The WoV Thread

[tableplay]

The numbers are obviously reversed and anyone who believes that 70% or 97% of players are up from jump street don't understand what the drop is.
I'd ask tableplay to confirm and show us all the math but why bother?
Tards are gonna Tard... RIP.

Agreed that it would be futile Monet - no minds got changed after all the previous examples, such as the Baccarat probabilities, etc.. Besides, given the wide variety of type of games played,length of play, house edges, and variance of games played by casino patrons, generalizing would likely be inaccurate and would require an answer given as a confidence interval. For a single game, like Baccarat, with known house edge and variance, folks have come up with distributions of the likelihood of being ahead or being ahead by X amount, but not for the entire universe of games on the floor - felt or machine.

[MisterV]

The point of the message is still valid, to wit: cool your jets while gambling; be disciplined; have a plan and stick to it and never even come close to going on tilt.

[redietz]

The point of the message is still valid, to wit: cool your jets while gambling; be disciplined; have a plan and stick to it and never even come close to going on tilt.

Actually, MrV, you sound like a casino exec. That's pretty much what casinos would suggest as a strategy to shear the sheep rather than boil it in acid. If going on tilt results in a major loss, the only meaningful calculation is whether that large loss might result in ceasing the activity and thereby keeping lifetime losses below what the shearing cumulative total might be. It's not like what people get from gambling in a recreational sense can't be replaced with another form of recreation.

[MisterV]

It's not like what people get from gambling in a recreational sense can't be replaced with another form of recreation.

I disagree.

What people get from gambling in a recreational sense can not easily be replaced by another form of recreation.

Since casinos opened up across this fair land people have flocked to them by the millions.

Why?

Because gambling offers a unique experience for the recreational gambler, one pretty much unavailable elsewhere to the average guy.

It's an emotional roller coaster that is addictive, the simultaneous feelings of hope and fear every time you bet.

I suppose some other activities can give this as well, for example if you hunt bear in Alaska and a bear charges you then you'll hope you shoot him but fear you won't.

It is the feelings experienced while gambling that lead to it being addictive.

[Alan Mendelson]

The point of the message is still valid, to wit: cool your jets while gambling; be disciplined; have a plan and stick to it and never even come close to going on tilt.

Actually, MrV, you sound like a casino exec. That's pretty much what casinos would suggest as a strategy to shear the sheep rather than boil it in acid. If going on tilt results in a major loss, the only meaningful calculation is whether that large loss might result in ceasing the activity and thereby keeping lifetime losses below what the shearing cumulative total might be. It's not like what people get from gambling in a recreational sense can't be replaced with another form of recreation.

Tell me... do you think people might continue to play because they're having fun? Or is everyone having fun a problem gambler?

[redietz]

The point of the message is still valid, to wit: cool your jets while gambling; be disciplined; have a plan and stick to it and never even come close to going on tilt.

Actually, MrV, you sound like a casino exec. That's pretty much what casinos would suggest as a strategy to shear the sheep rather than boil it in acid. If going on tilt results in a major loss, the only meaningful calculation is whether that large loss might result in ceasing the activity and thereby keeping lifetime losses below what the shearing cumulative total might be. It's not like what people get from gambling in a recreational sense can't be replaced with another form of recreation.

Tell me... do you think people might continue to play because they're having fun? Or is everyone having fun a problem gambler?

I think people should have the right to spend whatever they want on whatever they choose. Not my business. Not my job to psychoanalyze people to try to understand if their "fun" is a behavioral addiction or -- LOL -- a behavioral addiction. Isn't that, after all, what "fun" is? If people spend 30, 40, 50% of their income at a casino, more power to them. Who am I to judge? If people want to spend 30, 40, 50% on hookers, not my job to judge. Also probably fun, by the way. If people want to tithe, not my job to judge. Might be less fun, though.

All I said is that casinos would prefer to get to whatever the largest bottom line donation lifetime they can extract from someone. That goes without saying. I suspect getting that biggest bottom line extraction involves shearing as opposed to slicing throats. The older the clients get, however, the better case can be made for slicing throats as the way to go -- from the casinos' perspective.

[redietz]

It's not like what people get from gambling in a recreational sense can't be replaced with another form of recreation.

I disagree.

What people get from gambling in a recreational sense can not easily be replaced by another form of recreation.

Since casinos opened up across this fair land people have flocked to them by the millions.

Why?

Because gambling offers a unique experience for the recreational gambler, one pretty much unavailable elsewhere to the average guy.

It's an emotional roller coaster that is addictive, the simultaneous feelings of hope and fear every time you bet.

I suppose some other activities can give this as well, for example if you hunt bear in Alaska and a bear charges you then you'll hope you shoot him but fear you won't.

It is the feelings experienced while gambling that lead to it being addictive.

https://www.amazon.com/Addiction-Des...s%2C142&sr=8-1



I would recommend a deeper dive with "Addiction By Design" by anthropologist Natasha Dow Schull. Great book.

[MisterV]

A problem with the "slicing throats" metaphor is that in reality the casinos do nothing one way or another to encourage or discourage compulsive gambling more for one age group or gambler category (i.e. casual gambler vs. very frequent gambler) than another.

They make games available and give out free play, comps and gifts to any and all players if play so warrants: it is the folks who cannot control themselves who get in trouble.

If retirees seem to get flensed and deboned more often than the young'uns that may be because they spend more time in the casinos. ah, those golden years...

But regardless, you bet the casinos want players to become gambling addicts: ka-ching!

