"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ
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.
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ
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.
there are people that throw the word "addicted" around as if they know what they are fucking talking about.
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.
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.
Last edited by redietz; 06-26-2018 at 08:19 PM.
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.
Last edited by MisterV; 06-27-2018 at 04:25 PM.
What, Me Worry?
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).
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.
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.
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.
What, Me Worry?
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?
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.
What, Me Worry?
The wedding was an advantage play? This is proof you have no idea what an advantage play is. How did that wedding work out by the way?
$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. 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.
What, Me Worry?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)