vpFREE2 Forums

Pros

#21

OK, so much ado about a choice of terms. If "pros" is not acceptable, I suppose we could say "expert players who play full-time and derive the majority of their income from gambling" ("EPWPFTADTMOTIFG" for short), but "pros" is easier to type. :^)

John

Video Poker Vegas wrote:

···

My point is quite simple. Jobs that pay $7.50 an hour are not professions.
IMHO playing video poker for a living would qualify as a low paying job or a
nice paying hobby.

Out of curiousity, is your persistence on this subject a matter of
simply making sure that people understand that those who consider
themselves "pros" aren't likely to be living high off the hog on the
casinos, or is there a deeper agenda in your posts?

#22

If one is deriving the majority of his income from a sporadic $7.50 hour a
job with no insurance plan, I just can't bring myself to call him a
professional. I think the term compulsive gambler would hit closer to the
mark.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kelly" <jwkelly@flash.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Pros

OK, so much ado about a choice of terms. If "pros" is not acceptable, I
suppose we could say "expert players who play full-time and derive the
majority of their income from gambling" ("EPWPFTADTMOTIFG" for short),
but "pros" is easier to type. :^)

John

Video Poker Vegas wrote:
> My point is quite simple. Jobs that pay $7.50 an hour are not

professions.

> IMHO playing video poker for a living would qualify as a low paying job

or a

> nice paying hobby.

>>
>>Out of curiousity, is your persistence on this subject a matter of
>>simply making sure that people understand that those who consider
>>themselves "pros" aren't likely to be living high off the hog on the
>>casinos, or is there a deeper agenda in your posts?
>>

vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/Links.htm

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#23

How about, since we love terms and shortcuts here, calling them "PSP"? Which stands for Profitable Skilled Players.

ADR

···

At 08:23 AM 11/5/2003, you wrote:

Could we settle on "occupational gamblers"? Or does that still place
them in too high an echelon? :slight_smile:

#24

"Pro" does not imply skill only making $$ vs an amateur who does not
so there is no reason for reluctance. I'd take $7.50/hr with no taxes
for a start if that could be worked out.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Video Poker Vegas" <vpvegas@c...>
wrote:

If one is deriving the majority of his income from a sporadic $7.50

hour a

job with no insurance plan, I just can't bring myself to call him a
professional. I think the term compulsive gambler would hit

closer to the

mark.
From: "John Kelly" <jwkelly@f...>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Pros

> OK, so much ado about a choice of terms. If "pros" is not

acceptable, I

> suppose we could say "expert players who play full-time and

derive the

> majority of their income from gambling" ("EPWPFTADTMOTIFG" for

short),

> but "pros" is easier to type. :^)
>
> John
>
> Video Poker Vegas wrote:
> > My point is quite simple. Jobs that pay $7.50 an hour are not
professions.
> > IMHO playing video poker for a living would qualify as a low

paying job

or a
> > nice paying hobby.
>
> >>
> >>Out of curiousity, is your persistence on this subject a matter

of

> >>simply making sure that people understand that those who

consider

> >>themselves "pros" aren't likely to be living high off the hog

on the

> >>casinos, or is there a deeper agenda in your posts?
> >>
>
>
>
>
> vpFREE Links: http://www.west-

point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/Links.htm

>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

···

----- Original Message -----
>
>

#25

As previously discussed, the hourly wage tends tends to be several times that figure, but whatever. The "compulsive" part could be on target, I suppose. I know I get sick to death of the whole thing if I play more than 10 hours a week; but hey, different strokes. This leads to a philosophical question: if an "addiction" makes money and has no negative side effects, does the addict really have a problem? I'm not sure. "Workaholics" are "compulsive", but they make the world go 'round. But, I wouldn't want to be one. So anyway, let's settle on "CGWAEPWPFTADTMOTIFG" (compulsive gamblers who are expert players who play full-time and derive the majority of their income from gambling) as an easy-to use acrynom for this sort of person.

