Content Analysis of this Las Vegas Forum

[Alan Mendelson]

As far as structure goes, a Las Vegas forum forum doesn't require any structure other than the topic of Las Vegas. I think it is highly, highly unusual for a Las Vegas forum to have a subset of posters who do not offer details about Las Vegas and do not ask questions about Las Vegas.

Okay.

I'm looking forward to more trip reports and discussions about dice influencing. In particular I am interested in craps reports regarding tables and dealers. I like friendly dealers who enjoy the game and welcome players who attempt dice influencing.

[coach belly]

You'll have to ask Rob -- he's the expert on forum banning. Or maybe Jerry Logan.

Wow...that's unnecessarily evasive....did your friends in law enforcement teach you which questions not to answer?

Is Rob the only member here that's been banned on other forums?

[coach belly]

As far as structure goes, a Las Vegas forum forum doesn't require any structure other than the topic of Las Vegas

I just reviewed the LVA forum terms and conditions, and I couldn't find where the structure above was noted.

Their "Vegas Free-for-All" forum has many topics that are not Las Vegas related at all.

I did find a whole list of restricted content and behavior, including a section whereby members are encouraged
to rat on each other, should one find another's material "objectionable".

"Any user who believes that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email."

Aint nobody got time for that.

[redietz]

Wow...that's unnecessarily evasive....did your friends in law enforcement teach you which questions not to answer?

Is Rob the only member here that's been banned on other forums?

I was serious. Rob was banned there. One of his aliases/sock puppets/cheerleaders was also banned there -- I think for posting a jackpot that wasn't from where he said it was. Rob knows more about being banned from LVAdvice than I do. He might even know if they traced a sock puppet to him, or if the sock puppet was banned separately. I would ask him, in all seriousness.

[coach belly]

I was serious. Rob knows more about being banned from LVAdvice than I do.

Yeah...but I didn't ask about banning...you brought up banning...not me.

What I asked was...

Is that forum content-restricted...censored...certain behavior not permitted?

And you answer was evasive...you brought up Rob Singer.

I've since researched the question and the answer is...yes, the LVA forums are much more strict than this forum
regarding behavior...but not "structure"...they don't require Las Vegas related topics.

And that's the answer to your original question...

this Las Vegas forum, which has just a handful of high-volume posters, has a group of posters who all display all of these unusual characteristics. How is that possible?

[redietz]

Coach, I hate to challenge your reading comprehension, but I clearly said I -- wait, let me check it again, as maybe I am hallucinating (hold on for a moment while I open another screen) -- nope, I clearly wrote LVAdvice as the forum I sampled.

See, LVAdvice and LVA have slightly different letters.

And, in fact, the LVA forum as a whole is not content specific to Las Vegas because it has categories for non-Las Vegas discussions. As does Mendelson's Best Buys forum. So if you don't post anything about Las Vegas and want to have discussions about other things, maybe take those other things to another category? Not that hard.

[redietz]

So, to be clear, it was LVAdvice which banned Rob and a sock puppet/cheerleader, not LVA. I would not want coach to be confused. I have no idea how many times Rob has been banned from LVA, if at all, but I guess I could make an effort to find out.

[coach belly]

I clearly wrote LVAdvice as the forum I sampled.

You are quite the nit-picker...but the terms and conditions for LVA and LVAdvice are virtually identical.

This is from LV...Advice..." Anyone who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator or moderator of this forum immediately."

The administrators of the forums you admire modify behavior to fit their model of what their forum should be.

I guess Alan chooses not to do all that...good for him...this is his Vegas free-for-all.

Maybe he wanted it to be like a polite dinner-table discussion, but it quickly became more of a barroom brawl,
without the moderation or tattle-tale members of all the others, and that happened long before I got here.

You originally asked why is this forum different? It's because the others are run by a bunch of schoolmarms.

So if you don't post anything about Las Vegas and want to have discussions about other things, maybe take those other things to another category? Not that hard.