[Alan Mendelson]

My question is do you think they're having fun?

I ask that because you APs make it sound like it's all business. If you're not calculating an edge you're avoiding management and surveillance and outwitting other players.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz, you wrote:

" If people spend 30, 40, 50% of their income at a casino, more power to them."

What if they're not spending a big percentage of their money? What if they have the money to bet and to lose? What if they're not watching every penny and have to be on the lookout for abandoned credits and dealers who expose hole cards? What if they don't care about free play mailers?

What if they have real jobs and going to a casino is am escape? And blowing money is okay?

[MaxPen]

My question is do you think they're having fun?

I ask that because you APs make it sound like it's all business. If you're not calculating an edge you're avoiding management and surveillance and outwitting other players.

I ask myself at least once a week, "how the hell do people play this shit straight and think it is fun?". My only two answers are they like abuse or they're retarded.

[Don Perignom]

Tards are gonna Tard... RIP.

Though I don't know the exact math it is a very large hill to climb to be ahead in a session where it's an even money bet and the likelyhood of winning a decision is less than 50%. You have to have some very good luck.

Agreed that it would be futile Monet - no minds got changed after all the previous examples, such as the Baccarat probabilities, etc.

Let me remind you of the thesis:

"70 percent of people at a casino visit are ahead at one point"

Baccarat was mentioned. Assuming I bet banker or player, I'll win decision 1 about 45% of the time which puts me ahead for the visit. If I don't win decision 1, I'll have additional opportunities to pull ahead and increase the 45% cumulative total.

Where am I wrong so far?

[MaxPen]

Agreed that it would be futile Monet - no minds got changed after all the previous examples, such as the Baccarat probabilities, etc.

Let me remind you of the thesis:

"70 percent of people at a casino visit are ahead at one point"

Baccarat was mentioned. Assuming I bet banker or player, I'll win decision 1 about 45% of the time which puts me ahead for the visit. If I don't win decision 1, I'll have additional opportunities to pull ahead and increase the 45% cumulative total.

Where am I wrong so far?

The problem is you now have to define a session. Once you define a session you can calculate ranges of results with confidence intervals, which Table play mentioned, like par sheets do for slots at certain amounts of spins.

[Alan Mendelson]

My question is do you think they're having fun?

I ask that because you APs make it sound like it's all business. If you're not calculating an edge you're avoiding management and surveillance and outwitting other players.

I ask myself at least once a week, "how the hell do people play this shit straight and think it is fun?". My only two answers are they like abuse or they're retarded.

I'm not surprised by your answer nor why you would refer to people having fun as "ploppies."

Just as you look down on these folks they look down on gamblers such as yourself who play with the purpose of winning money. I believe there are people who actually dont care about winning money -- they just enjoy the thrill of it.

Personally, I think 9 out of ten of the gals I've dated HATE casinos and NEVER would set foot in one. They are more concerned with spending $500 on a pair of shoes and THAT'S what they do.

[Don Perignom]

The problem is you now have to define a session.

Sure, but the contribution to cumulative will diminish as you go along. Making up numbers here:

45% chance of pulling ahead on decision 1, cumulative 45%
15% chance on decision 2, cumulative 60%
5% on decision 3, cumulative 65%
2% on decision 4, cumulative 67%

The first few decisions are the best opportunities imo.

I'm not trying to pinpoint the number. I'm trying to understand why the 70% estimate is so ridiculous.

[monet]

The problem is you now have to define a session.

Sure, but the contribution to cumulative will diminish as you go along. Making up numbers here:

45% chance of pulling ahead on decision 1, cumulative 45%
15% chance on decision 2, cumulative 60%
5% on decision 3, cumulative 65%
2% on decision 4, cumulative 67%

The first few decisions are the best opportunities imo.

I'm not trying to pinpoint the number. I'm trying to understand why the 70% estimate is so ridiculous.

So we are down to 70%... right?
I mean the 90% or 97% number is completely ridiculous and we can throw that bullshit out the window... right???
First thing is first with you people... Baby Steps...

[Don Perignom]

So we are down to 70%... right?
I mean the 90% or 97% number is completely ridiculous and we can throw that bullshit out the window... right???
First thing is first with you people... Baby Steps...

Show me on the doll where I endorsed the 97%.

[monet]

Though I don't know the exact math it is a very large hill to climb to be ahead in a session where it's an even money bet and the likelyhood of winning a decision is less than 50%. You have to have some very good luck.

On a 47.5% success rate you have just a 22.25% chance of winning two in a row. Three in a row , 10.7%.

The thing about the Royer claim is that no math has been put up to prove it though it's been quite awhile since he made the claim. The reason why is no one, not even the Wizard can develop an equation that will prove it. That's because it's impossible to write an equation proving at least 70% winners at some point in a gambling session. The reason it's impossible is because it's impossible for 70% of Las Vegas gamblers to be ahead at some point during their gambling session. Hence, there is no possible equation proving it possible.

Best Post in this thread about this retarded subject.
Nicely Done!

[monet]

Show me on the doll where I endorsed the 97%.

I'm not directly spewing my venom at you.
I'm trying to establish a Fucking Number here!
And tell me, How do we come up with the exact number of 70%?
Why not 67% or 72%?
That Fucking 70%... perfect round number, pisses me right the Fuck off lol?

[Don Perignom]

I'm not directly spewing my venom at you.

No offense taken. Every day I receive insults worse than anything on this forum.

I'm married.