John

Video Poker Vegas wrote:

···

If one is deriving the majority of his income from a sporadic $7.50 hour a
job with no insurance plan, I just can't bring myself to call him a
professional. I think the term compulsive gambler would hit closer to the
mark.
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Kelly" <jwkelly@flash.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Pros

OK, so much ado about a choice of terms. If "pros" is not acceptable, I
suppose we could say "expert players who play full-time and derive the
majority of their income from gambling" ("EPWPFTADTMOTIFG" for short),
but "pros" is easier to type. :^)

John

#26

I've made money playing video poker for the last two years. I've made
numerous trips (over a dozen)to Las Vegas and Shreveport/Bossier during
that time period. So, you are saying that I qualify as a "pro"? WOW, maybe
I have been hasty in my assessment of that moniker! I'm off to Kinkos to
get my new business cards!

        Rastis Rulz
Professional Video Poker Player

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Boutot" <vegas_iwish@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 12:21 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Pros

"Pro" does not imply skill only making $$ vs an amateur who does not
so there is no reason for reluctance. I'd take $7.50/hr with no taxes
for a start if that could be worked out.

#27

OR we could just call everyone video poker players, which at the end of the
day, is what we really are, win or lose.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kelly" <jwkelly@flash.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Pros

As previously discussed, the hourly wage tends tends to be several times
that figure, but whatever. The "compulsive" part could be on target, I
suppose. I know I get sick to death of the whole thing if I play more
than 10 hours a week; but hey, different strokes. This leads to a
philosophical question: if an "addiction" makes money and has no
negative side effects, does the addict really have a problem? I'm not
sure. "Workaholics" are "compulsive", but they make the world go 'round.
But, I wouldn't want to be one. So anyway, let's settle on
"CGWAEPWPFTADTMOTIFG" (compulsive gamblers who are expert players who
play full-time and derive the majority of their income from gambling) as
an easy-to use acrynom for this sort of person.

#28

If people would spend more time learning/hunting down the best games
& less time worrying about definitions & whether other people are
addicted or even inferior in some way because they gamble for a major
part of thier living there would be more pros or whatever you want to
call them around. That run-on sentence not directed at poster as much
as some of the others who always have to get a dig in on people who
do the work they won't.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Video Poker Vegas" <vpvegas@c...>
wrote:

I've made money playing video poker for the last two years. I've

made

numerous trips (over a dozen)to Las Vegas and Shreveport/Bossier

during

that time period. So, you are saying that I qualify as a "pro"?

WOW, maybe

I have been hasty in my assessment of that moniker! I'm off to

Kinkos to

get my new business cards!

        Rastis Rulz
Professional Video Poker Player

From: "Michael Boutot" <vegas_iwish@y...>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 12:21 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Pros

> "Pro" does not imply skill only making $$ vs an amateur who does

not

> so there is no reason for reluctance. I'd take $7.50/hr with no

taxes

···

----- Original Message -----
> for a start if that could be worked out.

#29

I'd love to gamble for a living. It just doesn't make sense for me
financially. Video poker is not work for me, it's play. I am looking
forward to the day I retire and can enjoy playing more while making a few
bucks to "support my habit". Both the "pros" and skilled recreational VP
players have the same goals and in many cases the same abilities.. It's in
all our best interests for the numbers of both these groups to remain small.
It's also in our best interests for the locations of the positive games,
optimum strategy and the best opportunities to remain "limited official use"
among a small group of skilled players with similar goals. The "pros"
certainly do this better than the rest of us. But that is a topic for
another day.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Boutot" <vegas_iwish@yahoo.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 7:39 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Pros

If people would spend more time learning/hunting down the best games
& less time worrying about definitions & whether other people are
addicted or even inferior in some way because they gamble for a major
part of thier living there would be more pros or whatever you want to
call them around. That run-on sentence not directed at poster as much
as some of the others who always have to get a dig in on people who
do the work they won't.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Video Poker Vegas" <vpvegas@c...>
wrote:
> I've made money playing video poker for the last two years. I've
made
> numerous trips (over a dozen)to Las Vegas and Shreveport/Bossier
during
> that time period. So, you are saying that I qualify as a "pro"?
WOW, maybe
> I have been hasty in my assessment of that moniker! I'm off to
Kinkos to
> get my new business cards!
>
> Rastis Rulz
> Professional Video Poker Player
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Boutot" <vegas_iwish@y...>
> To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 12:21 PM
> Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Pros
>
>
> > "Pro" does not imply skill only making $$ vs an amateur who does
not
> > so there is no reason for reluctance. I'd take $7.50/hr with no
taxes
> > for a start if that could be worked out.

vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/VP/Links.htm

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/