results are just going to turn out like anyone else’s. You have no advantage, in the short term you have hit more than the expected number of bonuses, but that is just variance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Bonus Craps has not been around that long.
For 25+ years I lost at craps. Then Bonus Craps comes along and I start winning.
Is it short term variance? I don't know. But I can tell you how I lost the money from the three $100k royals -- at craps before the Bonus bets came along.
Another thing: with traditional craps you have to bet more to win more. But with Bonus Craps small bets can pay big... despite those big odds you like to quote.
So... I'd like someone to do the math. Has Bonus Craps made a difference in my winning?
You don't have much of an imagination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dankyone
V-are you the bride or the groom??
Neither; I hand out my business card to both the bride and groom after the ceremony is finished.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
I don't play favorites in the war of the roses.
Alan is like alot of sick gamblers who at various times during their lifetime losing venture, declares that they now found a way to win....which gives them a new outlook on their gambling life when they might start getting discouraged otherwise.
A reasonable person who knows the casino industry knows that less and less of the new generations after the baby boomers are going to casinos to gamble. The casinos therefore institute new games or new parts of games or change payouts(as in BJ) so as to help make up for the loss of bodies. at their machines and tables. Which means all these new things have a nice size advantage for the house. Its reality and it makes sense. Anything "new" is not going to give the patron a better chance to take the casino's money. Casinos are not in the financial position to make less money at the tables or slots.
Heck a major theme on this site is the casinos cutting back on comps systematically over the last few years.Yet another way to increase their bottom line.
So knowing that casinos are in financial straits.......why would anyone think they have a better chance of winning today compared to the last 30 years.Why would a casino open themselves up to greater amouths of cashouts by the patron?
I am sure mathboys can give a math spin on what alan claims he is winning at.
And as far as having someone chart alan....what does that prove. A day with alan, or a week with alan doesnt provide a large enough sampling to make a statement one way or the other. Anyone can can have a good or bad day or week....and that small sampling cannot be extrapolated to make a determination of anything.
And on another topic.....anyone familiar with craps..who has played the game alot for a few decades, without knowing a shred of math....will indeed know that 18 yos in a row is something astronomically special and rare. He wouldnt need to read it at wov before the bulb went off in his obviously vacant head. The more he explains it the believability shrinks and shrinks
LarryS in the first line above you call me sick. Why? You know nothing about me. You never met me.
But this is typical on this forum. Everyone has their minds made up and everyone falls into a category.
So let me ask you a question. When you play craps and after the point is established do you make horn bets including the yo? Do you know what the house edge is on those bets?
Do you see a yo and bet a yo?
If you saw three yos in a row would you expect the next roll to also be a yo?
Do you know what a crazy crapper is?
Now let's talk about the shooter. He didn't have even one dollar on the 11 either.
Let's talk about the shooter's friend. He didn't have $1 on the 11 either.
Why don't you track them down and call them sick?
i said you were "like" as isck ghambler. You talk like a sick gambler. but are you? I have no fucking idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
thats why i likened you to a sick gambler..the way they talk..........but i never definitvely maintained that you were certifiable sick.
20 years ago before i gave up craps for the most part(i mmight play once a year for kicks with my gambling fund in sports and table poker) I woud at times place the center bets knowing full well the house advantage.. But i never claimed that i figured the game out..even when i went on winning streaks that lasted a few months where my horn bets were hitting llike crazy.