vpFREE2 Forums

SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

#1

<<Tell the "M" management to take a walk down the street to the Southpoint. Tell them to look at the crowds of players and then to look at the machine mix and copy it.

<< No machines with a base game over %100, but a ton of games over %99.

···

In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Albert Pearson <ehpee@...> wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is usually the case, ehpee has hit the nail on the noggin!

I have just returned from a stay at SP. The casino was mobbed every day that I was there, including a Monday and a Tuesday, when casino traffic has generally slowed down.

To my knowledge, there were no special SP promos during my SP visit. Just the usual good VP, decent cash back and generous host provided discretionary comps.

Michael Gaughron knows what his local players and his tourist guests require, and provides those things to both groups of patrons. I have stayed at SP several times and both the casino and hotel are always jammed with people.

As for the SP restaurants, I have tried all of them and they range from good (buffet) to excellent (Silverado, Don Vito's and Primarily Prime Rib). IMO, the SP
restaurants compare favorably to those at The M, where I have also stayed, played and eaten frequently.

There is no question that the room amenties at The M are much more luxe than those at SP. However, the SP rooms are just fine. They are large, clean, nicely furnished and on a par with those offered in a mid-level Strip hotel.

One evening I went to The M with two friends. I had $75 of FP to use, and wanted
to try my luck, in pre-determined short session at the FrankNBob bank.

I ran my intial FP up to $150 playing .50c Bonus Aces$, and then went to the prog. bank with my friends. The casino was virtually empty. We were the ONLY
players at the prog. bank at 7:30pm, on a Monday evening.

We sat at three adjacent machines, each of us playing .25c 7/5JOB, with a $2995 RF meter. As I recall, all the other game meters were <$1500 at that time. We were satisfied to play JOB with the normally lower volatility factor. All three of us lasted for about hour and a half, before I requested a group cash out, so that I could return to SP for a decent night's sleep, prior to flying home the next morning.

At the time of cash out, I had $50 of my $150 left in credits, one friend had $45 out of a Bennie, and his wife had $20 left from her $100. So the machines did not
go through our bankrolls at the alarming rate that I had anticipated. However, we were all considerably slowed down from our normal playing speed due to the fact that I was fielding very many "hold" questions. I was the only one that had practiced the strategy on my WinPoker software. I had programmed it for a 7/5JOB/ $3K royal game. That proved prescient. I was pleased to be able to both provide answers to strategy questions, and slow down my losses. {{O:

I will say that playing the prog. was an enjoyable and novel experience ONCE. I'm not sure that I will repeat the adventure in the future.

In fairness, I will also say that The M is one of my very favorite LV residences, and I have always very much enjoyed staying there. I would make my M visits more frequent and of longer duration if they brought back the former prevelant
NSUD games. I DON'T require FPDW or FPJW. When The M offered those games they were only available in single-line quarters. I prefer playing halves these days, and my main game, at the .50c denom is NSUD.

~Babe~

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#2

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, patricia swenson <jackessiebabe@...>

We sat at three adjacent machines, each of us playing .25c 7/5JOB, with a $2995 RF meter.

The game itself worth 1.5%, plus .3% cashback, plus whatever bounceback.

At least $20 an hour. Not too shabby.

#3

25c 7/5 JB reaches 100% at $3,028.

···

_____

From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of
Bob Bartop
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 7:31 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com> , patricia
swenson <jackessiebabe@...>

We sat at three adjacent machines, each of us playing .25c 7/5JOB, with a

$2995 RF meter.

The game itself worth 1.5%, plus .3% cashback, plus whatever bounceback.

At least $20 an hour. Not too shabby.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4

Correction!! Reaches 101%

···

_____

From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of
Bob Bartop
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 7:31 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com> , patricia
swenson <jackessiebabe@...>

We sat at three adjacent machines, each of us playing .25c 7/5JOB, with a

$2995 RF meter.

The game itself worth 1.5%, plus .3% cashback, plus whatever bounceback.

At least $20 an hour. Not too shabby.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#5

Not too shabby, of course. But she lost--as most people will who play these progressives, especially those who just drop in for a quick shot at them. If you don't have all day and night today, tomorrow and the next day with a $20,000 bankroll for quarters only, you're just going to be a major part of building the progressive jackpots for those who do.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, patricia swenson <jackessiebabe@>
>
> We sat at three adjacent machines, each of us playing .25c 7/5JOB, with a $2995 RF meter.

