Tom Sims, I am a little disappointed that you posted the link to Rob
Singer's column on doubling down, with Cardfather's remark and no other
comment. It makes it seem like you agree with Rob's and Cardfather's
statements. I know you are trying to be a "neutral" gentlemanly host - but
you have a position of responsibility and your influence is strong, whether
you want that responsibility or not!!!
If you all have noticed, I rarely mention Rob's writings although he refers
to me, albeit not by name, all the time in a negative way. I accept
criticism as a burden of being a public figure - and am too busy writing
helpful ideas to worry about personal attacks - and most people who know me
and my writings are not influenced anyway. However, I feel I must respond
to this subject, so that the people I want to help most, the VP newbies, are
not mislead.
As Rob so often does, the article has to put down and ridicule any math
considerations. I have often said that Rob Singer DOES have some good
ideas, particularly about managing your bankroll. I just wish that he
didn't feel he has to attack the math in order to promote even his good
ideas.
This column is a good example. There ARE other reasons to double down or
not that aren't math reasons: different goals, the fun factor, limited
bankroll, etc.. Those reasons could be discussed without denying the
existence of mathematical facts. Rob could do a real service to addicted
gamblers (which he says he once was) if he just talked about the
psychological pitfalls of gambling and how to avoid them and still gamble.
(Rob must have a terrific inner strength because most addicted people,
whatever their addiction, find they have to give up the offending addiction
and not just "control" or "cut down.") Because he attacks mathematical
facts, his writings are limited in their appeal; and someone who might need
his advice in the psychological temptations will not be able to learn from
his experiences because they will shun the book 100%. And that's a shame.
Maybe one of these days someone who has been an addicted gambler will write
a helpful book for others in the same predicament.
Casinos even existing is a temptation to some people and they should not
enter them because they can't handle that temptation. Of course, the
double-down option is favorable to the casino. Casinos are for-profit
organizations; all business try to make as much money as possible. But
there is a big difference between a psychological tempting offer and a bad
math one. Because some people can't "control" their urge to double-down
doesn't mean it is a good or bad mathematical bet. We need to separate
those two considerations.
Slot club offers is another area where you have to separate those two
considerations. Mathematically if you can get extra money and benefits for
playing what you were going to play anyway, those benefits are undeniably a
mathematical plus. If the slot offers are going to tempt you to play more
than you planned or higher or longer than your bankroll can take, then that
is a psychological reason for not joining a slot club. You don't have to
slam the first in order to say the second.
I will not have time to engage in a long discussion over doubling down. The
only point I am trying to make is that you don't have to deny the math in
order to take into consideration psychological aspects of gambling.
One other thing: I don't think that any person can judge whether another
person has a gambling problem. That person has to come to that realization
himself. Appearances can be deceiving. We writers must be very careful
not to judge others in our writings. If we want people to believe what we
say, without any "proof," we must not accuse others of lying when we have no
"proof" of that.
···
____________________
Jean $cott - "The Frugal Gambler"
Order autographed book, cassette tape, and the new
Frugal VP software at http://www.frugalgambler.biz
Read Frugal Fridays at http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com