Those who follow Shackleford's logic would happily spend the >afternoon losing hundreds of dollars on some 6-5 progressive with >a "highly positive number" while turning their nose up at the "idiot" >on the next bank who just hit the Elvis progressive for 20 million->convinced by their ideology that "it doesn't matter if you win or >lose".
To the rest of us, it matters very much whether one wins or loses and >unless they are a degenerate gambler the "idiot" who hits the 20 >million will do quite well-even "in the long term"!
One person got lucky, caught lightning in a bottle, and won the 20 million, but the thousands of others who played the game lost. It's a forgone conclusion that one person is going to get lucky and hit the progressive. And it's a forgone conclusion that everyone else will get beat. Maybe the Clint Eastwood quote fits here "Are you feeling lucky, punk?"
Now if Shackleford said "Don't worry about if you will win or lose, >just play games where you have an edge" I don't think any of us would >take issue with that. But to say "it doesn't matter if you win or >lose" betrays a certain intellectual and ideological snobbishness >which some of us find both false and grating.
Perhaps Shack poorly worded the statement. But I got his meaning. I think the Bob Dancer quote fits here "Winning is not an event, it's a process." What if someone propositioned me to flipping coins? And they layed me 2 to 1 per flip. And they got really lucky and won the first 10 flips. That's a pretty bad result. Should I pay attention to the results and quit the game? No, I'm going to ignore it and keep flipping. And I don't think I need to explain why.
ยทยทยท
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mike" wrote: