WHy Do They Post?

[Don Perignom]

This is inspired by MisterV's "WHy Do They Lie?" topic.

Post your favorite recollections of factually disordered forum threads.

An evergreen source of confusion is the regulator reports showing double-digit casino win % at table games. On WoV, a guy decided the actual roulette odds of a number hit must be 1-in-52. The thread:

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-...nset-roulette/

Instead of admitting his mistake, he stalls by saying he'll be away on vacation, or is only available 10 minutes per day. But he picked the wrong venue because resident roulette expert EvenBob is not having any of it.

[MisterV]

There is no better example of disordered thought coupled to hubris than Alan's immortal "eighteen yo's in a row" fable.

R.I.P. Alan: you're memorable.

[MDawg]

Most every time I've gone into Red Rock and passed by a craps table I've thought of Alan.

Even though that pic you posted was at, Caesars'? still it was at RR that Alan spent all his later years playing from what I understand.

[smurgerburger]

Is the deal with the reported house win on table games that they measure by (buy-out ÷ buy-in)?

I had a discussion about this once and it wasn't resolved.

[Don Perignom]

There is no better example of disordered thought coupled to hubris than Alan's immortal "eighteen yo's in a row" fable.

This is the earliest mention I've found so far:

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...ps/#post173719

August 2012, and it got almost no reaction initially. But maybe he had mentioned it elsewhere already.

Shackleford argues that Mendelson should equally be remembered for his contributions to the two dice probability question. From the WoV obit thread:

"You have to give him marks for consistency and persistence. I agreed with Alan about almost nothing, but through it all he was polite and a gentleman, most of the time."

[Gottlob1]

Lol.

Mendelson lived a thus tortured life, on the end. Nothing to glorify. The only thing that can be deduced now is that it had to do with his physical illnesses, which led to a sudden, and untimely, death, especially for someone who, very likely, never did a lick of actual physical labor in his entire life.

The eighteen yo's in a row, which no one bet on, picking up and moving to Las Vegas, in the middle of Goddamn nowhere, and, so on. Delusions.

Like, say, Reagan, the cavalier stuff was actually only early-onset Alzheimer's.


Gottlob1
Gottlob1 is online now
Silver
Gottlob1's Avatar

Join Date
Jul 2023
Posts
77 <------------------------

[Don Perignom]

Is the deal with the reported house win on table games that they measure by (buy-out ÷ buy-in)?

Yeah, it's supposed to be the retained % of drop imo.

There's no way it could be actual, realized house edge because they don't have the data for it. They would need to know aggregate wager total at the tables.

[mickeycrimm]

Is the deal with the reported house win on table games that they measure by (buy-out ÷ buy-in)?

I had a discussion about this once and it wasn't resolved.

A blackjack dealer once told me the house edge is 14% because only 86% of the money they bought in for is returned to them. What he was saying was the house keeps 14% of buy-in money.

Of course, the 14% edge is not true. What this guy doesn't realize is the house keeps 14% of the buy-in money because of the compound effect of negative expectation gambling on the part of the players.

[Don Perignom]

I'm wondering, across the forums, how many regulars are sustained winners at negative games.

I know of Dawg, Rob, sox, Bob.

There's one in progress that caught my eye. His handle at VF is paigower. Current report:

https://vegasfanatics.com/index.php?...-18-7-23.9393/

He plays mostly BJ which is potentially beatable, but I don't see any indication he has an edge. I'll accept that everything he reports is true. What's interesting is when a win streak develops, it's assumed to herald a new era of permanent prosperity.

He's building a venture capital bankroll to fund tech startups:

https://vegasfanatics.com/index.php?...-3#post-324151

Right now I'm winning around 100-150-ish per day.
In my mind, that's around 2-3 50k startup angel investments per day that I can stack up.

What advice would Alan give?

[Rob.Singer]

Lol.

Mendelson lived a thus tortured life, on the end. Nothing to glorify. The only thing that can be deduced now is that it had to do with his physical illnesses, which led to a sudden, and untimely, death, especially for someone who, very likely, never did a lick of actual physical labor in his entire life.

The eighteen yo's in a row, which no one bet on, picking up and moving to Las Vegas, in the middle of Goddamn nowhere, and, so on. Delusions.

