There are two types of players
Thread Rating:
"There’s two types of players
Ones that are here for the cost of entertainment, and you love those guys, win or lose doesn’t matter, they’re just here to have fun,
then there’s a guy coming here to win we gotta watch that guy there’s definitely two types of players, you know a guy that wins Friday night, okay if he’s a steamer he’s going to steam probably blow his winnings and by Sunday owe me money, a guy’s that disciplined [wins] Friday will go home Saturday. So, there’s definitely two types of players."
As Dave Berns added:
"The one thing the casinos hate about high rollers, are high rollers who are what they call hit and run high rollers, someone who comes in, gambles for a couple of hours, wins some money, and leaves."
I've posted in many different places about how, after playing at very high levels for years, years ago, I eventually figured out that what worked for me was exactly this type of disciplined hit and run play. Because life intervened, was too busy with new businesses and family, I stopped while ahead, took a long break from gambling (over a decade), and returned to play in 2018. Since then, at least so far, no losing trips whatsoever. I am that second type of player Cyr describes, disciplined, who plays until he wins, and then - leaves while ahead. I don't mean, obviously, that I stop when I am ahead five bucks. But depending on what my average bet is (these days not so very high, around $300. with high bets around $2000. (back then my average bet was more like $3000., with high bets of $15000.)), and how the cards have been flowing, I will make a good decision about whether I have won enough for that session, and then, leave.
For whatever reason some on here advocate just playing 7/24, state that if you are an advantage player that the only thing stopping you from cashing in is lack of play hours. But even if this were true, play too long as an advantage player and you get banned (this is exactly what happened to me before - effectively banned from BJ for a couple years).
Or they say that stopping while ahead doesn't matter or doesn't work.
But - what works for me, is to win, and then leave. Or if I'm not winning, cut my losses and come back another day, sometimes even after resting a full day and returning 48 hours later. I can't tell you how important this is. If the cards are running bad, I learned the hard way years ago that I could come back from a say, $8000. loss easily whereas if I kept playing to minus twenty and the next day I won ten, I'd still be negative. When you are losing there is more going on than just a bad flow of cards - you also tend to lose focus, you tend to lose discipline. Hence the need to take a long break when the cards are really running against you, and you return with the proper focus on a new, independent session, versus simply playing "catch up." Even if you are a robot and nothing affects you, still, why keep playing into a deeper and deeper hole when the cards are running against you? When I am rested, concentrating, playing disciplined, it is very hard for the casinos to beat me. Countless pit bosses and dealers have told me this, that because I don't play with emotion, and am disciplined, that I will always do fine. And I have done fine. I am that second type of player.
I also wrote this, as background to this thread, in response to whether there is such a thing as a "streak":
Quote: MDawgIn probability each event has an independent likelihood - whatever happened the hand (or spin or roll) before in a game of chance has no bearing on what happens the next hand.
However, let's consider a game of cards where the cards are set in the deck, in this case the positive count or flow of the cards, whatever you may call it, may increase the likelihood of a win, and in such a case, there might be an over all greater likelihood of wins, and hence also a greater likelihood of a winning streak. Everyone agrees on at least that, such as in for example the game of BJ with reference to a positive count.
If I were to take a deck of cards and stack them carefully so that in a two player game of BJ the dealer lost ten hands in a row, then the unknowing dealer coming into the game might think that he has the usual house advantage plus a 50% chance of winning each hand, when in reality, he has a 0% chance of winning ten hands, and I have a 100% chance of winning each hand and a 100% chance of a ten win streak. Although no one "stacks the deck" which would be cheating, this is essentially what happens in a card game streak whether Baccarat or BJ, the cards have been arranged so that one side will win for a number of hands. Recognizing that a streak is in progress and pushing your bet, is something that winning gamblers are able to take advantage of. By pushing your bet no matter when the streak ends you are coming out ahead. At a minimum, getting up and leaving after a good streak, may work too. Now this last paragraph of mine contains ideas that not everyone here will agree on, but my play has worked for me.
Quote: MDawgFor whatever reason my win/losses so far at all the casinos since 2018 are wins, no losses. And as you may know from reading my posts I took a long break from gambling, so my prior play was over a decade ago, and there over all, ahead. Back then too, got banned for a while from BJ, which if you're an expert, shouldn't have to tell you what that means. Luckily after a couple years the ban was somehow forgotten as casino ownerships changed, and not taken up at other casinos.
Don't waste time commenting on what others have stated here. We are set in our ways. Instead, just tell us - Which type of player are you?
Sadly, he also played roulette.
Quote: MDawgAs Steve Cyr has put it:
"There’s two types of players
Ones that are here for the cost of entertainment, and you love those guys, win or lose doesn’t matter, they’re just here to have fun,
then there’s a guy coming here to win we gotta watch that guy there’s definitely two types of players, you know a guy that wins Friday night, okay if he’s a steamer he’s going to steam probably blow his winnings and by Sunday owe me money, a guy’s that disciplined [wins] Friday will go home Saturday. So, there’s definitely two types of players."
As Dave Berns added:
"The one thing the casinos hate about high rollers, are high rollers who are what they call hit and run high rollers, someone who comes in, gambles for a couple of hours, wins some money, and leaves."
I've posted in many different places about how, after playing at very high levels for years, years ago, I eventually figured out that what worked for me was exactly this type of disciplined hit and run play. Because life intervened, was too busy with new businesses and family, I stopped while ahead, took a long break from gambling (over a decade), and returned to play in 2018. Since then, at least so far, no losing trips whatsoever. I am that second type of player Cyr describes, disciplined, who plays until he wins, and then - leaves while ahead. I don't mean, obviously, that I stop when I am ahead five bucks. But depending on what my average bet is (these days not so very high, around $300. with high bets around $2000. (back then my average bet was more like $3000., with high bets of $15000.)), and how the cards have been flowing, I will make a good decision about whether I have won enough for that session, and then, leave.
For whatever reason some on here advocate just playing 7/24, state that if you are an advantage player that the only thing stopping you from cashing in is lack of play hours. But even if this were true, play too long as an advantage player and you get banned (this is exactly what happened to me before - effectively banned from BJ for a couple years).
Or they say that stopping while ahead doesn't matter or doesn't work.
But - what works for me, is to win, and then leave. Or if I'm not winning, cut my losses and come back another day, sometimes even after resting a full day and returning 48 hours later. I can't tell you how important this is. If the cards are running bad, I learned the hard way years ago that I could come back from a say, $8000. loss easily whereas if I kept playing to minus twenty and the next day I won ten, I'd still be negative. When you are losing there is more going on than just a bad flow of cards - you also tend to lose focus, you tend to lose discipline. Hence the need to take a long break when the cards are really running against you, and you return with the proper focus on a new, independent session, versus simply playing "catch up." Even if you are a robot and nothing affects you, still, why keep playing into a deeper and deeper hole when the cards are running against you? When I am rested, concentrating, playing disciplined, it is very hard for the casinos to beat me. Countless pit bosses and dealers have told me this, that because I don't play with emotion, and am disciplined, that I will always do fine. And I have done fine. I am that second type of player.
I also wrote this, as background to this thread, in response to whether there is such a thing as a "streak":
Don't waste time commenting on what others have stated here. We are set in our ways. Instead, just tell us - Which type of player are you?
What a bunch of tripe.
Quote: MaxPenWhat a bunch of tripe.
There are two types of gambler: The ones that are taken in by the gamblers' fallacy and those who are not.
Sadly, either type can be winners or losers over their gambling career. So, that makes 4 types.
Lifetime winners that believe mumbo jumbo do exist and some even post on this forum.
Bless 'em $:o)
Quote: PokerGrinderHit and run, stay hydrated and a positive attitude are the keys to success.
Oy Vey😀
Discipline. Don't forget discipline. $:o)Quote: PokerGrinderHit and run, stay hydrated and a positive attitude are the keys to success.
I think, though, you've misunderstood some of the others who post here. I don't know any APs who play forever. And I think you're misrepresenting their side of the conversation.
The point they are usually making is that, mathematically, and In The Long Run, your results will conform roughly to the HE of the game. In THAT sense, it's all one long session, not a bunch of hit-and-run opportunities.
Discipline helps, and money management helps, and perhaps in your lifetime you will experience enough positive variance that you will be up overall. If so, fantastic. But you're still describing a system dependent on Gambler's Fallacy.
And that's what the pushback you receive on here is - just saying you have not got an OVERALL positive expectation with what you're doing. And the casinos know that, too. It's why many high-rolling winners are encouraged to come back.
The House knows the math. Any winnings you take this time, they consider more of an interest-free loan. Because you'll be back sometime, and the HE is always working.
I play via my watch. I tell myself two hours and then leave when time is up win, lose, or draw. I'll do it twice a day to give them thier 4 hour daily comp time.
Quote: billryanHow does one go about being unbanned from playing blackjack? Do the casinos assume your skills have declined enough for them to get their money back? Did your lawyer draw up a contract ? This information might be even more valuable than your leave while ahead doctrine.
I tried the hardhead approach, right after the ban complained to Gaming Commission, etc. No response, didn't work.
I stayed away two years, came back, started doing my thing again, jumping between table min and max at BJ, a pit boss recognized me, they had another chat with me, backed me off. Then I started playing BJ at another casino owned by the same company, and no one said anything. Eventually I became friends with the Director of Table Games who had implemented the ban, who by then had switched over to the other casino where I was now playing, and whenever I would play and he was around he would chuckle and tell the pit bosses that this is so and so, he likes to jump his bet between table min and max, but he never again stepped in to stop me. Anyway, the next big win I had at his casino over six figures was at Baccarat and he definitely didn't like that but nothing he could say or do about it, as it wasn't BJ.
What's strange is that I did eventually go back to jumping the bet between table min and table max at BJ at the exact same casino where I was banned, coming in occasionally and clocking them at BJ for $20K (not huge wins, not nearly as big as the win that had gotten me banned) and immediately leaving, and no one said anything about it. The comment on my computer file that advised the pit bosses on what to watch for somehow got deleted, and it was a bizarre comment anyway that I don't think made sense, referring to keeping me from betting more than 3X between bets, which is why I think it got deleted.
It's now two decades or so later, and the company that owned the casinos in question, no longer owns them. No one has said anything. But these days I don't jump between table min and max anymore anyway, my spread is much less.
Quote: beachbumbabsI'm thinking there's a way that works very well for you, MDawg, and you've discussed it here and before. Which is terrific that you enjoy what you're doing.
I think, though, you've misunderstood some of the others who post here. I don't know any APs who play forever. And I think you're misrepresenting their side of the conversation.
The point they are usually making is that, mathematically, and In The Long Run, your results will conform roughly to the HE of the game. In THAT sense, it's all one long session, not a bunch of hit-and-run opportunities.
Discipline helps, and money management helps, and perhaps in your lifetime you will experience enough positive variance that you will be up overall. If so, fantastic. But you're still describing a system dependent on Gambler's Fallacy.
And that's what the pushback you receive on here is - just saying you have not got an OVERALL positive expectation with what you're doing. And the casinos know that, too. It's why many high-rolling winners are encouraged to come back.
The House knows the math. Any winnings you take this time, they consider more of an interest-free loan. Because you'll be back sometime, and the HE is always working.
Beach - thanks for being, as always, diplomatic.
During the years I spent and lately continue to spend at the high limit tables, I've seen and gotten to know pretty well many players who played at my level and many who played at a much higher level. I became intimately aware of exactly the sums these high rollers were losing, and it may not be explained away with the house advantage. I've seen a player show up on a Friday with five million and a week later he's barely able to play his Baccarat with more than five hundred a hand. I saw this one girl show up with a million and five days laters she's in the same unwashed now wrinkly clothes playing with what's left - which was, very little, of that million. Neither of these players ever showed again so I may assume that they just plain lost.
Pit bosses have told me about players they know very well who show up and lose millions, and are back some weeks later, and do exactly the same again, and keep this losing cycle going.
I also know of various Baccarat players both inside and outside of the casino (meaning, people who became friends) who have just plain kept losing. A LOT.
In all of these high roller big loser cases, the sums these players have dumped may not be explained by the house advantage, these guys just keep playing until they lose it all. The house advantage times their average bet would not explain their losing so much.
SO, if it is possible to lose, consistently, far more than 50% of your Bacc. bets, then why do you disbelieve that it might be possible to win, consistently, more than 50%? The odds are being defied every day in Vegas where people are dumping their entire bankrolls when the theoretical loss is but a fraction of what they end up actually losing.
I get it - you're saying that over time things even out. I took a lot of years of math in high school and college, beyond just Calculus, I get it. You are right - in theory.
But, if you keep playing until you lose it all every time, nothing is going to even out. By the same token, playing until you win and then cutting the session short is different from playing every single available session.
Look at it like a ticker tape of a stock streaming by. Let's say that the stock starts the day at 1905 and ends it at 1904. So that's it, it dropped a dollar end of story. But wait, over the course of the day the stock fluctuated by fifty points down and up and then down and up again, maybe more than twice, maybe many times. Is it possible for a stock trader to catch some of those runs, on the right side, and make money, even though the end shift was negligible? Yes! I do that all the time, when I trade. Do my trades even out to where by the end of the year there are an equal number of winners versus losers? Absolutely not, not by a long shot! I have booked but one losing trade over the past two years, and that is represented by thousands and thousands of stock trades.
So consider the flow of the cards like a ticker tape. Does anyone REALLY know what direction a stock is going to move in? Of course not. Does anyone REALLY know what is going to happen in that next hand of Baccarat? Of course not. And yet, I've been able to predict stock movements and card flows well enough in my lifetime to be able to snip a winning segment (or two or three winning segments) enough times when the pattern is good, and walk away ahead.
Anyway, what I am saying is that there are definitely streaks, and snipping a win out of a card flow streak is no different from snipping a win out of a stock's daily or weekly or monthly movement. Both sometimes follow a discernible pattern, and even if they didn't, still it would make sense to stop after sufficient wins in that session versus keep playing until a net session loss.
Anyway, not seeking an answer. Just tossing it out there.
Quote: MDawgBut - what works for me, is to win, and then leave.
I'll leave it to the APrs here to discuss the advantage merits. I think, however, it's an interesting dilemma for the red chip recreational player.
