Don't quite understand what this has to do with being an addict. Recreational, advantage,an addict is an addict.Originally Posted by slobdinger
Don't quite understand what this has to do with being an addict. Recreational, advantage,an addict is an addict.Originally Posted by slobdinger
No one with half a brain, eyes, and the will to live life, would be caught dead trying to become an AP. Addictive. A harmful myth sold by scammers.Originally Posted by spojoey
So the MIT, Hyland and Chinese blackjack teams were myths?
I think it's possible to be an AP and still play only a small amount of time. "Advantage Player" does not mean you are spending 24 hours a day in a casino. An "AP" could still be an "AP" in 10 minutes of play.
Being an "AP" by definition would not mean you are an addict.
In fact, if someone were an addict, then by definition they couldn't be an AP because they would be playing regardless of making advantage plays.
Exactly Alan.... Addicts are only interested in the action..they just want to play. That's all they care about. They will steal, lie, cheat, etc,etc...just so they can play.....The only thing winning means to them is that they can keep on playing....Losing is a tragedy, not because they can't pay the rent or face the wife and children it only means they can't play until they get more cash, theirs or somebody else's.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Last edited by spojoey; 12-19-2015 at 04:23 PM.
I still disagree.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
AP's over manage their addiction to gamble. Opposed to people who under manage their addiction, and overdose or lose all of their money gambling. In short, over dosing isn't the addiction per se.
By this model, one may argue that AP's are the most addicted, and over the long term.
Part of the problem stems from defining the casino's role in this as gaming. There is no gaming, eg, military or poker strategizing to casino play. It's all gambling, from the players, to the AP's, to the casinos.
Nobody goes to a casino as to a higher institute of learning to achieve a higher level of productivity and responsibility. You won't find that around a blackjack table.
(It might help to at least differentiate gambling from gaming, and both from what's between the two.)
An AP would not be an AP without spending large amounts of time on his or her gambling. Their entire point is to achieve the "edge" % of their gaming into the long term, and to get to that point takes a humungous amount of play. By definition, AP play = addiction. There are plenty of players who like to identify with "AP" by popping into casinos when they can after work, on weekends, whatever. But these are not true AP's at all. They're simply misguided wannabees.
An AP is a player who plays with an edge. Period. No matter how many people try to redefine this term, it doesn't change. We do get people like Singer who make fools of themselves trying to redefine something this simple. Just laugh at them.
This is absolutely wrong. Addiction is not an advantage so by definition an "advantage player" can't be addicted. No Rob, I'm not going to let you twist this one.Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I will concede that there may be those who consider themselves "advantage players" who are not. I wrote about a guy I knew at Rincon (where I used to play and no longer play) who told me he was an AP and he went broke.
The real AP is the one who built himself up from nothing.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Well, since so many of you think I'm an addict then this is what my addiction has done for me. I just returned from a 15 day road trip where my addiction grossed $8300 but after expenses netted just $6800. I don't get the RFB that you guys get. I'm taking the rest of December and all of January off from my addiction. But I will be right back addicted again for two to three weeks in February. That's the way I do it these days. Just two to three weeks of being addicted then taking a month and a half off. Rinse and repeat.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......Originally Posted by slobdinger
Yes, the truth is very boring. Not near as much fun as reading Rob's convoluted nonsense.Originally Posted by spojoey
Last edited by slobdinger; 12-20-2015 at 12:38 PM.
Can I tag along on one of your road trips? I'll watch the greatest machine pro of all time do his thing, and report back.Originally Posted by slobdinger
Why would anyone believe you any more then you believe Rob? I'm sure your telling the truth (wink wink) but if everyone believed everything they read on here there wouldn't any one asking for proof. (Pictures,tax forms,etc,etc.)Originally Posted by slobdinger
I never called you an addict. From what you tell us, playing is your way of life and that makes you a "professional." If you tell us you live under the radar and don't pay taxes on your gambling income it means you have $6800 for about two months of living expenses -- $3400 per month. Wouldn't you be better off with a "real job"?Originally Posted by slobdinger
Alan, you know he's full of it. He's so out of it that he can't even remember when he lied about being a "keno pro" who's making 6 figures a year (that's minimum $8350/month, mickey) His problem is, he keeps thinking $3500 is a decent monthly wage for a bum like him, completely forgetting about the lies he's told about the 6 figures a year baloney. So he got all excited--and caught--making up his latest story that only a mother with no teeth would love.
And I can confirm that he doesn't file federal tax returns. That's being worked on though.
I figured this again. Grossing $8300 to cover two months means a gross of $4150 per month. That's a gross income of $49,800 per year. Not even $1,000 per week.Originally Posted by slobdinger
Now, there's nothing wrong with a job that gives you close to a thousand dollars a week, especially if you are retired or semi retired and there is no tax bite and your cost of living is low and you have health care covered. For a retiree on a pension + Social Security, $4,150 a month is okay and if that fits your needs and lifestyle, then good for you.
Depends on where you live and the cost of living associated with it. In SoCal, $100,000 a year is pretty much poverty.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote