Tipping

[Bob21]

When a casino opens in an area where they are the first then look for bankruptcies in the town to go up about 1500% the first year. And about a third of the women that the town sends to prison will be there for gambling related offenses like embezzlement and theft. Stories in the local newspaper along the lines of "Prominent doctor's wife gambles away their fortune" will start appearing.

I agree. I get it...I get the downside of what happens with casinos. Everybody knows this. You'd have to be living under a rock to not know this. We shouldn’t be debating this, unless you're from Pluto and don’t know what a casino is.

I thought you were consistent Bob, it turns out you are not. Look what you just said in the above quote but earlier in post #79 you wrote:


"That’s why I have a policy to NEVER take too much from a casino in any one month and always tip. I know the casinos are the ones adding the value to our society through jobs, entertainment for the people who play responsible (which is the majority), and revenue for the state and local governments."



If the MAJORITY of players are RESPONSIBLE in their gaming budgets how the fuck are all these small towns and cities economies devistated and ruined Bob? You can't have it both ways.

Bosox, how is what I’m saying inconsistent? I’m not following you. Please explain.

If everybody played the casino games in a negative EV (the way the games were intended to be played), then state and local governments would have more revenue. That’s a fact. Why? Because casinos would pay more tax on their profits.

The reality is APs have found a way to play these games in a positive EV way and extract revenue from casinos (and thus revenue from state and local governments).

In addition, the reality is there are not that many APs so casinos can absorb that lost and it doesn’t devastate their cites and town’s economies. But these cites and towns would be better off if APs didn’t exists.

This is why I’ve called APs parasites and I include myself in that description when I’m APing. We are PARASITES, living off the host (casinos), which is feeding money to our government. The casino host (or government) can support a couple parasites, but they can’t support a lot of parasites.

It’s similar to people on welfare. Our economy is still fairly robust even thought we’re supporting quite a few people on welfare. People on welfare contribute nothing to the economy, similar to APs. This is not a statement against welfare. But when the number on welfare becomes too big, economies collapse. Look at what is happening in Europe, specifically Greece. Greece’s economy collapsed because the whole country became parasites, and had to be bailed out by the EU.

This is one reason I’m against business models like BJA that recruit and train more parasites (think APs). Just as our country doesn’t need more people on welfare, our country definitely doesn’t need more APs.

[BoSox]

"Bosox, how is what I’m saying inconsistent? I’m not following you. Please explain."

Bob, you absolutely agreed with mickeycrimm's assessment about the real downside of casinos. Numerous huge increases in bankruptcies, embezzlement, and thefts. When earlier you wrote that you think that the majority of gamblers are responsible players in budgeting their playing dollars. That is a contridiction Bob. If that was true that the majority of gamblers were in fact responsible players you would not see all the resulting hardships that destroy small cities and towns.

[Alan Mendelson]

"Bosox, how is what I’m saying inconsistent? I’m not following you. Please explain."

Bob, you absolutely agreed with mickeycrimm's assessment about the real downside of casinos. Numerous huge increases in bankruptcies, embezzlement, and thefts. When earlier you wrote that you think that the majority of gamblers are responsible players in budgeting their playing dollars. That is a contridiction Bob. If that was true that the majority of gamblers were in fact responsible players you would not see all the resulting hardships that destroy small cities and towns.

I'm just curious. If a casino opens and immediately gets 5,000 new patrons but the bankruptcy rate triples from 1 case to 3 cases, does your argument above still hold? Do two extra cases of BK mean that 5,000 new casino patrons are irresponsible?

[Bob21]

"Bosox, how is what I’m saying inconsistent? I’m not following you. Please explain."

Bob, you absolutely agreed with mickeycrimm's assessment about the real downside of casinos. Numerous huge increases in bankruptcies, embezzlement, and thefts. When earlier you wrote that you think that the majority of gamblers are responsible players in budgeting their playing dollars. That is a contridiction Bob. If that was true that the majority of gamblers were in fact responsible players you would not see all the resulting hardships that destroy small cities and towns.

No, it is NOT. Believing these two statements is not contradictory. I’ve said I agree with Mickey on this point. You’re still missing it. The fact is the majority of gamblers are responsible, but the small amount that aren’t can still increase bankruptcies by 1,500%, and create other problems for a local community. I get it! Everybody pretty much gets this point! You'd have to living under a rock not to understand this.