Imagine you are a rec player who drives to Vegas two or three times a year for some weekend gambling. Your bankroll is $1000 which you subdivide for the games you intend to play.
On Friday you start with UTH ($10 ante & $5 trips) hoping to win $200 but budgeted to lose $400. After an hour of ups and downs you find yourself just shy of your goal. Then, on next hand, you not only beat the dealer but hit a straight flush.
Bada bing! Just like that you're $700 ahead--enough money to both pay for the weekend and leave you a few hundred extra. But now what? You came (and already payed) to stay all weekend, and it's still early Friday evening. Not that this is a bad problem to have but, any thoughts?
Quote: MDawgThat Canadian mattress maker in Theroux's documentary, he was ahead $50K at roulette right after arrival, but in an Owning Mahoney-esque statement, declared that he hadn't flown six hours just to play twenty minutes.
We know what happened to him, both by the end of that trip, and in life. Not pretty.
Quote: GialmereI'll leave it to the APrs here to discuss the advantage merits. I think, however, it's an interesting dilemma for the red chip recreational player.
Imagine you are a rec player who drives to Vegas two or three times a year for some weekend gambling. Your bankroll is $1000 which you subdivide for the games you intend to play.
On Friday you start with UTH ($10 ante & $5 trips) hoping to win $200 but budgeted to lose $400. After an hour of ups and downs you find yourself just shy of your goal. Then, on next hand, you not only beat the dealer but hit a straight flush.
Bada bing! Just like that you're $700 ahead--enough money to both pay for the weekend and leave you a few hundred extra. But now what? You came (and already payed) to stay all weekend, and it's still early Friday evening. Not that this is a bad problem to have but, any thoughts?
Divide your bankroll into daily amounts. If you budget losing $300 for Friday and instead get back to your room with $700, bank it. If you don't have the discipline, you can mail it to yourself. Lock in your gains from Friday and play Saturday as you originally planned.
When the OP said "For whatever reason some on here advocate just playing 7/24, state that if you are an advantage player that the only thing stopping you from cashing in is lack of play hours." I was going to ask him to quote who and where that was being said, and in what type of context. I said just said to myself....Ah,FK it! This is all a bunch of HOGWASH. Most people have no clue what and how AP's operate and they have no real clue what AP is. You either get it, or you don't.Quote: beachbumbabsI'm thinking there's a way that works very well for you, MDawg, and you've discussed it here and before. Which is terrific that you enjoy what you're doing.
I think, though, you've misunderstood some of the others who post here. I don't know any APs who play forever. And I think you're misrepresenting their side of the conversation.
The point they are usually making is that, mathematically, and In The Long Run, your results will conform roughly to the HE of the game. In THAT sense, it's all one long session, not a bunch of hit-and-run opportunities.
Discipline helps, and money management helps, and perhaps in your lifetime you will experience enough positive variance that you will be up overall. If so, fantastic. But you're still describing a system dependent on Gambler's Fallacy.
And that's what the pushback you receive on here is - just saying you have not got an OVERALL positive expectation with what you're doing. And the casinos know that, too. It's why many high-rolling winners are encouraged to come back.
The House knows the math. Any winnings you take this time, they consider more of an interest-free loan. Because you'll be back sometime, and the HE is always working.
Quote: AxelWolfWhen the OP said "For whatever reason some on here advocate just playing 7/24, state that if you are an advantage player that the only thing stopping you from cashing in is lack of play hours." I was going to ask him to quote who and where that was being said, and in what type of context. I said just said to myself....Ah,FK it! This is all a bunch of HOGWASH.
I think forum rules dictate we salute diverse opinions and alternate facts.
Toss it back. It's bull5h1t.Quote: MDawgAnyway, not seeking an answer. Just tossing it out there.
We should disparage, and seek to counter dangerous advice while respecting the misguided member that posts them.Quote: billryanI think forum rules dictate we salute diverse opinions and alternate facts.
I don't doubt that MDawg and a few other members have made many big wagers and even consistently won. It's not even statistically odd or unreasonable.
MDawg says he knows, or has watched many of his peers lose big: Bigger than can just be explained by house edge. I assert that within his circle of peers he is simply the one looking out from the lucky side of the variance chart to the unlucky side.
MDawg does mention self discipline and the tendency of some players to press on through some wins and eventually, or rather soon, go bust. On that score he may have a point, but one which he's not fully appreciating. Players that win big early in their session ( and who Mdawg would advise to walk away ) very often get cocky and proceed to bet bigger and bigger.When they quadruple their $1,000 buy in in a matter of minutes, they might double or quadrupal their wager size. If they win further, they increase their bets again. By over-betting their bankroll like that, going bust in that session is almost guaranteed. This supports MDawgs idea of 'Hit and run', but only because his hit and run discipline reduces the average bet and number of bets.
I believe there are many many types of gamblers out there and cannot be put into just two categories.