My answer is...I prefer not to.

Of course you could start your own forum and run it as you see fit...not that hard.

Or buy this one from Alan and marm it up...not that hard either.

[Alan Mendelson]

The market will decide which forum topics (threads) will continue, and which will whither away. I will let the market decide. And it's still for sale.

[arcimede$]

So if all casinos have a negative EV, an ap player should LOSE ALL THE TIME, since that's the path of least resistance.

No, it is the "flow" of money that moves to the casino due to the overall EV of the money gambled. Not any individual results. The "flow" is based on the same mathematics as the "flow" of an electrical current. Not all electrons (or holes if you prefer) move in the direction of the current yet the net "flow" does.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, I think you're taking the electrons analogy a bit too far. I understand what slingshot is saying. I think others do. What you're saying is really an incorrect interpretation of gambling vs how electrons flow.

By the way, while I am far from a math expert, I did earn an FCC First Class Radiotelephone Operator License back when I was in high school. I had to learn a few things about electronics to pass the exams which licensed me to operate radio and TV station transmitters.

[slingshot]

No, it is the "flow" of money that moves to the casino due to the overall EV of the money gambled. Not any individual results. The "flow" is based on the same mathematics as the "flow" of an electrical current. Not all electrons (or holes if you prefer) move in the direction of the current yet the net "flow" does.

One last post on this, Alan. I know it's silly, so I'll conclude. So, if individual results do not affect what you call the flow, an individual could stop when ahead, time after time,week after week- whether $25, $50 or $500- and the "flow" would not be altered. Millions of hands would in the meantime keep this "flow" going until the next visit and a repeat possible. If I could think of a name for it, I would call it short term strategy.

[Dan Druff]

It should be known that this also serves as the general forum for this site, because this is the most active forum here by far.

While this forum isn't all about Las Vegas, it's got enough general gambling and CET-related content that people find it on google and tend to stay. I know many people who lurk here.

[Rob.Singer]

Fitting for the flow of electrons to be an integral part of this thread.

[arcimede$]

One last post on this, Alan. I know it's silly, so I'll conclude. So, if individual results do not affect what you call the flow, an individual could stop when ahead, time after time,week after week- whether $25, $50 or $500- and the "flow" would not be altered. Millions of hands would in the meantime keep this "flow" going until the next visit and a repeat possible. If I could think of a name for it, I would call it short term strategy.

Nope, if what you said was true then everyone could adopt the "quit when ahead" strategy and win putting casinos out of business. That is not possible no matter what strategy you adopt. If the machines are negative the bulk of people will lose with a few random exceptions. Yes, just like the flow of electrons. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Isn't math fun.

[slingshot]

Nope, if what you said was true then everyone could adopt the "quit when ahead" strategy and win putting casinos out of business. That is not possible no matter what strategy you adopt. If the machines are negative the bulk of people will lose with a few random exceptions. Yes, just like the flow of electrons. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Isn't math fun.

I don't have to worry about that- hardly anyone quits when ahead.

[RoeIncarnate]

One last post on this, Alan. I know it's silly, so I'll conclude. So, if individual results do not affect what you call the flow, an individual could stop when ahead, time after time,week after week- whether $25, $50 or $500- and the "flow" would not be altered. Millions of hands would in the meantime keep this "flow" going until the next visit and a repeat possible. If I could think of a name for it, I would call it short term strategy.

Another way to look at this is, that with a game with a 2% house edge, about 98% of people will be able to quit while ahead one bet, but 2% will loose it all waiting for the one unit up. (This is pseudo-math. )

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't have to worry about that- hardly anyone quits when ahead.

Exactly. If more people did quit when ahead they would find they have a profit.

[jbjb]

To many "ifs"

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't have to worry about that- hardly anyone quits when ahead.

Exactly. If more people did quit when ahead they would find they have a profit.

To many "ifs"

There's only ONE "if" and all it takes is to say "I'm going to keep what I've won" and things would be a lot different.