vpFREE2 Forums

There's a reason...

#21

that's not recreational, that's full blown addiction
casinos aren't supposed to promote gambling addiction
do a google search of "gambling addiction" for more info
"when the fun stops" is the name of a common anti-addiction pamphlet
found at many casinos

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rcwkent" <rcwkent@y...> wrote:

<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

> the only reason i gamble is to make money (i.e. to win)

In Deke Castleman's new book he quotes a gambler:

"I come to Vegas every three months. I fly here in the
casino's jet. I have dinner with my friends. I get to see
Bruce Springsteen on the house. Once in a while I cash out
eighty thousand. When the fun stops? Are you sh**tin' me?
If it wasn't for gambling and Las Vegas, I'd blow my
f**kin' head off."

Just to a lesser degree I believe this reflects the feeling
of most recreational gamblers.

Dick

#22

<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

the only reason i gamble is to make money (i.e. to win)

It's nothing like that for me. I find that regular employment, doing
my computer work, works far better than gambling as a way to make
money. Even to the extent that I use gambling to get a little extra
fun money, it's more efficient for me to play in an online poker room
than to make a trip to a real life casino to play VP.

The reason I gamble (specifically playing VP in a casino) is that
it's a fun social thing to do, a way to relax & recharge by adding
some diversion & variety to life. Since VP is relatively simple to
learn, I can plan trips with any of my friends; with great frequency,
after I teach them a bit, my friends have a ball playing hours of VP
together, enjoying the free drinks, buffets, glitz & glitter
atmosphere, nice hotels, etc.

What I want from gambling is the chance to take vacations like this,
socialize, pacify my mind a bit, & do it all at somewhere between a
trivial expense & a small profit.

Stuart (RandomStu)
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/mypage.htm

#23

You summed that up very well - my reasons for playing VP (and also
craps) are similar.

In addition to the entertainment factor, I always see my LV trips as
a chance (slim, I know!) I could hit it big. I don't care about
earning 0.5% or 1% over the long haul - I don't play enough to worry
about the long haul. But each time I hit a jackpot or get ahead
maybe $1000, I take some of the winnings and play something at higher
stakes. All it takes is one lucky session on a $5 machine (or
Multiplay or Multistrike etc.) to win an amount that would "make a
difference" for me. Of course usually my $300 or whatever I
designate for that chance disappears rather quickly... but there's
always that chance! And even a negative game at 99.5% gives me a
much better chance of winning something than the lottery or slots.

You're also right about online poker - at my skill level and
bankroll, the hourly profit isn't quite enough to allow me to make a
living (I've probably averaged a few bucks an hour profit). But it
is certainly a fun way to make some extra cash for the next Vegas
trip!

SL

<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
> the only reason i gamble is to make money (i.e. to win)

It's nothing like that for me. I find that regular employment,

doing

my computer work, works far better than gambling as a way to make
money. Even to the extent that I use gambling to get a little extra
fun money, it's more efficient for me to play in an online poker

room

than to make a trip to a real life casino to play VP.

The reason I gamble (specifically playing VP in a casino) is that
it's a fun social thing to do, a way to relax & recharge by adding
some diversion & variety to life. Since VP is relatively simple to
learn, I can plan trips with any of my friends; with great

frequency,

after I teach them a bit, my friends have a ball playing hours of

VP

together, enjoying the free drinks, buffets, glitz & glitter
atmosphere, nice hotels, etc.

What I want from gambling is the chance to take vacations like

this,

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart" <sresnick2@c...> wrote:

socialize, pacify my mind a bit, & do it all at somewhere between a
trivial expense & a small profit.

Stuart (RandomStu)
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/mypage.htm

#24

how many hands or hours do you play per year on average and mostly on
what type of machine? 9/6job? 8/5bonus? 9/7double double bonus?

for negative games, N0 is the number of hands at which your chances of
net losing are 84% (chances of being a net winner are 16%)

9/6job:
N0=19.5/.005^2=780,000 hands
8/5bonus:
N0=20.9/.008^2=326,563 hands
9/7double double bonus:
N0=42/.01^2=420,000 hands

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "larsonsm" <larsonsm@y...> wrote:

I don't play enough to worry about the long haul.

