The WoV Thread

[Bill Yung]

I wonder where the "AP's" fit in the employment hierarchy, from a demographic standpoint. Perceived societal status, and on up to the nitty-gritty actuarial aspects of longevity, etc. There are many books about gambling per se, eg, its effect on the human brain, but few if any on the "AP" life, itself.

They seem to be one rung off the street, and one rung under the basest of entertainers. Not even "merchandisable". Someone should run a poll to see who would buy a Mickey belt and wallet, or an Axel Wolf beanie. Maybe, a Wizard's wand. Dan could open up an online gift shop.

Say, when monet's tumor is hanging out of his pants, and he's ready to go "bloop", Alan could film him being the first "AP" to show a play for real. Nothing to hide then.

[LarryS]

And you see why I said 99% of this forum is a joke?

Meanwhile Dan Druff is posting his baseball picks.

nice move. Sell your site to a man, then come ans haunt the site while mocking the new owner.

good form old chap.....good form.

Actually I enjoy Dans picks......and his every now and then nuggets as to why he is betting as he does. I read it every time he posts it. Not for my betting purposes...but just as a man interested on the topic. Maybe I will pick something up for the future.

at least his info is useful . At least he isnt a liar or a defender of a liar as you are.

you really have no standing to mock him, or anyone else,,,,

instead look in the mirror then make your own bed before you call someone else's bed a mess.

[Alan Mendelson]

You misunderstood LarryS. Dan is the 1% that isn't a joke.

[MisterV]

Why did you sell the board to Dan?

Now before you answer: If you are tempted to say "because it had gone downhill." why then do you keep hanging around here?

[Alan Mendelson]

MisterV I no longer wanted the liability of owning a forum in which posters made criminal statements and threatened violence. Is that a good reason?

[monet]

I wonder where the "AP's" fit in the employment hierarchy, from a demographic standpoint. Perceived societal status, and on up to the nitty-gritty actuarial aspects of longevity, etc. There are many books about gambling per se, eg, its effect on the human brain, but few if any on the "AP" life, itself.

They seem to be one rung off the street, and one rung under the basest of entertainers. Not even "merchandisable". Someone should run a poll to see who would buy a Mickey belt and wallet, or an Axel Wolf beanie. Maybe, a Wizard's wand. Dan could open up an online gift shop.

Say, when monet's tumor is hanging out of his pants, and he's ready to go "bloop", Alan could film him being the first "AP" to show a play for real. Nothing to hide then.

Awhile back you gave a post about how my story was the one plausible one. Now you mess with me about my health condition. I read something the other day that said if you have long term problems it may not be Cancer because it usually progresses pretty quick and you are either dead or close to it. You used the word bloop? Have you said that before or heard anyone say that? I used that because it is an inside joke that I and one other person use when we talk about death and he made it up not me. He also made up another word which is called a Badoon... I know you don't know what a Badoon is do you? Anyway, we were at the Air Show years and years ago and we bought those Budweiser Chelada Beers because they were the same price at 25oz compared to the 12oz cans. He came up with the word Badoon for those.

I have always told you and others that APs are the same as Hustlers. Another word for Hustler is Confidence Man. I don't think APing fits on some sort of employment hierarchy. I have always said it is something that is inside of the underworld or outside of society. I have for the most part always had decent things to say about everyone and you included. Your words are hurtful. My attacks usually were not at individuals but at this idea of something like APing is an honest trade or like RS thinks that APing is helping society putting other people to work. I am against the ideas that RS and AxelWolf and others put out that APing is helping the world or that it is honest and that everyone they know is making 6 figures yearly. That is a bunch of BS.

After thinking about it a bit I am thinking the Westin Casurina was back in 2004 not 05/6 if I recall correctly. I remember they had a large sign outside advertising the 600 for 300 promotion. I didn't even find it. A friend of mine called me and told me to get down there asap because of what they were doing.