Here’s a hypothetical example to show you how that works. Previous to a casino opening, a town has one bankruptcy. After it opens, there are 15 bankruptcy. That’s a 1,500% increase (I think). In this hypothetical example, 5,000 people are gambling responsibly and 15 are not. So in this hypothetical case bankruptcies increased significantly, but yet the majority gambled reasonably and did not go bankrupt.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Are you slow? Should I start calling you Bobo, the clown again? Lol.

[redietz]

"Bosox, how is what I’m saying inconsistent? I’m not following you. Please explain."

Bob, you absolutely agreed with mickeycrimm's assessment about the real downside of casinos. Numerous huge increases in bankruptcies, embezzlement, and thefts. When earlier you wrote that you think that the majority of gamblers are responsible players in budgeting their playing dollars. That is a contridiction Bob. If that was true that the majority of gamblers were in fact responsible players you would not see all the resulting hardships that destroy small cities and towns.

No, it is NOT. Believing these two statements is not contradictory. I’ve said I agree with Mickey on this point. You’re still missing it. The fact is the majority of gamblers are responsible, but the small amount that aren’t can still increase bankruptcies by 1,500%, and create other problems for a local community. I get it! Everybody pretty much gets this point! You'd have to living under a rock not to understand this.

Here’s a hypothetical example to show you how that works. Previous to a casino opening, a town has one bankruptcy. After it opens, there are 15 bankruptcy. That’s a 1,500% increase (I think). In this hypothetical example, 5,000 people are gambling responsibly and 15 are not. So in this hypothetical case bankruptcies increased significantly, but yet the majority gambled reasonably and did not go bankrupt.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Are you slow? Should I start calling you Bobo, the clown again? Lol.

One real problem with these attempts at analyses and generalizations is the issue of definitions. Bob21 uses the phrases "gambling responsibly" and "gambling reasonably" as if they (1) are interchangeable, (2) actually mean something (i.e. have real definitions) and (3) and aren't mired in a casino-centric perspective of the world.

Depending on your place and time, "gambling responsibly" can mean wildly different things. The phrase "gambling responsibly" is casino industry jargon that was ridiculously popularized by the casino industry. To big chunks of the world, "gambling responsibly" is not a real thing. For chunks of American history, "gambling responsibly" was not a real thing. And those places and times wherein "gambling responsibly" was/is an oxymoron are not demonstrably incorrect in their stance.

Bob21 would have people believe that "gambling responsibly," by his overall definition of "parasites" and such, should entail nice slow losses to casinos so as to prop up an ostensibly non-parasitic (by Bob21's figuring) industry. I'd like to point out that Bob21 may as well call himself "CET" when he pushes these ideas.

[BoSox]

"Bosox, how is what I’m saying inconsistent? I’m not following you. Please explain."

Bob, you absolutely agreed with mickeycrimm's assessment about the real downside of casinos. Numerous huge increases in bankruptcies, embezzlement, and thefts. When earlier you wrote that you think that the majority of gamblers are responsible players in budgeting their playing dollars. That is a contridiction Bob. If that was true that the majority of gamblers were in fact responsible players you would not see all the resulting hardships that destroy small cities and towns.

No, it is NOT. Believing these two statements is not contradictory. I’ve said I agree with Mickey on this point. You’re still missing it. The fact is the majority of gamblers are responsible, but the small amount that aren’t can still increase bankruptcies by 1,500%, and create other problems for a local community. I get it! Everybody pretty much gets this point! You'd have to living under a rock not to understand this.

Here’s a hypothetical example to show you how that works. Previous to a casino opening, a town has one bankruptcy. After it opens, there are 15 bankruptcy. That’s a 1,500% increase (I think). In this hypothetical example, 5,000 people are gambling responsibly and 15 are not. So in this hypothetical case bankruptcies increased significantly, but yet the majority gambled reasonably and did not go bankrupt.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Are you slow? Should I start calling you Bobo, the clown again? Lol.

Listen shit for brains, you are the one who thinks that casinos are great for society in what they contribute. While completely ignoring all the exploitation of very real people, and you think that the AP's are the parasites. Yah you have it right BLOB.

[Bob21]

"Bosox, how is what I’m saying inconsistent? I’m not following you. Please explain."

Bob, you absolutely agreed with mickeycrimm's assessment about the real downside of casinos. Numerous huge increases in bankruptcies, embezzlement, and thefts. When earlier you wrote that you think that the majority of gamblers are responsible players in budgeting their playing dollars. That is a contridiction Bob. If that was true that the majority of gamblers were in fact responsible players you would not see all the resulting hardships that destroy small cities and towns.