#25

in the world of gamblers there are winners and losers

almost all if not all negative gamblers are losers, even the winner of
the lottery or megabucks usually squanders all the short term winnings

with negative gambling the eventual running results approach 100% of
being a net loser (even though most negative gamblers think they are
winners or could be a winner if they get the right mojo, etc.)

with even gambling, it depends on the ratio of your bankroll to the
house's bankroll, most likely your bankroll is a very small fraction
of the house bankroll in which case again the eventual running results
approach 100% of being a net loser

with positive gambling, not every positive gambler is a winner,
because it is still gambling, it is not a regular paying job, every
positive gambler still faces odds of being a net loser

example: full pay deuces wild
even assuming perfect play (a big assumption most players can't meet)
the eventual results depend on the initial starting bankroll
the formula for full pay deuces wild is 0.999346831^(starting bankroll
in bets) which produces the following table:

starting_bankroll_in_royals : chances_of_being_a_net_loser
1 royal : 59.2914186%
2 royals : 35.1547231%
3 royals : 20.8437340%
4 royals : 12.3585456%
5 royals : 7.3275570%

so, even a full pay deuces wild player, who plays perfect strategy,
and starts with an initial bankroll of 5 royals ($5,000 on quarters)
still faces a 7.33% chance of being an eventual net loser

CONCLUSION: EVEN POSITIVE GAMBLING IS A GAMBLE, NEGATIVE GAMBLING IS A
FOOL's FOLLY

#26

"nightoftheiguana2000" wrote:

in the world of gamblers there are winners and losers
[snip]
so, even a full pay deuces wild player, who plays perfect strategy,
and starts with an initial bankroll of 5 royals ($5,000 on quarters)
still faces a 7.33% chance of being an eventual net loser

CONCLUSION: EVEN POSITIVE GAMBLING IS A GAMBLE, NEGATIVE GAMBLING
IS A FOOL's FOLLY

All true, I understand. And for the recreational gambler, it's not a
simple dicotomy between winning & losing. That is, for many of us, if
we gamble over the course of years, the difference between being up a
few hundred dollars or down a few hundred dollars isn't significant.

I personally gamble at a low enough level that losses on a particular
trip never cause me to quit gambling. There are likely others who, if
they lose on a particular trip, they might go down to nickels, or go
to see a show, etc, & then bring a new bankroll for their next trip.

That is: for those of us who gamble with a small amount of capital
(compared to our overall life cash flow & gambling budget), the
dynamic is different from someone who plays with the intention of
getting significant income.

Stuart (RandomStu)

#27

"nightoftheiguana2000" wrote:
> in the world of gamblers there are winners and losers
> [snip]
> so, even a full pay deuces wild player, who plays perfect

strategy,

> and starts with an initial bankroll of 5 royals ($5,000 on

quarters)

> still faces a 7.33% chance of being an eventual net loser
>
> CONCLUSION: EVEN POSITIVE GAMBLING IS A GAMBLE, NEGATIVE GAMBLING
> IS A FOOL's FOLLY

All true, I understand. And for the recreational gambler, it's not

a

simple dicotomy between winning & losing. That is, for many of us,

if

we gamble over the course of years, the difference between being up

a

few hundred dollars or down a few hundred dollars isn't significant.

a few hundred? how do you come up with that figure?
for example, let's take 9/6 jacks or better and assume you can play it
perfectly without a single mistake and that you hardly ever get to
vegas, or wherever, so you only play 40 hours total over the course of
a few years, and this is on a quarter machine.
for starters, with 40 hours your chances of hitting a royal aren't
great: 1-(1-2.47583E-05)^(40x600)=45%
assuming average distribution of other hands, you're looking at a
return of (1-(0.995438946-0.019806614))(40x600x$1.25)=-$731
with less than perfect play that loss could easily be doubled
ditto for the more common double double bonus

I personally gamble at a low enough level that losses on a

particular

trip never cause me to quit gambling. There are likely others who,

if

they lose on a particular trip, they might go down to nickels, or

go

to see a show, etc, & then bring a new bankroll for their next trip.

it doesn't matter what your stop loss per trip is
ten losses of $100 is still $1000
ten losses of $100 and one "win" of $100 is still a net running loss
of $900
five "wins" of $100 and five losses of $200 is still a net running
loss of $500
...
the only thing that matters is net running win/loss
a session "win" of $1,000 is not a true win if it costs you more than
$1,000 to get it, it doesn't matter if your losses came from one bad
session or the average of many previous sessions ...