Like, say, Reagan, the cavalier stuff was actually only early-onset Alzheimer's.


Gottlob1
Gottlob1 is online now
Silver
Gottlob1's Avatar

Join Date
Jul 2023
Posts
77 <------------------------

Full-on ignorance. Upon Alan's passing, he was "glorified" by multiple news people he worked with and anchored news etc. for at the TV station in LA.

No he wasn't a physical specimen or hard-working boy, and he didn't need to be. Neither am I. But I could pick you up and put you down before you could ask mama for help.

If you wanna pick on someone for moving to LV with delusions, aim at kew.

[Gottlob1]

Is the deal with the reported house win on table games that they measure by (buy-out ÷ buy-in)?

I had a discussion about this once and it wasn't resolved.

A blackjack dealer once told me the house edge is 14% because only 86% of the money they bought in for is returned to them. What he was saying was the house keeps 14% of buy-in money.

Of course, the 14% edge is not true. What this guy doesn't realize is the house keeps 14% of the buy-in money because of the compound effect of negative expectation gambling on the part of the players.

Well, despite the symbiotic polar differences, from AP's, to Systems Players, the casinos end up with either all of your time, or, all of your money, while letting every one "win" something (for nothing), especially in front of the others on gambling forums. Except, of course, for the rich who lose both all of their time, and, all of their money.

[Half Smoke]

I'm wondering, across the forums, how many regulars are sustained winners at negative games.

Nobody in the entire history of the world has ever proved that there is a winning (long term) money management or bet selection system for a negative expectation game such as bacc or roulette

does that suggest anything to you about the veracity of your post______________?


.

[Don Perignom]

does that suggest anything to you about the veracity of your post______________?

I used the word "sustained" which I think allows wiggle room for interpretation.

[AxelWolf]

does that suggest anything to you about the veracity of your post______________?

I used the word "sustained" which I think allows wiggle room for interpretation.

I recently played around 2000 hands-on something(That probably takes Bob 2 years to place that many real money bets) with a little over 1% hold. I was up about 100 units. I don't remember exactly, but the point is... someone can certainly get lucky for a while leading them to believe their shit is working. When it eventually fails they keep adjusting their system until they end up on a winning streak again, they believe it's due to the adjustments.

EvenBob"When its playing my game"

[accountinquestion]

On occasion I adjust my betting behavior based on hot/cold streaks. It isn't a very good trait for a professional gambler but far from a horrible thing if you're doing it within reason.

For example - I was spinning off a riverdragons and kept the bet low to lower variance but hit some nice line pays. So then I bump up the level because.. well I was winning. Then of course the upswing stopped. I knew better but that it is still so easy to change my behavior. It is basically the same type of behavior at a micro-level and even I am guilty of it on occasion. Although the underlying fundamentals never change in my head but my approach may.

TBH I also wanted to get it over with lol.

Again, I'm not a pro-gambler but lately I've given up all betting that isn't +EV or have some other purpose.

Those who have totally erased this sort of behavior or never had it to begin with are the types of gamblers that will typically shine in the long run. Grind grind grind no leaks.

[Half Smoke]

.
an interesting question - to me anyway - is if some of those money management systems could actually have value if you do have edge - for example in sports betting

one of the systems where you slowly try to recover losses by betting up - such as d'Alembert

of course in the long run you're always going to win or lose what your edge or lack of an edge indicates based on your total action

but it might help your attitude if you quickly recover from a losing streak - without risking going down too far - at some point you have to stop betting up if your losing and go back to your base bet

I haven't done it - but I've thought about it

.

[accountinquestion]

.
an interesting question - to me anyway - is if some of those money management systems could actually have value if you do have edge - for example in sports betting

one of the systems where you slowly try to recover losses by betting up - such as d'Alembert

of course in the long run you're always going to win or lose what your edge or lack of an edge indicates based on your total action

but it might help your attitude if you quickly recover from a losing streak - without risking going down too far - at some point you have to stop betting up if your losing and go back to your base bet

I haven't done it - but I've thought about it

.

My understanding is a kelly type approach is the only real way as far as growing your BR.

Other betting systems that don't change yout bet size with edge simply reorient the frequency of booking wins vs losses which can have a positive (or negative) psychological aspect. Or increase/decrease chances of going bust but Kelly does that too.