It's one thing to say that Cyr or Berns was wrong, another to come in and claim falsely that they said or meant something they did not.
I mentioned "patterns" - today I was day trading (sometimes I position trade over a medium term, today I day traded over a short term), I made nine trades, three AMZN, one NFLX and five Dow futures, all profitable, all long. And yet the market dipped over -600 points, at some points well over -700. How? How did I make money going long on a dropping market? By discerning the patterns, following the flow of the given stock or index, same way I try to do with cards.
Anyway, action is what matters, so unless I see something worth commenting on, I'll step aside until after the next Vegas trip and post yet another winning (I hope) result after that time. It'll be a while, pretty busy these days.
I wish people would just come in like TigerWu and answer the thread posed question rather than arguing. If you are going to argue, at least answer as well.
This is a podcast of Gambling With an Edge with Steve Cyr. This was posted June 2018
Quote: MDawgSteve Cyr wasn't talking about just his clients, he was talking about "players" in general. This is clear from both the black and white of exactly what he said, and the context of when he said it. As well, the second quote is from a writer - Dave Berns - he has no clients, he's not a casino host, and when he said that casinos hate hit and run high rollers, he meant exactly that.
- @1:24: He states that he is now a employee at the new Palms and that he is a host and a licensed junket rep. How is he not a casino rep? He even has a book out called "Whale hunting in the desert" as an Independent "Super" Host.
- Are you delusional? Of course casinos hate players who hit and run. They prefer players who hit and lose their money first 20 mins of their stay. Please provide something more meaningful because not everybody in this forum are idiots.
- @14:29: Steve talks about how he is the "king of the dips#!/s" and he researches new CLIENTS to see if he can beat the player out of money at the casino. He also mentions about having different types of players as his high-roller clients as CASINO HOST.
- https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/confessions-of-the-man-who-wins-big-when-you-lose-it-all-in-vegas
Even on this thrillist article he doesn't even stay two types. He states one third of his gamblers. Like I said, there are no two types of gamblers.
"One-third of my gamblers are like Larry. They’re so rich they can lose a million dollars and not impact their lives. The second third are young, and as their age and wealth increase, their gambling increases right in step; my biggest guy at this moment, he started out as a $50,000 player and now $50,000 is his first bet. The final third should not be here. They’re the most fun but they should not be playing with me. They’re gambling above their means. They will be f!#/ing broke at 50. For the first time, after 28 years in the business, I have more $100,000 players under the age of 40 than over the age of 40. I worry about them. They make money in some tech thing and think they can beat the game. Don’t forget, if you lose $100,000, you’re losing $100,000 that you paid taxes on. So you really lost $150,000 of what you earned. If you have $10 million, and you do that on a regular basis, you will go broke. Twenty-five years ago, my biggest players were all in their 50s or 60s or 70s. They might have been burning through their 401(k)s, but they had already lived life."
Quote: MDawgIt's one thing to say that Cyr or Berns were wrong, another to come in and falsely claim that they said or meant something they didnot.
-Steve Cyr is a casino host. In fact, he called himself the Casino Super Host. He has his own perspective on gamblers as a casino host. He is not an authoritative on all things about gambling.
-I don't know who Berns is, but I stated that your premise is wrong based on your wrong assumptions about what Steve said. I still maintain that there are more than two types of gamblers.
Quote: MDawgI mentioned "patterns" - today I was day trading (sometimes I position trade over a medium term, today I day traded over a short term), I made nine trades, three AMZN, one NFLX and five Dow futures, all profitable, all long. And yet the market dipped over -600 points, at some points well over -700. How? How did I make money going long on a dropping market? By discerning the patterns, following the flow of the given stock or index, same way I try to do with cards.
-Wow! Congratulations. You make it seem like you're a second coming of Warren Buffet. In fact, Warren Buffett said "Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful." You're not the only genius making $ on the stock market. Some of us here are worth millions in liquidity and use our heads to make money in the stock market. There are members in this forums from different disciplines, Lawyers, doctors, business owners, daytraders, AP, PHD engineers and mathematicians who are smart and successful. It's not so difficult to make money on a known dip coming since the whole weekend due to the tariff fiasco and buy and sell, buy and sell a few times during the fluctuation of the market. A monkey can do that. I did that. I don't come here telling people how special I am for buying the dip and selling on canabis and oil stocks.
Quote: MDawgAnyway, action is what matters, so unless I see something worth commenting on, I'll step aside until after the next Vegas trip and post the winning (I hope) results after that time. It'll be a while, pretty busy these days.
Thank you. I'll be looking forward to another self-boosting rant about how you're the second coming of Warren Buffett who is so good at gambling and know when to quit.
Quote: MDawgI wish people would just come in like TigerWu and answer the thread posed question rather than arguing. If you are going to argue, at least answer as well.
I'm sorry King MDawg, my lowly self challenged your highness.