That is: for those of us who gamble with a small amount of capital
(compared to our overall life cash flow & gambling budget), the
dynamic is different from someone who plays with the intention of
getting significant income.

Stuart (RandomStu)

so you're saying you have so much money you don't even bother to keep
track of it all?

didn't howard hughes used to burn $100 bills cause he had too many to
count anyway?

of course, america is so rich today, all you have to do is get a cash
advance on your charge card, when they finally come to collect the
money you owe them you can just declare bankruptcy anyway so who
cares? let's party like it's 1929! who cares about tomorrow? that's in
the long term anyway ...

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart" <sresnick2@c...> wrote:

#28

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

so you're saying you have so much money you don't even bother to keep
track of it all?

didn't howard hughes used to burn $100 bills cause he had too many to
count anyway?

of course, america is so rich today, all you have to do is get a cash
advance on your charge card, when they finally come to collect the
money you owe them you can just declare bankruptcy anyway so who
cares? let's party like it's 1929! who cares about tomorrow? that's in
the long term anyway ...

I think we need to lighten up a little here. I make two 5-day trips to LV a year. I would make more but being as I live 3,500 miles away, and I hate to fly, this is all I will do. I take 15k each trip for strictly gambling. I have come home broke more than once and I have come home with double with what I left with. I really don't care. This is a VACATION and I think it is FUN. For those who live in Nevada (as I did at one time) it is a different story. If this is what I want to do, it is my business. I can afford it. It does not come anywhere near my bottom line, and besides, I don't want to leave to to some deadbeat relative when I go to that big casino in the sky. Some people spend 15k to go on a 21 day cruise to somewhere. I go to LV. The difference is I might come back with the money while those on the cruise are guaranteed not to. I have already been around the world more than once and I don't need to see it again. If you can afford to go on a vacation and spend $500, you can afford to go to LV and spend $500. There is no difference except you might get lucky in LV.

Don't lose more than you can afford. Heavy loses will cause stress and screw up your vacation. And never chase a bad streak by getting money from a credit card. The costs after the trip are too great. Only lose what you can afford to lose, then find something else to do. There is lots to do in LV besides gamble. Budget a little for each day. Most of all, have FUN. Relax, you are on VACATION.

Bob

#29

Bob:

I want to let you know that not all of the people on this
list are as fanatical as nightoftheiguana2000.

Although I want to maximize my EV when playing casino games,
I certainly see no need to criticie the way other people
have fun.

If you have the money, know what you are doing, and are
having fun, go for it!

  Neil

···

--
Neil Aggarwal, JAMM Consulting, (972)612-6056, www.JAMMConsulting.com
FREE! Valuable info on how your business can reduce operating costs by
17% or more in 6 months or less! http://newsletter.JAMMConsulting.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Sommer - Top of the World Coins [mailto:NL…@…com]
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 10:07 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Slightly negative vs. REALLY bad
paytables (was There's a reason…)

nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:

> so you're saying you have so much money you don't even
bother to keep
> track of it all?
>
> didn't howard hughes used to burn $100 bills cause he had
too many to
> count anyway?
>
> of course, america is so rich today, all you have to do is
get a cash
> advance on your charge card, when they finally come to collect the
> money you owe them you can just declare bankruptcy anyway so who
> cares? let's party like it's 1929! who cares about
tomorrow? that's in
> the long term anyway ...