The game itself worth 1.5%, plus .3% cashback, plus whatever bounceback.

At least $20 an hour. Not too shabby.

#6

I'm not going to argue the point ad nauseum, but playing ANY video poker game regardless of the pay table for a period less than a million hands is "statistically insignificant". I just cannot get into the mindset of walking away "winner" or "loser" for the day. It means nothing. I have NEVER thought like that, even when I was a teenager and still wet behind the ears. If the concept of a "winning day" is that important, then I recommend getting a job.

Even as a poker player "having a winning day" has never meant squat to me. Playing correctly and playing with a mathematical edge, is the ONLY thing that matters.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rob.singer1111" <rob.singer1111@...> wrote:

Not too shabby, of course. But she lost--as most people will who play these progressives, especially those who just drop in for a quick shot at them. If you don't have all day and night today, tomorrow and the next day with a $20,000 bankroll for quarters only, you're just going to be a major part of building the progressive jackpots for those who do.

#7

I stand corrected. I mistakenly copied something from the WRONG notes.

So .9% the game itself, plus .3% cashback, plus whatever bounceback, is still not too shabby.

And thanks for pointing out my error, 5-card. It is probably the first time in my life I have ever made a mistake, so I'm going to have to watch that shit from now on.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "5-card" <5-card@...> wrote:

Correction!! Reaches 101%

#8

That's right. You can cycle 100K through a 7-5 machine lose 5 grand and see the lady next to you collect the jackpot. Then you can look for the guy who said you were going to make 20 bucks an hour, intent on strangling him!

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rob.singer1111" <rob.singer1111@...> wrote:

Not too shabby, of course. But she lost--as most people will who play these progressives, especially those who just drop in for a quick shot at them. If you don't have all day and night today, tomorrow and the next day with a $20,000 bankroll for quarters only, you're just going to be a major part of building the progressive jackpots for those who do.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, patricia swenson <jackessiebabe@>
> >
> > We sat at three adjacent machines, each of us playing .25c 7/5JOB, with a $2995 RF meter.
>
>
>
> The game itself worth 1.5%, plus .3% cashback, plus whatever bounceback.
>
> At least $20 an hour. Not too shabby.
>

#9

Given that mentality one would be "happy" if they lost all their worldy possessions playing $100 10/7 DB mathematically correctly.
Not me. I'll stick to slow playing FPDW -with one eye ALWAYS on alert for the cocktail girl.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rob.singer1111" <rob.singer1111@> wrote:
>
> Not too shabby, of course. But she lost--as most people will who play these progressives, especially those who just drop in for a quick shot at them. If you don't have all day and night today, tomorrow and the next day with a $20,000 bankroll for quarters only, you're just going to be a major part of building the progressive jackpots for those who do.
>
>

I'm not going to argue the point ad nauseum, but playing ANY video poker game regardless of the pay table for a period less than a million hands is "statistically insignificant". I just cannot get into the mindset of walking away "winner" or "loser" for the day. It means nothing. I have NEVER thought like that, even when I was a teenager and still wet behind the ears. If the concept of a "winning day" is that important, then I recommend getting a job.

Even as a poker player "having a winning day" has never meant squat to me. Playing correctly and playing with a mathematical edge, is the ONLY thing that matters.

#10

What would a realistic bankroll be for 72 hrs play on those progs? And what is the real expected result after that amount of time? To hit one of the royals? For that amount of investment what are you going for? I am still learning about how the math works on these.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rob.singer1111" <rob.singer1111@...> wrote:

Not too shabby, of course. But she lost--as most people will who play these progressives, especially those who just drop in for a quick shot at them. If you don't have all day and night today, tomorrow and the next day with a $20,000 bankroll for quarters only, you're just going to be a major part of building the progressive jackpots for those who do.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, patricia swenson <jackessiebabe@>
> >
> > We sat at three adjacent machines, each of us playing .25c 7/5JOB, with a $2995 RF meter.
>
>
>
> The game itself worth 1.5%, plus .3% cashback, plus whatever bounceback.
>
> At least $20 an hour. Not too shabby.
>

#11

And thanks, Mike, for deliberately twisting my point.