(mod note : edited to mask profanity. Even if you're quoting someone in your post, please don't use f-bombs and s-bombs. Thank you.)
this isn't about anybody being better than anyone else, which is what you twisted the issue into. I could have dug into your past posts and pointed out that you're a sometimes red chip player and then claimed that because you're a low end player you don't know what you're talking about. But that has nothing to do with anything. Low end player high end player we are all gamblers, one and the same in the end, taking a risk that is never guaranteed. I've been present when Bill Gates used to play BJ, watched him play, and he's a former red chip player who now doesn't play at all. I've watched Howie Mandel play, and if he tosses a green chip on there it must be a full moon, because he too, is a red chip player. So no, my point in mentioning the stock market was not to make myself seem like a big trader, whether I am or not is immaterial, my point was that it's possible to discern trends in seemingly unpredictable patterns. I haven't made money trading just today, I've booked many thousands of trades in the past two years alone, and only one loser. But again, I'm not offering that for any other reason than that to note that it's possible to follow seemingly unpredictable patterns. In the market, or in playing card games.
Yes, Steve Cyr is a host. No he was not talking about his clients in his quote. No the sources you produced not the podcast not the book were the correct source for when Cyr said what he said that I quoted, which was indeed about Vegas players in general, not just about his clients.
So, in a very long post you've apparently gotten yourself into a huff to talk about a lot of things that have nothing to do with anything I posted.
Take it easy. :-)
Oh, and, which type of player are you?
Quote: MDawgSiegfried (or are you Roy? and your "SO" as you call him, is Siegfried) - in any case,
this isn't about anybody being better than anyone else, which is what you twisted the issue into. I could have dug into your past posts and pointed out that you're a sometimes red chip player and then claimed that because you're a low end player you don't know what you're talking about. But that has nothing to do with anything. Low end player high end player we are all gamblers, one and the same in the end, taking a risk that is never guaranteed. I've been present when Bill Gates used to play BJ, watched him play, and he's a former red chip player who now doesn't play at all. I've watched Howie Mandel play, and if he tosses a green chip on there it must be a full moon, because he too, is a red chip player. So no, my point in mentioning the stock market was not to make myself seem like a big trader, whether I am or not is immaterial, my point was that it's possible to discern trends in seemingly unpredictable patterns. I haven't made money trading just today, I've booked many thousands of trades in the past two years alone, and only one loser. But again, I'm not offering that for any other reason than that to note that it's possible to follow seemingly unpredictable patterns. In the market, or in playing card games.
Yes, Steve Cyr is a host. No he was not talking about his clients in his quote. No the sources you produced not the podcast not the book were the correct source for when Cyr said what he said that I quoted, which was indeed about Vegas players in general, not just about his clients.
So, in a very long post you've apparently gotten yourself into a huff to talk about a lot of things that have nothing to do with anything I posted.
Take it easy. :-)
Oh, and, which type of player are you?
Even after I produced sources and quotes, you're still going to be stubborn and stick to your idiotic statement. Yes Steve talks about his clients on sources I've produced.
Anyways, here's additional logic that you're mistaken about what Steve Cyr is saying. He has several types of client gamblers who he has described in the past couple of decades:
People who Steve keeps as clients I've heard in the last two decades of interviews, TV shows, radio, podcast, etc.
1. People who are worth millions and can lose $100K and as long as they had fund it's entertainment
2. People like Larry Flynt, who is dangerous because he'll win six figures or millions on Friday and just go home the next day
3. People who are compulsive gamblers who have businesses and jobs but shouldn't be at the casino. They are late on markers, and gamble business money and mortgages.
4. The up and coming young players. He keeps them around for their player development. The young players have a bright future ahead of them and some of them will become very wealthy in the future.
People who Steve doesn't represent
1. Known card counters
2. APs
3. Winning players
4. Cheats
5. Low rollers
Here,I just gave you more than two types of gamblers already. Even if you take account of your "clarified" response of how many gamblers low and high take risk, there are still more than two. While I do agree the two examples you've originally given are very prominent categories, there are too many types/variable to put everybody into those two categories.
Do you see what's wrong with your original post? You quote a guy thinking he is the authority on the types of gamblers when he was really talking about his clients. I think you're too proud to admit you have mistaken his message. It's very evident from your very last post that you can't even say maybe I do have some merit on my argument. You should have never narrowed down to two types of gamblers and asked what type are you. It's like asking are you a Republican or Democrat? And I am telling you those are not the only two parties, yet you just don't want to listen.
Also, reread the rebuttal you posted before I wrote you a long rebuttal. You do sound like a jackass who think he's the only person who knows things on this form, daring how I can falsely claim things blah blah blah.
What kind of gambler am I? I guess I can't specifically answer your question because you think there are only two types, and I don't fit either of them (I'm not kidding).