I think we need to lighten up a little here. I make two
5-day trips to
LV a year. I would make more but being as I live 3,500 miles
away, and I
hate to fly, this is all I will do. I take 15k each trip for
strictly
gambling. I have come home broke more than once and I have come home
with double with what I left with. I really don't care. This is a
VACATION and I think it is FUN. For those who live in Nevada
(as I did
at one time) it is a different story. If this is what I want
to do, it
is my business. I can afford it. It does not come anywhere near my
bottom line, and besides, I don't want to leave to to some deadbeat
relative when I go to that big casino in the sky. Some
people spend 15k
to go on a 21 day cruise to somewhere. I go to LV. The
difference is I
might come back with the money while those on the cruise are
guaranteed
not to. I have already been around the world more than once and I
don't need to see it again. If you can afford to go on a
vacation and
spend $500, you can afford to go to LV and spend $500. There is no
difference except you might get lucky in LV.

Don't lose more than you can afford. Heavy loses will cause
stress and
screw up your vacation. And never chase a bad streak by
getting money
from a credit card. The costs after the trip are too great.
Only lose
what you can afford to lose, then find something else to do.
There is
lots to do in LV besides gamble. Budget a little for each
day. Most of
all, have FUN. Relax, you are on VACATION.

Bob

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/E0TolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------
------~->

vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

Yahoo! Groups Links

#30

Hi!

I apologize for the late reply to this particular posting. I have
been in LV all of last week and did not review this group during
that time.

I just want to say that I agree entirely with the spirit of what is
said below. I would like to see the "decent" paytables stay around
and, perhaps, have this site list the locations of machines with
paytables in the range 98.5%-99.5% (well....maybe 99.0%-99.9%).

Thanks for a great site!

.....bl

Personally, I couldn't care less if people keep the exceptional

plays

(high progressives, etc.) to themselves. But I really appreciate
that people share the information about which casinos have decent
paytables, and especially where the rare decent machines are

within

the Strip casinos, since when I go to LV I am usually staying on

the

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "larsonsm" <larsonsm@y...> wrote:

Strip. So... thanks everyone for sharing!

#31

For me, it is the "thrill" of the 4-deuces or the Royal coming up on
the screen and seeing that I've "won" $250, $1000 (at quarters) or
$1,000 or $4,000 at dollars.

Call me naive, stupid, or even ignorant, if you wish. But, I like
that more than I would like a $100 Penn and Teller show or even more
for others of the Las Vegas blockbuster shows.

It is all entertainment for me and we all have our own likes and
dislikes. Asa far as I am converned, I am willing to "pay" for this
form of entertainment.

.....bl

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

···

why would you pay to play video poker (negative expectation games)
when you can play online for free?

#32

SIGH! How many times does it have to be said?

For so many of us, it is ENTERTAINMENT, not GAMBLING.

We all appreciate your "sermons". And, to the gamblers out there,
they are valuable sermons.

I choose not to berate you for what you choose to do. Have some
understanding for those of us who are entertained, not addicted.

Thanks!

.....bl

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

in the world of gamblers there are winners and losers

CONCLUSION: EVEN POSITIVE GAMBLING IS A GAMBLE, NEGATIVE GAMBLING

IS A

···

FOOL's FOLLY

#33

For me, at least, it is all in the notebook that I carry.

.....bl

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

···

a few hundred? how do you come up with that figure?

#34

bornloser1537 wrote:

SIGH! How many times does it have to be said?
For so many of us, it is ENTERTAINMENT, not GAMBLING.

We all appreciate your "sermons". And, to the gamblers out there,
they are valuable sermons.

On the first count, you've hit the nail on the head. On the second
... speak for yourself. I tune out preachers who repeatedly harp on
the same negative point over and over.

There are two simple key points to be made for the recreational player:

-- Fully grasp the cost of negative ev play.

There are some who likely are unconscious to the cost, but most
intelligent players have a clue (and stressing the point to those who
haven't a clue isn't going to make much impact).

-- Understand that there's only marginal comfort to be taken in "near
breakeven" play. (whether weakly negative or positive)

VP volatility is such that ultimately many players will suffer a
sustained sharp, severe downturn in play that (if they haven't managed
a nice cushion from strong positive expectation play) will be
sufficiently painful that they bitterly walk away from the game for good.