But really, if all someone is concerned with is having a good time or surviving a short-term "shot", then why not gamb00l up?! There's no right and wrong to this matter. To each his own. But all this talk about having a smoother ride is tantamount to being a nit. There used to be a saying at the poker table when I was a young man. "No balls, no blue chips!"

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mike" <melbedewy1226@...> wrote:

Given that mentality one would be "happy" if they lost all their worldy possessions playing $100 10/7 DB mathematically correctly.
Not me. I'll stick to slow playing FPDW -with one eye ALWAYS on alert for the cocktail girl.

#12

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "cheryl10jqka" <cheryl.mohme@...> wrote: What would a realistic bankroll be for 72 hrs play on those progs? And what is the real expected result after that amount of time? To hit one of the royals? For that amount of investment what are you going for? I am still learning about how the math works on these.

FK Reply:
This is a good question. I have some simple math that should allow you to calculate for yourself a close ballpark scenario wihtout being too complicated.

We are going to use some averages, since there are eight different games and all of them are not the same. This is for quarters.

Length of RF Cycle = 32,000 hands
Expected play speed = 1000 hands an hour
Estimated cost to hit a Royal = $2,500
Chance to hit RF in 1 cycle = 63%
Chance to not hit RF in 1 cycle = 37%

Since it would take 32 hours to reach 1 cycle, instead of using 72 hours I'm switching to 96 hours for ease of calculation, as that would be exactly 3 cycles.

We can now answer all your questions by applying simple math to these numbers. First we need to ask specific questions.

···

----
How much could we be expected to lose in 96 hours (if we didn't get a Royal)? = 3 x $2,500 = $7,500

I like to round up, so $10,000 seems reasonable, keeping in mind this is a figure for continuous around the clock play for 4 days straight.
----
If I did play that long what is the chance I will hit at least 1 Royal? (.37 x .37 x .37 = .05) (1 - .05 = 95%)

Here we took the chance to NOT HIT the Royal in a cycle and multiplied it by itself 3 times, then subtracted the result from 1 to get the chance TO HIT the Royal. This method works for any perfect cycle. Therefore the chance to hit the RF in 2 cycles is 86% and the chance to have hit at least 1 in 4 cycles would be 98.1%. You can always use this fast and dirty calculation if you remember the magic 37% figure and just multiply it by itself the appropriate number of times and then subtract the result from 1.
----
What is my chance of being ahead during this time? To know this precisely we'd have to know how high the Jackpot was that you were playing for. The higher it is, the more you could lose and still be ahead after hitting it. If, for instance, the Royal was $5,000 you could actually go two cycles (half as many Royals as expected) and still break even. This would give you about a 85% chance of being ahead after hitting your first progressive JP.

It doesn't reach $5,000 (or hasn't yet) so that's a hypothetical situation. (best case)

If you played when the JP was $2,500 then you'd have to hit it early (less than a cycle) to be ahead after hitting it. Oddly, the chance for this to happen is about 60%, but assumes any win counts as a win. If you hit it at .999 cycles you'd clear 1$ in profit for your $2,500 RF. (Worst case)

Again this is hypothetical, since if you are smart enough to be reading this and posting on vpFREE, we expect you not to be playing on a break-even Royal.

If you waited for $2,900 you'd have about a 1% edge and a reasonable chance of being ahead after getting a Royal. (69% chance)

--

Now here's where I may lose you. In 96 hours of play you are actually expected to get 3 Royals. However, since this is the most probable outcome it is also the least likely. When we consider ALL the possibilities of getting 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 Royals in 96 hours of play getting exactly 3 is less likely than "something else" other than exactly 3.

Naturally, if you did get exactly 3 (playing on a fixed meter of $2,900) you'd be ahead $1,200 for your 96 hours of work and would have made $12.5 an hour.

For every $400 over $2,900 it adds $12.5 an hour to the play.

Hope this answers your questions and gives you some numbers to play with. ALL THESE NUMBERS WERE CLOSE APPROXIMATES.

And please keep in mind that what's supposed to happen, is not the same as what has happened or what will happen.

Probability math is used to make informed decisions about the future in advance of doing something.

Statistics are used to judge the past, and even then, only badly.

When random events are involved, you can only judge a decision made in the past by the information available at the time the decision was made. You don't get to factor in results, as they hadn't happened yet.