No, it is NOT. Believing these two statements is not contradictory. I’ve said I agree with Mickey on this point. You’re still missing it. The fact is the majority of gamblers are responsible, but the small amount that aren’t can still increase bankruptcies by 1,500%, and create other problems for a local community. I get it! Everybody pretty much gets this point! You'd have to living under a rock not to understand this.

Here’s a hypothetical example to show you how that works. Previous to a casino opening, a town has one bankruptcy. After it opens, there are 15 bankruptcy. That’s a 1,500% increase (I think). In this hypothetical example, 5,000 people are gambling responsibly and 15 are not. So in this hypothetical case bankruptcies increased significantly, but yet the majority gambled reasonably and did not go bankrupt.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Are you slow? Should I start calling you Bobo, the clown again? Lol.

Listen shit for brains, you are the one who thinks that casinos are great for society in what they contribute. While completely ignoring all the exploitation of very real people, and you think that the AP's are the parasites. Yah you have it right BLOB.

You’re still missing my point Bobo. I do NOT thing casinos are good for our society. I think they are awful for our society. Have you read any of my posts? Please go back and read them. If I was in charge, I’d shut down every one of them, including the ones in Vegas. Obviously, that’s not going to happen.

My point is people’s argument against casinos is missplaced. They should be upset with our government for allowing them. The casinos are doing what our government is asking them to do.

[redietz]

I agree. I get it...I get the downside of what happens with casinos. Everybody knows this. You'd have to be living under a rock to not know this. We shouldn’t be debating this, unless you're from Pluto and don’t know what a casino is.

I thought you were consistent Bob, it turns out you are not. Look what you just said in the above quote but earlier in post #79 you wrote:


"That’s why I have a policy to NEVER take too much from a casino in any one month and always tip. I know the casinos are the ones adding the value to our society through jobs, entertainment for the people who play responsible (which is the majority), and revenue for the state and local governments."



If the MAJORITY of players are RESPONSIBLE in their gaming budgets how the fuck are all these small towns and cities economies devistated and ruined Bob? You can't have it both ways.

Bosox, how is what I’m saying inconsistent? I’m not following you. Please explain.

If everybody played the casino games in a negative EV (the way the games were intended to be played), then state and local governments would have more revenue. That’s a fact. Why? Because casinos would pay more tax on their profits.

The reality is APs have found a way to play these games in a positive EV way and extract revenue from casinos (and thus revenue from state and local governments).

In addition, the reality is there are not that many APs so casinos can absorb that lost and it doesn’t devastate their cites and town’s economies. But these cites and towns would be better off if APs didn’t exists.

This is why I’ve called APs parasites and I include myself in that description when I’m APing. We are PARASITES, living off the host (casinos), which is feeding money to our government. The casino host (or government) can support a couple parasites, but they can’t support a lot of parasites.

It’s similar to people on welfare. Our economy is still fairly robust even thought we’re supporting quite a few people on welfare. People on welfare contribute nothing to the economy, similar to APs. This is not a statement against welfare. But when the number on welfare becomes too big, economies collapse. Look at what is happening in Europe, specifically Greece. Greece’s economy collapsed because the whole country became parasites, and had to be bailed out by the EU.

This is one reason I’m against business models like BJA that recruit and train more parasites (think APs). Just as our country doesn’t need more people on welfare, our country definitely doesn’t need more APs.

Good to know someone has figured out, without snatching a Nobel prize and McArthur award, what truly is or isn't "parasitic" in this world. Always great when one genius has taken the steps to light society's way.

Meanwhile, those of us in the dark are trying to figure out how the fast food industry isn't parasitic as a whole, and the tobacco industry isn't parasitic as a whole, and the casino business isn't parasitic as a whole, considering they're all about investing time, energy, and resources that accomplish nothing. May as well pay people to jog on treadmills with crushed glass in their shoes. Keeps them employed and all. Keeps the shoe companies going, because glass is tough on shoes. Keeps the podiatrists employed. And the band aid companies. Plus it's recreational, if you convince people it is.

Thank God for the Bob21s of the world to light our path and name names so we can identify the parasites. LOL. Bob21 doesn't have a doctorate, or a clue, to his name. That's why he's Bob21 and not a real name. The hubris of anonymity rears its brilliant head once again.

As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon."

[mickeycrimm]

Casinos strip mine the economy. I strip mine the casinos.