[mickeycrimm]

Thanks monet for pointing out that you had to front $300 cash to get $600 free play. That's not what I thought this promo was. I thought you signed up for a card and got $600. What you describe is very different. Yes you have a chance to profit nicely but I think you'd have to hope to break even.

Take a look at the stats for 9/6 Jacks. You will see that 70% of the payback is in hitting just high pairs, two pairs and three of a kinds. It's at 90% payback hitting nothing higher than a full house. The cost of buying the freeplay is just 50%. You will absolutely butcher a promotion like this if you can buy the freeplay.

Amazing. And now you understand how Rob can reach a win goal without quad aces.

You understand nothing. Total idiot.

[Alan Mendelson]

99% a joke. Thanks mickeycrimm.

Deny it all you want but running your free play thru once is a stop loss, and what ever you get was your predetermined win goal.

[mickeycrimm]

A judgement against Rob in 2011 for $958. The plaintiff was an apartment complex in Arizona. When it was brought up on this site a few years ago Rob gave some explanation about stiffing the landlord. In 2005 Rob was charged with forceable entry at an apartment complex in Arizona. Don't know the disposition.

Sounds like he was involved in two separate legal matters both of which involved a rental of real property, the first obviously for non-payment of rent.

I say "two" because the second one, which you say involves being "charged with forceable entry at an apartment complex" is likely not criminal, but civil.

Sounds like the Arizona equivalent of "forcible entry and unlawful detainer," aka an eviction.

Odds are he didn't pay the rent, although other causes could warrant such an action, such as failing to timely move out after receiving notice to do so.

If in fact the 2005 action was for failure to pay rent then it looks like Rob got sued twice for not paying rent after his bkcy ended.

Would a solvent, financially successful person be involved in such legal actions?

[mickeycrimm]

99% a joke. Thanks mickeycrimm.

Deny it all you want but running your free play thru once is a stop loss, and what ever you get was your predetermined win goal.

Where do you come up with all the meaningless mumbo jumbo bullshit? Did the mental hospital test to many drugs on you?

And the forcible entry? It's probably what they had to do to get the deadbeat out of the apartment.

[kewlJ]

Now you mess with me about my health condition.

This is the lowest of low Monet, and it clearly shows just the kind of 'hate' this anti-AP fraction is about. It isn't about skepticism of something they don't know or understand. It is just complete hate towards other people out of jealousy. Success, where the 'haters' have failed.

When they found out redietz's wife had passed they attacked that. When I had a medical crisis in October (open heart surgery) they attacked that. When I made mention that my partner had passed, they attacked that....and attacked him, a person, who never participated on this forum, with aids references that were vile and untrue. And now they mock and attack your medical/health issues.

These are sick, sick people. This site could be classified as a "hate site", because that's what they are and that's what they do. These are nasty excuses for human beings exhibiting the ugliest human characteristics.

[redietz]

99% a joke. Thanks mickeycrimm.

Deny it all you want but running your free play thru once is a stop loss, and what ever you get was your predetermined win goal.

If you stop playing when the advantage is gone, that's not a stop loss. That's advantage play. When the free play has been used, the advantage is gone. Obviously.

So according to Mr. Mendelson, whatever I've won was my win goal, which is determined after I have stopped. Cool. Thus, win goals are not real numbers. They are whatever I've won after I stop playing a session. Okay. Some people call those "winnings," but I guess if one is behind lifetime, that's a short-term misnomer.

And voila, I think we've stumbled onto the reason people like the phrase "win goal." It sounds as if the player is winning or has won. In actuality, however, the player is behind lifetime, so it's not really "winnings." It's a "win goal."

Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Mendelson.

I'm going to get creative, also, spurred by Mr. Mendelson's ingenuity. I think that people who play negative games should refer to their session goals as "borrowing goals." If they win, they are, after all, not really winning because they are behind lifetime, and given that playing negative games is to some degree voluntary, they fully intend to give it back. So "borrowing goals" sounds right, because they'll be giving it back shortly.