~FK

#13

I'm not going to lay out all the math but suffice to say if you play the dollar progressive at 1000 hands an hour for 72 hours without a royal you are likely to be down a little north of 20 grand.
Not really a great vacation at least for me. I'll stick to quarter FPDW, play leisurely and yes I will have a cocktail thank you very much.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "cheryl10jqka" <cheryl.mohme@...> wrote:

What would a realistic bankroll be for 72 hrs play on those progs? And what is the real expected result after that amount of time? To hit one of the royals? For that amount of investment what are you going for? I am still learning about how the math works on these.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rob.singer1111" <rob.singer1111@> wrote:
>
> Not too shabby, of course. But she lost--as most people will who play these progressives, especially those who just drop in for a quick shot at them. If you don't have all day and night today, tomorrow and the next day with a $20,000 bankroll for quarters only, you're just going to be a major part of building the progressive jackpots for those who do.
>
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, patricia swenson <jackessiebabe@>
> > >
> > > We sat at three adjacent machines, each of us playing .25c 7/5JOB, with a $2995 RF meter.
> >
> >
> >
> > The game itself worth 1.5%, plus .3% cashback, plus whatever bounceback.
> >
> > At least $20 an hour. Not too shabby.
> >
>

#14

Id say 99% of the people dont gamble for a living on this board and dont
have never ending bankrolls. This makes short term play a big deal. Most
people want to play not ride a progressive for days on end trying to get
the mathematical payback.

This repeats an oft-held fallacy that math doesn't matter for short term
results. The answer is that of course it does.

Suppose player A and player B go to the casino once a week and play 1,000
hands each. Player A always plays FPDW and player B always plays 6/5
Bonus Poker. 1,000 hands is obviously short term, so on any given week,
neither player will achieve their mathematically expected result. Some
weeks player A will do better than player B and vice versa.

But if they keep doing this every week, which one do you think will have
more money at the end of one year? At the end of two years?

The fallacy of "it's only 1,000 hands, so the math doesn't matter" is that
you could say that every time, and then you find yourself as player B.

(The mathematical way of expressing this is: the overall expected value of
a series of events is simply the sum of the individual expected values of
each individual event. It doesn't matter when the events occur, or how
close together, or how many of them happen on any particular day.)

If you cant understand this than your not as smart as you think you are
Bob. The math doesn't always work and there have been pros that have
busted.

The math *does* work. Pros go busted when they ignore *other* math, which
says how big of a bankroll you should have to have a certain level of
confidence of surviving a horribly unlucky streak.

···

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Sai Sai <gofastnismo@yahoo.com> wrote:

#15

For not laying out all the math you were very close.

If you mean the dollar then the number is closer to $22,500...no need to sugar coat it.

For the quarter it would be $5,625

That's 72 hours of constant play at 1000 HPH without a Royal, the chance of which is 11%. The other 89% have less grim stories to tell. And about 70% of those will be ahead at least a little. The remaining 30% (of the 89%) will be buying new cars. But hay, that's gambling. I thought you all liked gambling?

Here's the exact numbers.
Using Poisson Distribution we get:
72,000 hands
0 RF = 10.291%
1 RF = 23.4%
2 RF = 26.65%
3 RF = 20.166%
4 RF = 11.464%
5 RF = 5.214%
6 RF = 1.976%

Now imagine the cost remains the same, 22,500 in loses.

Then a $14,000 for each Royal you got and see how it breaks down. Anything more than 1 RF in 72,000 hands and you are a happy camper.

~FK

I'm not going to lay out all the math but suffice to say if you play the dollar progressive at 1000 hands an hour for 72 hours without a royal you are likely to be down a little north of 20 grand.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mike" <melbedewy1226@...> wrote:

Not really a great vacation at least for me. I'll stick to quarter FPDW, play leisurely and yes I will have a cocktail thank you very much.

#16

People dont go bust because they ignore the other math, they go bust
because sometimes that unlucky streak stays unlucky for too damn long.
You know what Im saying Frank. Just because the the math says a specific
bankroll is needed to have confidence you wont go broke doesn't mean
that will happen.

OK, "ignore" may have been a poor choice of words, but the math never says
people can't get unlucky. Bankroll calcs don't even guarantee you won't
get broke. They merely say, if you play this game with this much bankroll
you have a 90%, or 95%, or 99%, or whatever, chance of not going broke.