[Half Smoke]

.
an interesting question - to me anyway - is if some of those money management systems could actually have value if you do have edge - for example in sports betting

one of the systems where you slowly try to recover losses by betting up - such as d'Alembert

of course in the long run you're always going to win or lose what your edge or lack of an edge indicates based on your total action

but it might help your attitude if you quickly recover from a losing streak - without risking going down too far - at some point you have to stop betting up if your losing and go back to your base bet

I haven't done it - but I've thought about it

.

My understanding is a kelly type approach is the only real way as far as growing your BR.

Other betting systems that don't change yout bet size with edge simply reorient the frequency of booking wins vs losses which can have a positive (or negative) psychological aspect. Or increase/decrease chances of going bust but Kelly does that too.

what you're saying is true but Kelly is just so, so boring
I used Kelly as a blackjack AP many years ago
but sometimes I got so bored I had to let it go and bet up much higher than Kelly indicated if I had even a small edge
I couldn't stand the boredom

that means I had less than maximum efficiency as an AP

but I had more fun - at least when things went well

.

[MDawg]

If you watch some of the high rollers at Baccarat, you unfortunately tend to see so many of them betting small, just a few thousand a hand, when winning hand after hand. Looking from the outside, you can see they're in the zone, cleaning up.

Next thing you know the same player is betting twenty, twenty five, thirty thousand a hand and losing one hand after another. And again, looking from the outside you know he's betting into a crappy shoe where there is no run or discernible pattern of any kind in progress.

None of this is scientific, but I see it time and again - players barely betting when they are achieving extremely high win hand ratios, and then jacking the bet to the moon trying desperately to catch up when they're losing. And the more they get behind the more they bet trying to catch up quickly, so that even if they do catch a couple big hands, it's not enough, and they keep pushing at max until all their chips are gone.

I play at a private table, sometimes in the back away from all that, and just for the sake of not having to see people chasing losses and end up wiped out, it's a good thing. I hate seeing that sort of thing, it is beyond depressing. In Baccarat there are periods when your average player with no edge will clean up, and periods when the same player can't even seem to win a hand. And given that the average player does not flat bet, the losses add up if the player's betting big at the bad times.


On a recent trip I saw one player who had already dumped a half million. Would pull only 10K at a time now, trying to be cautious, but no matter how far that 10K got, it was never enough and the player would keep dumping another 10K at a time.

Another player had dumped $2M and was down to about $50K. Took that last $50K all the way to a couple hundred thousand, but, it wasn't enough kept playing and eventually lost that too. And the horrible hands that player was experiencing on the way back down, like where in a six card draw the other side was reduced all the way to 1, but the player would draw the one damned card that reduced to 0.

In a vacuum, playing without the desire or need to chase losses, taking 10K to 30 or 40K was great, as was taking 50K to 200K. But when the mind set of "get it all back or nothing" sets in, wipeouts happen far more often than getting back to even. And I've seen players get back to even against all odds, but then want their profit ahead that they had before the spill, and end up losing everything again.

[accountinquestion]

.
an interesting question - to me anyway - is if some of those money management systems could actually have value if you do have edge - for example in sports betting

one of the systems where you slowly try to recover losses by betting up - such as d'Alembert

of course in the long run you're always going to win or lose what your edge or lack of an edge indicates based on your total action

but it might help your attitude if you quickly recover from a losing streak - without risking going down too far - at some point you have to stop betting up if your losing and go back to your base bet

I haven't done it - but I've thought about it

.

My understanding is a kelly type approach is the only real way as far as growing your BR.

Other betting systems that don't change yout bet size with edge simply reorient the frequency of booking wins vs losses which can have a positive (or negative) psychological aspect. Or increase/decrease chances of going bust but Kelly does that too.

what you're saying is true but Kelly is just so, so boring
I used Kelly as a blackjack AP many years ago
but sometimes I got so bored I had to let it go and bet up much higher than Kelly indicated if I had even a small edge
I couldn't stand the boredom

.

Like uhm 15 years ago I had a brief foray into sports betting. I bet like half kelly or something too aggro and just wound up bust. A shame as I had the motivation at the time and it likely easier than it is today. Books not as sharp, weaker lines, etc.