I think any APs discussing this with non-APs should heretofore use the phrase "borrowing goal" in place of the non-AP "win goal." It'll help general readers understand the great divide and choose which side uses more accurate language.

[tableplay]

99% a joke. Thanks mickeycrimm.

Deny it all you want but running your free play thru once is a stop loss, and what ever you get was your predetermined win goal.

If you stop playing when the advantage is gone, that's not a stop loss. That's advantage play. When the free play has been used, the advantage is gone. Obviously.

So according to Mr. Mendelson, whatever I've won was my win goal, which is determined after I have stopped. Cool. Thus, win goals are not real numbers. They are whatever I've won after I stop playing a session. Okay. Some people call those "winnings," but I guess if one is behind lifetime, that's a short-term misnomer.

And voila, I think we've stumbled onto the reason people like the phrase "win goal." It sounds as if the player is winning or has won. In actuality, however, the player is behind lifetime, so it's not really "winnings." It's a "win goal."

Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Mendelson.

I'm going to get creative, also, spurred by Mr. Mendelson's ingenuity. I think that people who play negative games should refer to their session goals as "borrowing goals." If they win, they are, after all, not really winning because they are behind lifetime, and given that playing negative games is to some degree voluntary, they fully intend to give it back. So "borrowing goals" sounds right, because they'll be giving it back shortly.

Even more oddly, a goal, by definition, is set before the stated action is undertaken, and not after the fact as Alan writes. Using Mickey's excellent minimum return baseline methodology of assuming you will hit a 3 of a kind during the course of running the $600 of free play, betting on single line full pay bonus poker (99.17% payback) at 5x25c per deal-draw, a very clear profit goal can be established (69.715 is the expected payout if you hit a 3K and nothing higher, which is extremely conservative):
1. 0.6971*$600=$418.26
2. ($418.26-$300)/$300 = a 39% profit goal (established before starting the play) per homeless person player's card - assumes optimal discarding and represents a minimum profit since hitting a 3ofaK is a near certainty on this play.

Obviously playing smaller denominations (full pay bonus poker) like 10 cent triple-line (5 coins per line) or 5 cent 5-coin 5 line (way lower variance per $1.25 wager than the single line play) will increase the minimum profit of the play.

[dannyj]

Now you mess with me about my health condition.

This is the lowest of low Monet, and it clearly shows just the kind of 'hate' this anti-AP fraction is about. It isn't about skepticism of something they don't know or understand. It is just complete hate towards other people out of jealousy. Success, where the 'haters' have failed.

When they found out redietz's wife had passed they attacked that. When I had a medical crisis in October (open heart surgery) they attacked that. When I made mention that my partner had passed, they attacked that....and attacked him, a person, who never participated on this forum, with aids references that were vile and untrue. And now they mock and attack your medical/health issues.

These are sick, sick people. This site could be classified as a "hate site", because that's what they are and that's what they do. These are nasty excuses for human beings exhibiting the ugliest human characteristics.

KJ,
I think you're painting with too broad a brush. Yes, there are those that make stupid, vile comments. Some justify it by claiming they were attacked first, some just do it without compunction. But to say this site is a hate site is a little over the top.

Too often today in our society people throw around the labels "hater" or "hate speech" to attempt to shut down the conversation. I'm not saying you're doing that. Have a good day.

[Rob.Singer]

Now you mess with me about my health condition.

This is the lowest of low Monet, and it clearly shows just the kind of 'hate' this anti-AP fraction is about. It isn't about skepticism of something they don't know or understand. It is just complete hate towards other people out of jealousy. Success, where the 'haters' have failed.

When they found out redietz's wife had passed they attacked that. When I had a medical crisis in October (open heart surgery) they attacked that. When I made mention that my partner had passed, they attacked that....and attacked him, a person, who never participated on this forum, with aids references that were vile and untrue. And now they mock and attack your medical/health issues.

These are sick, sick people. This site could be classified as a "hate site", because that's what they are and that's what they do. These are nasty excuses for human beings exhibiting the ugliest human characteristics.