Quote: SiegfriedRoyEven after I produced sources and quotes, you're still going to be stubborn and stick to your idiotic statement. Yes Steve talks about his clients on sources I've produced.
Anyways, here's additional logic that you're mistaken about what Steve Cyr is saying. He has several types of client gamblers who he has described in the past couple of decades:
People who Steve keeps as clients I've heard in the last two decades of interviews, TV shows, radio, podcast, etc.
1. People who are worth millions and can lose $100K and as long as they had fund it's entertainment
2. People like Larry Flynt, who is dangerous because he'll win six figures or millions on Friday and just go home the next day
3. People who are compulsive gamblers who have businesses and jobs but shouldn't be at the casino. They are late on markers, and gamble business money and mortgages.
4. The up and coming young players. He keeps them around for their player development. The young players have a bright future ahead of them and some of them will become very wealthy in the future.
People who Steve doesn't represent
1. Known card counters
2. APs
3. Winning players
4. Cheats
5. Low rollers
Here,I just gave you more than two types of gamblers already. Even if you take account of your "clarified" response of how many gamblers low and high take risk, there are still more than two. While I do agree the two examples you've originally given are very prominent categories, there are too many types/variable to put everybody into those two categories.
Do you see what's wrong with your original post? You quote a guy thinking he is the authority on the types of gamblers when he was really talking about his clients. I think you're too proud to admit you have mistaken his message. It's very evident from your very last post that you can't even say maybe I do have some merit on my argument. You should have never narrowed down to two types of gamblers and asked what type are you. It's like asking are you a Republican or Democrat? And I am telling you those are not the only two parties, yet you just don't want to listen.
Also, reread the rebuttal you posted before I wrote you a long rebuttal. You do sound like a jackass who think he's the only person who knows things on this form, daring how I can falsely claim things blah blah blah.
What kind of gambler am I? I guess I can't specifically answer your question because you think there are only two types, and I don't fit either of them (I'm not kidding).
For future reference.
First bolding, while rude, addresses the content.
Second bolding attacks the person.
3 days suspension. Personal insult.
Obviously there are more than two types of gamblers. A couple have yet to be mentioned. My least favorite type is one who endlessly brays about impossible winning streaks and overcoming the house edge with an impossible to duplicate system. Then there is the type who knows the math, but ignores it because math is long term, while results are short term.
My favorite type is the rare individual who recognizes my superior skills and accepts their role in the never ending battle to make the world safe for musical comedy.
Blessed be the peacemakers. They shall inherit the kingdom.
Quote: billryanSome people just can't deal with bullshit. That's a shame.
Obviously there are more than two types of gamblers. A couple have yet to be mentioned. My least favorite type is one who endlessly brays about impossible winning streaks and overcoming the house edge with an impossible to duplicate system. Then there is the type who knows the math, but ignores it because math is long term, while results are short term.
My favorite type is the rare individual who recognizes my superior skills and accepts their role in the never ending battle to make the world safe for musical comedy.
Blessed be the peacemakers. They shall inherit the kingdom.
A wise man once said ' winners hit n run, losers stick around '.
Put it this way, if you are staying in the casino for the action and entertainment, then play all you want but don't expect to come out a winner. If you have the discipline to leave when you are ahead, more power to you.
Everyone knows discipline and proper hydration are useful tools for the wanna be casinoslayer.
We all know there is a secret sauce to success that very few have the recipe for.
When someone comes along who not only can defy math but who can befriend the very person who banned him, we should treat that person with all the respect his achievements deserve. Hypothetically, anyways.
Not to say we can’t trust the math, but sometimes there is something more that remains undiscovered.
Then there is always Chaos Theory. I've seen many a charlatan pull that card.
The modern science of 100 years ago did!Quote: billryanI seriously doubt modern science ever said the universe always existed.
Modern science did indeed say that the universe always existed. If you do some serious reading about the Big Bang theory you will find that it was first theorized sometime in the 20s, not named until 1949, and not widely accepted until the discovery of CMB radiation in 1964, which was a key piece of supporting evidence. Until then scientific consensus was that the universe was “eternal”. It was not a fringe or pseudoscientific view, it was the generally accepted notion for the age of the universe.
I have even read that the reason why the Big Bang was initially rejected, and took a few decades to really catch on, was because it supported the “religious” idea that the universe suddenly “popped” into existence.
So to speak to the original point of the discussion... yes, of course science can be wrong. But at least science has the good sense to change its mind as new evidence comes to light.
Quote: MDawgAs Dave Berns added:
"The one thing the casinos hate about high rollers, are high rollers who are what they call hit and run high rollers, someone who comes in, gambles for a couple of hours, wins some money, and leaves."
The casino only cares about probabilities and total action. Players may or may not care about those things; or they may care about other things, too. But for profits, they are the only thing that have any effect on the player. Hit-and-run, hydration, good vibes, random patterns, and everything else is the equivalent of casino pornography: something to engage in while sitting at the computer, but nothing that has any application to the real world
The Casual Player plays money that isn't NEEDED and is there just to have fun and maybe come home with more than they walked in. If they losr, no skin off their nose.