And having made these two points, there's little need to say more.

- Harry

#35

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

> "nightoftheiguana2000" wrote:
> > in the world of gamblers there are winners and losers
> > [snip]
> > so, even a full pay deuces wild player, who plays perfect
strategy,
> > and starts with an initial bankroll of 5 royals ($5,000 on
quarters)
> > still faces a 7.33% chance of being an eventual net loser
> >
> > CONCLUSION: EVEN POSITIVE GAMBLING IS A GAMBLE, NEGATIVE GAMBLING
> > IS A FOOL's FOLLY
>
> All true, I understand. And for the recreational gambler, it's not
a
> simple dicotomy between winning & losing. That is, for many of us,
if
> we gamble over the course of years, the difference between being up
a
> few hundred dollars or down a few hundred dollars isn't significant.

a few hundred? how do you come up with that figure?
for example, let's take 9/6 jacks or better and assume you can play it
perfectly without a single mistake and that you hardly ever get to
vegas, or wherever, so you only play 40 hours total over the course of
a few years, and this is on a quarter machine.
for starters, with 40 hours your chances of hitting a royal aren't
great: 1-(1-2.47583E-05)^(40x600)=45%
assuming average distribution of other hands, you're looking at a
return of (1-(0.995438946-0.019806614))(40x600x$1.25)=-$731
with less than perfect play that loss could easily be doubled
ditto for the more common double double bonus

> I personally gamble at a low enough level that losses on a
particular
> trip never cause me to quit gambling. There are likely others who,
if
> they lose on a particular trip, they might go down to nickels, or
go
> to see a show, etc, & then bring a new bankroll for their next trip.

it doesn't matter what your stop loss per trip is
ten losses of $100 is still $1000
ten losses of $100 and one "win" of $100 is still a net running loss
of $900
five "wins" of $100 and five losses of $200 is still a net running
loss of $500
...
the only thing that matters is net running win/loss
a session "win" of $1,000 is not a true win if it costs you more than
$1,000 to get it, it doesn't matter if your losses came from one bad
session or the average of many previous sessions ...

> That is: for those of us who gamble with a small amount of capital
> (compared to our overall life cash flow & gambling budget), the
> dynamic is different from someone who plays with the intention of
> getting significant income.
>
> Stuart (RandomStu)

so you're saying you have so much money you don't even bother to keep
track of it all?

didn't howard hughes used to burn $100 bills cause he had too many to
count anyway?

of course, america is so rich today, all you have to do is get a cash
advance on your charge card, when they finally come to collect the
money you owe them you can just declare bankruptcy anyway so who
cares? let's party like it's 1929! who cares about tomorrow? that's in
the long term anyway ...

I think you are getting a little worked up about this. We each have a
different income level outside of gambling (assuming most of us are
not pro's), and we each play VP at our own comfort level as far as
time and denomination. If I take my family on a 5 or 10 day vacation
I will spend 2-4 thousand dollars on that trip, with no refund, comps,
gifts, or chance to reduce the cost at all. If my wife and I go to
vegas or any other gambling destination and play games that are 99.5%
or better, there is a decent chance we will either reduce our cost or
even win after all expenses, it is a gamble but that is what it is all
about, and we enjoy playing VP. I am not worried that 99.999% of the
people that enter a casino are bound to be net loosers in thier
lifetime, that is the same as the people who own boats, or go to
movies, or any other enjoyable activity. We all have our own reasons
for doing all the different things we do and that is what makes us who
we are. I am in this group to learn more about VP and to help others
do the same, not give them grief if they dont come out at least $1
ahead by the time they quit and never play again.

Happy Royals to all
Jim

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart" <sresnick2@c...> wrote:

#36

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:

in the world of gamblers there are winners and losers

almost all if not all negative gamblers are losers, even the winner

of

the lottery or megabucks usually squanders all the short term

winnings

Are you saying that all or most of those gamblers lucky enough to win
millions lose it back? If so, where do you get this data?

Chandler