I was implying that some people consider the math to be concrete

The math *is* concrete. The issue we have is that the math only says
what's expected over the long term. You still have to play the hands, and
yes the results will deviate from the expectation.

and those machines advertising over 100% payback are always going to do
just that. Not the case.

I don't think anyone has said "anyone can sit down with any size bankroll
and be guaranteed a short-term profit on the M progressives."

Anyway I don't think we actually disagree all that much, I think we're
quibbling over a minor point.

···

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Sai Sai <gofastnismo@yahoo.com> wrote:

#17

Bob Bartop wrote:

Not too shabby, of course. But she lost--as most people will who play these progressives, especially those who just drop in for a quick shot at them. If you don't have all day and night today, tomorrow and the next day with a $20,000 bankroll for quarters only, you're just going to be a major part of building the progressive jackpots for those who do.

I'm not going to argue the point ad nauseum, but playing ANY video poker game regardless of the pay table for a period less than a million hands is "statistically insignificant". I just cannot get into the mindset of walking away "winner" or "loser" for the day. It means nothing. I have NEVER thought like that, even when I was a teenager and still wet behind the ears. If the concept of a "winning day" is that important, then I recommend getting a job.

Even as a poker player "having a winning day" has never meant squat to me. Playing correctly and playing with a mathematical edge, is the ONLY thing that matters.

I care so little about short term results that I find even being asked
how I did recently to be excruciating. I had played video poker for a
while just before joining a friend to watch a Super Bowl. He
good-naturedly asked me how I did and I couldn't even bring myself to
answer. One thing I like about what Rob pointed out about
progressives is that the fact that I'm probably not going to hit any
particular one makes it easy for me to accept losing, since it's the
most likely result. But it's funny how the same skill of having a
long run point of view doesn't always apply to other areas of life. I
used to play tennis a lot. Particularly after "playing well" for a
while, when I then "played poorly," I'd get so mad, whether at myself,
the ball, my racket, the weather, God, or whatever. It never occurred
to me until years later that the difference between the two was just
luck, which I could have accepted as calmly as I usually accept luck
in gambling.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rob.singer1111" <rob.singer1111@...> wrote:

#18

For me the issue is I never know. If someone asks me, "how are you doing today?" I'd have to make five phone calls and tally the results of my partners to give a meaningful answer.

Sometimes, I only find out how I'm doing during the weekly square-up, and this number itself seems just as pointless when taking into account the yearly result, or my lifetime earn.

Honestly, people's fixation with daily results and compartmentalization of "how they are doing" into tiny segmented slices of time simply seems bizarre and short sighted to me.

If someone is down $20,000 in casinos overall and hits a $1,000 Royal with no cost on a particular day, they are not "winning" a thousand dollars, they are losing $19,000. Any attempt to spin this as a "win" would seem to require several layers of cognitive distortion, bad record keeping and selective memory to achieve.

By the same token, someone that's ahead gambling overall could not really book a loser in a casino, unless they first lost everything back that they had already made.

This entire topic has perplexed me for years. I'd like to understand it better, if people wouldn't mind sharing their thoughts. So here's the questions I'll pose:

1. Isn't being ahead overall in casinos for your life more important than what happens on any given day?

2. How can people ever claim to be winning, if they are really down huge amounts of money over their life in casinos?

3. Would it not be correct only for people who are ahead in casinos overall in their life, to ever claim that they are "winning"?

~FK

P.S. My guess is that there will be as much confusion on this topic as there was on the whole long vs short term thing, which I found to be immensely illuminating. I hope I have not disturbed a hornet's nest here. Everyone remember that when talking about opinions, their can be many different views and no one side is the absolute truth.

I care so little about short term results that I find even being asked

···

From my POV, one cannot claim to be winning if one is down money overall. To do so would seem to be self delusion at best, and outright lying at worst.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:

how I did recently to be excruciating. I had played video poker for a
while just before joining a friend to watch a Super Bowl. He
good-naturedly asked me how I did and I couldn't even bring myself to
answer. One thing I like about what Rob pointed out about
progressives is that the fact that I'm probably not going to hit any
particular one makes it easy for me to accept losing, since it's the
most likely result. But it's funny how the same skill of having a
long run point of view doesn't always apply to other areas of life. I
used to play tennis a lot. Particularly after "playing well" for a
while, when I then "played poorly," I'd get so mad, whether at myself,
the ball, my racket, the weather, God, or whatever. It never occurred
to me until years later that the difference between the two was just
luck, which I could have accepted as calmly as I usually accept luck
in gambling.