The Degenerate Gambler, AKA The Addicted Gambler will play money he NEEDS and will sit in a Casino from 12 pm to 12:PM the NEXT day, knowingly playing money he needs because he feels he has to play.
Disclaimer. This is all my personal Theory. ;)
Quote: billryanI would think scientists and science wouldn't believe anything without proof.
Well, one would hope so, of course. I think the origin of the universe is a big question, and one that’s rather difficult to test directly in the lab. It sort of depends where you put the burden of proof. In lieu of a decent, evidence based theory for how the universe came to be, I can see how the “origin-less” model was the default, at least for a time.
What’s even more remarkable to me is that we eventually developed the technology and know-how to measure the rate of expansion of the universe, estimate its size, age, and so on.
But I digress...
It was believed to be so fundamental that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed that this meant the universe always existed. I'm not sure when it was realized that matter and energy convert - perhaps that took Einstein to figure out.Quote: DJGeniusOkay it’s a bit off topic, but I have to comment on this.
Modern science did indeed say that the universe always existed. If you do some serious reading about the Big Bang theory you will find that it was first theorized sometime in the 20s, not named until 1949, and not widely accepted until the discovery of CMB radiation in 1964, which was a key piece of supporting evidence. Until then scientific consensus was that the universe was “eternal”. It was not a fringe or pseudoscientific view, it was the generally accepted notion for the age of the universe.
I have even read that the reason why the Big Bang was initially rejected, and took a few decades to really catch on, was because it supported the “religious” idea that the universe suddenly “popped” into existence.
So to speak to the original point of the discussion... yes, of course science can be wrong. But at least science has the good sense to change its mind as new evidence comes to light.
Anyway, it hasn't been that long since we've known a lot of stuff we take for granted as solid science now. I believe it was the 1930s before we knew there were other galaxies.
That today's mathematicians do not yet have the technology to decode streaks and win limits? I'm not understanding where this is going.
My math skills are lacking so please keep your explanation simple.
Quote: billryanI'm sorry, but are you suggesting that there may be new forms of math ,yet to be discovered, that will overcome the house edge?
That today's mathematicians do not yet have the technology to decode streaks and win limits? I'm not understanding where this is going.
My math skills are lacking so please keep your explanation simple.
Yes and no. Quantum mechanics does not behave in a way that can easily be described by classical probability theory. Probabilities “add up” in different ways. It’s actually mind blowing. If you want to kill some time read up on Bell’s Inequality and the possible explanations including Clifford Algebra. (Note that the hits for Clifford Algebra disproving Bell’s Inequality are very “fringe”.)
On the other hand, I don’t see how any of this will help you beat the House Edge at the casino.
Also, to respond to the stuff on the prior pages, the known scientific evidence prior to the development of the Big Bang theory most certainly pointed to an eternal universe. Not fringe. And even today an eternal universe isn’t fringe. Just now called a multiverse. Though of course no good testable scientific hypotheses have been generated, so it’s not so much science as the belief of mainstream scientists.
If you are interested in the topic, highly recommend A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.
Quote: billryanI'm sorry, but are you suggesting that there may be new forms of math, yet to be discovered, that will overcome the house edge?
If you were talking to me then no, I am not suggesting that at all.
I was simply enjoying a side-track into the history of scientific thought. And thanks to whose who have offered more info on that topic too.
Not to put words in his mouth, but DeMango seems to have been implying, at the very least, that we should not totally reject unorthodox ideas out of hand since there is always a chance the current science has simply not figured it out yet.
I would tend to agree, and personally, I put all such ideas squarely in the “unproved, but not disproved” category.
But that’s a far way from proved too...
So any of these discussions about “vibes” and such, well, if they are to be taken seriously must have some sort of evidence to back them up. Until such time they are things that, at best, one could “suspect” to be the case, but not know.
The house edge on the other hand, is undeniable. Agreed?
Quote: DJGeniusIf you were talking to me then no, I am not suggesting that at all.
I was simply enjoying a side-track into the history of scientific thought. And thanks to whose who have offered more info on that topic too.
Not to put words in his mouth, but DeMango seems to have been implying, at the very least, that we should not totally reject unorthodox ideas out of hand since there is always a chance the current science has simply not figured it out yet.
I would tend to agree, and personally, I put all such ideas squarely in the “unproved, but not disproved” category.
But that’s a far way from proved too...
So any of these discussions about “vibes” and such, well, if they are to be taken seriously must have some sort of evidence to back them up. Until such time they are things that, at best, one could “suspect” to be the case, but not know.
The house edge on the other hand, is undeniable. Agreed?
With determination and proper hydration, no edge is insurmountable.
