Ever wonder what winning $26 mil might do to your gambling?

[Lucky(St)Louis]

Here is a court case detailing what one Californian did with his half of a $26 million lottery win. A very interesting and important part of this document has to do with Expert Witness #2, Mark Nicely, then of IGT.

A few quotes from the document regarding Mark Nicely:

" At the time of trial, Mr. Nicely had worked in the gaming
industry for 9 years. He received direct training from the
director of slot operations at the Mirage in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Mr. Nicely was vice president of marketing and promotion, and led
the math department, at Silicon Gaming--a slot machine
manufacturer. Mr. Nicely was responsible for the development of
games and gaming math, testing equipment, working with
regulators, and training employees on how to design games for
casinos. After that, he was president and CEO of Wager Works andlater was executive vice president of marketing for Wynn
Properties. For a time, Mr. Nicely offered consulting services
to gaming industry clients in six States and three foreign
countries. At the time of trial, he was the director of gaming
and design at International Game Technology (IGT)--the largest
slot machine manufacturer in the world."

"Mr. Nicely has worked on “class 3 slot machines”, “class 2
games”, online gaming, and table games. He has access to casino
operations data and performs analyses to determine whether
various machines have been overpaying or underpaying gamblers."

"Mr. Nicely has no published articles because in his industry
anything worthy of publication is a trade secret. There is a
code of silence with respect to sharing information--publishing
would amount to giving secrets away to the competition. For
example, Mr. Nicely has solved a very difficult math problem
associated with a process called “gambler’s ruin”. His
associates do not have this analytical technique at their
disposal, so they have to use simulators. Mr. Nicely’s
analytical solution is very powerful, and he would never publish
it because it would be “spilling the beans” to his competitors."

Anyway, the link to this document is this: http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistor...DI.TCM.WPD.pdf.

Mr. Nicely has a consulting business here: http://nicelydonegaming.com/index.htm

Alan, if you need to delete any of the above content, please do.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't see any problem quoting the content as I didn't see any kind of copyright. I also looked at the original Tax Court document.

What I don't understand is what the point is of your post?

[Lucky(St)Louis]

I guess a couple of points are made by the document.

One is that if the IRS is asking you to pay taxes and fines of a million or more, you don't need a gambling log to prove your losses, just some very good witnesses. One such witness named is Mark Nicely, credited with solving a problem called "gambler's ruin".

I find that quite interesting in I know the lengths taken by some to justify time and money spent gambling. I used to only play Blackjack and VP, but took up slots by chance. It's nice to have facts on the subject, it may actually be of use to some people.

[Alan Mendelson]

It seems to me that the issue in the case was that he failed to file for two years, and he was being hit with failure to file penalties. Mr Nicely, the gaming expert, entered testimony that the player was a net loser. Still there was a tax liability and the late filing penalties were applied.

What is interesting is the documentation of how this guy became a non stop gambler and lost playing the slots. There was no mention of video poker or if VP was among the slots he played.

[slingshot]

I did find this interesting: In gambler's ruin, the player is expected to lower his bet when losing and raise it as he wins. This is the exact opposite of Rob's strategy.

[Alan Mendelson]

I did find this interesting: In gambler's ruin, the player is expected to lower his bet when losing and raise it as he wins. This is the exact opposite of Rob's strategy.

The reason why it is the opposite with Rob's system... and why it works... is that Rob has a win goal system and the win goal is actually modest. Remember that he is moving up as high as $100 machines ($500 per bet) just to have a win goal of only $2500.

The reality is, reaching a win goal on higher denomination machines becomes easier.

This is why I take exception to the suggestion to start at $1 machines. You can't reach a win goal of $2500 on $1 video poker unless you hit a royal early with Rob's $53,000 (I think that's it) bankroll.

If he started at a $10 machine playing 8/5 Bonus (one of his favorite games) and that $2500 win goal becomes damn easy.

I dont have a $53,000 bankroll. I have a $2500 bankroll when I play, and I adjust my win goal accordingly. But if I set a win goal of 20% ($500) I can honestly say I have reached that at some point at least 95% of the time.

The problem, as Rob has pointed out, is that players don't stick to win goals, and keep playing.

So getting back to the concept of "gambler's ruin" -- while it is a valid concern, increasing bet size for Rob's system becomes a valid tactic because he has set an "exit strategy" of the win goal. Most gamblers don't plan an exit. They just keep on playing.

[Rob.Singer]

I did find this interesting: In gambler's ruin, the player is expected to lower his bet when losing and raise it as he wins. This is the exact opposite of Rob's strategy.

That's only the case if the person does not have the proper bankroll, which in my strategies cases, I always do or I would never had played. But if you remember beck when Bob Dancer hit his $100 royal that he bragged about for years, he went into the MGM to play a promo on $25 JoB, was lucky to hit a $100k royal, but he did not have the bankroll to be playing even that for the long-term strategy he was playing. So before going in he asked every one of his high roller "friends" to put up 50% of the stake. When they all refused, he played anyway because an addict just cannot say no. After the $25 royal, he did the #1 thing my strategy does not permit because only serious problem gamblers do it: he took that $100k to the $100 machine and would have played until every penny was gone had he not hit that royal.

THAT is what Risk of Ruin is all about.

[slingshot]

That's only the case if the person does not have the proper bankroll, which in my strategies cases, I always do or I would never had played. But if you remember beck when Bob Dancer hit his $100 royal that he bragged about for years, he went into the MGM to play a promo on $25 JoB, was lucky to hit a $100k royal, but he did not have the bankroll to be playing even that for the long-term strategy he was playing. So before going in he asked every one of his high roller "friends" to put up 50% of the stake. When they all refused, he played anyway because an addict just cannot say no. After the $25 royal, he did the #1 thing my strategy does not permit because only serious problem gamblers do it: he took that $100k to the $100 machine and would have played until every penny was gone had he not hit that royal.

THAT is what Risk of Ruin is all about.

Yes. And remembering your aritcles, you would have recommended if he just HAD to continue, to go to a much lower denomination until he reached another win goal. By the way-is there any way to be able to read the articles again? I used to go over them weekly. Thanks.

[Lucky(St)Louis]

The last time this was asked on LVA, the following site had many. Now they have this one: http://web.archive.org/web/201102021...//vptruth.com/

But they do have this list: http://web.archive.org/web/201005100...m/articles.cfm

[slingshot]

The last time this was asked on LVA, the following site had many. Now they have this one: http://web.archive.org/web/201102021...//vptruth.com/

But they do have this list: http://web.archive.org/web/201005100...m/articles.cfm

I really appreciate that, Lucky. Unfortunately, I couldn't find most of the articles.