#19

1.Isn't being ahead overall in casinos for your life more important than what happens on any given day?

*** Yes. But I must add that, even though true, only partly helps the irritating melancholy on a losing day.

2. How can people ever claim to be winning, if they are really down huge amounts of money over their life in casinos?

*** They do it, as you said, by using "several layers of cognitive distortion, bad record keeping and selective memory". Also, because it makes them feel good, and they're happy because they did win right then.

3. Would it not be correct only for people who are ahead in casinos overall in their life, to ever claim that they are "winning"?

***Yes, I agree. But then I actually think that many people don't think of it as one long session, and never perceive it that way. To those people, it's a day to day enterprise and their happiness or the opposite depends on those latest results.

Valerie

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6302 (20110717) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#20

Q #1: only for a 'pro' and most folks break it down in months
or years, not 'lifetime'. Those time periods count, too.

#2: Because their time frame is different than yours.
Most folks look at it on a per trip or per day or
even per session basis. And most people hope
to win, but EXPECT and plan to have fun. How
many points does 'having fun' add to your EV?

#3: That's just silly, Frank.
People call it winning in their own way.
My ex-girlfriend's mother would play slots
until she was so broke, she could not pay
for food and had to wait for us to go out.
But she always breathlessly told us how
much she 'won' with fire in her eyes and
color in her cheeks as she remembered.

   It&#39;s all in each person&#39;s perceptions as
   compared to their expectations\.  She
   dropped $500, but felt like a winner\.

   I ground out $50 an hour in blackjack,
   but to her, I was a &#39;loser&#39; because I
   had no jackpot stories\.
···

--- On Sun, 7/17/11, Frank <frank@progressivevp.com> wrote:

From: Frank <frank@progressivevp.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 1:27 PM

For me the issue is I never know. If someone asks me, "how are you doing today?" I'd have to make five phone calls and tally the results of my partners to give a meaningful answer.

Sometimes, I only find out how I'm doing during the weekly square-up, and this number itself seems just as pointless when taking into account the yearly result, or my lifetime earn.

Honestly, people's fixation with daily results and compartmentalization of "how they are doing" into tiny segmented slices of time simply seems bizarre and short sighted to me.

If someone is down $20,000 in casinos overall and hits a $1,000 Royal with no cost on a particular day, they are not "winning" a thousand dollars, they are losing $19,000. Any attempt to spin this as a "win" would seem to require several layers of cognitive distortion, bad record keeping and selective memory to achieve.

From my POV, one cannot claim to be winning if one is down money overall. To do so would seem to be self delusion at best, and outright lying at worst.

By the same token, someone that's ahead gambling overall could not really book a loser in a casino, unless they first lost everything back that they had already made.

This entire topic has perplexed me for years. I'd like to understand it better, if people wouldn't mind sharing their thoughts. So here's the questions I'll pose:

1. Isn't being ahead overall in casinos for your life more important than what happens on any given day?

2. How can people ever claim to be winning, if they are really down huge amounts of money over their life in casinos?

3. Would it not be correct only for people who are ahead in casinos overall in their life, to ever claim that they are "winning"?

~FK

P.S. My guess is that there will be as much confusion on this topic as there was on the whole long vs short term thing, which I found to be immensely illuminating. I hope I have not disturbed a hornet's nest here. Everyone remember that when talking about opinions, their can be many different views and no one side is the absolute truth.

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:
I care so little about short term results that I find even being asked

how I did recently to be excruciating. I had played video poker for a
while just before joining a friend to watch a Super Bowl. He
good-naturedly asked me how I did and I couldn't even bring myself to
answer. One thing I like about what Rob pointed out about
progressives is that the fact that I'm probably not going to hit any
particular one makes it easy for me to accept losing, since it's the
most likely result. But it's funny how the same skill of having a
long run point of view doesn't always apply to other areas of life. I
used to play tennis a lot. Particularly after "playing well" for a
while, when I then "played poorly," I'd get so mad, whether at myself,
the ball, my racket, the weather, God, or whatever. It never occurred
to me until years later that the difference between the two was just
luck, which I could have accepted as calmly as I usually accept luck
in gambling.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]