Waaa....waaa....waaa....what a wussified little baby. You dole out more hate than anybody kew and you do it in nearly every post. And when will you get it thru that bag of rocks you have for a head that NOBODY CARES when anonymous BSers come on and blab about supposed "health conditions" for the sake of needing to feel relevant. Boo-hoo.

All this back & forth about the "theoretical" outcome of free play is irrelevant. Playing it once thru is not what the Casuarina recruiters by and large did, and 99.9% of gamblers don't anyway. Everybody knows that. And AP's should be ashamed of themselves for pretending that that's what happened here, because their mantra clearly states how they "play on and on and on thru a promotion as long as it remains positive". Running $600 thru a vp machine when $300 of it is free play does not go negative after a once-thru.

So aside from the hard-to-swallow fact for AP's that this promo made an overall profit for the casino and how difficult it was for them to have to read about it in Gaming Today, at least stick with the truth about how any real AP would've played this thing. Few people played it thru once, many played it thru until it stopped being positive based on the game they played, but most played it until it was gone, they pulled out more cash and played until it was gone, then they hit the ATM's with an array of colorful cards until one of them spit out even more cash to piss away.

Now enough if this "AP" discipline and theory nonsense. You all know what happened and why. Swallow hard and move onto your next mickeycrimm fairytale.

[Alan Mendelson]

If I have $100 of free play and decide to run it thru once I am immediately setting a win goal of X and a loss limit of X.

Who said win goals and loss limits must be of a specific dollar amount?

[tableplay]

If I have $100 of free play and decide to run it thru once I am immediately setting a win goal of X and a loss limit of X.

Who said win goals and loss limits must be of a specific dollar amount?

When did you change the definition of goal ? Did you apprise Webster's and Merriam's about this change ?

[tableplay]

All this back & forth about the "theoretical" outcome of free play is irrelevant. Playing it once thru is not what the Casuarina recruiters by and large did, and 99.9% of gamblers don't anyway. Everybody knows that. And AP's should be ashamed of themselves for pretending that that's what happened here, because their mantra clearly states how they "play on and on and on thru a promotion as long as it remains positive". Running $600 thru a vp machine when $300 of it is free play does not go negative after a once-thru.

The promotion was for $600 in free play not $300 in free play and $300 in cash. The $600 in free play was purchased for $300. A homeless person is probably not going to be collecting future mailers, so there is no need to play beyond the $600 in free play in this case. If a casino runs a once a week $20 for $30 in free play promo, for example, there is no need to play beyond the $30 in free play since the promotion is not mailer dependent. I stop once I've exhausted the free play. You stating that all players play beyond their free play will not change my behavior.

[Alan Mendelson]

If I have $100 of free play and decide to run it thru once I am immediately setting a win goal of X and a loss limit of X.

Who said win goals and loss limits must be of a specific dollar amount?

When did you change the definition of goal ? Did you apprise Webster's and Merriam's about this change ?

Why don't you copy and paste that definition here so I can see it?

[monet]

The promotion was for $600 in free play not $300 in free play and $300 in cash. The $600 in free play was purchased for $300. A homeless person is probably not going to be collecting future mailers, so there is no need to play beyond the $600 in free play in this case. If a casino runs a once a week $20 for $30 in free play promo, for example, there is no need to play beyond the $30 in free play since the promotion is not mailer dependent. I stop once I've exhausted the free play. You stating that all players play beyond their free play will not change my behavior.

I played this promotion on multiple cards. I never played past the free play. The nice thing was that they sent out some decent mailers to all the people I ran through so it was an easy 5k for me. The best they had was 9/6 JoB. Other things were going on at the time and the city was better in general for VP so nobody I knew continued on playing after the promotion.

I guess you can't be too upset at these guys telling everyone that free play promotions are bad. If people would listen to them it would be better for players in the know.

This stuff is from 14 years ago. You don't find things like this in Vegas anymore. Those days were nice but I like to keep up to date on what is currently in Vegas.