Betting Systems and Alcoholism

Greetings!

Here's my most recent article on Betting Systems:

https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/betting-systems-and-alcoholism/

Wherein I make a direct comparison between a belief in Gambling Systems and Alcoholism.

I tend to think that there are some parallels to be drawn between the two things as both involve denials and justifications with the conscious or subconscious intent of trying to justify a continued behavior. For the alcoholic, continuing to drink; and for the betting systems believer, continuing to gamble.

Give it a read and let me know what you think!

My Grandma used to say that a man who lies while drinking drinks with friends, but a man who lies about drinking drinks alone.

_________


IMHO a gambling addiction is more like a porn addiction or being a shopaholic than it is to alcoholism

with alcoholism something is going into your bloodstream

with gambling or porn or shopping it's all in your mind - nothing went into your bloodstream

it's all in your mind


.


.

All addiction diseases involve a malady of the spirit, or whatever you want to call it - the disease based model to addiction is the one that has been accepted for a long time now - meaning, that any addict has a bad head, there is something organically different to his brain whether due to genetics or environment or both that may not be fixed by simply sitting down for a while and thinking about what is wrong and fixing it himself. Hence the dry drunk is still an alcoholic and spiritually deficient even after not drinking for a while.


From the Alcoholics Anonymous big book:

The idea that somehow, someday he will control and enjoy his drinking is the great obsession of every abnormal drinker. The persistence of this illusion is astonishing. Many pursue it into the gates of insanity or death. We learned that we had to fully concede to our innermost selves that we were alcoholics.

Here are some of the methods we have tried: Drinking beer only, limiting the number of drinks, never drinking alone, never drinking in the morning, drinking only at home, never having it in the house, never drinking during business hours, drinking only at parties, switching from scotch to brandy, drinking only natural wines, agreeing to resign if ever drunk on the job, taking a trip, not taking a trip, swearing off forever (with and without a solemn oath), taking more physical exercise, reading inspirational books, going to health farms and sanitariums, accepting voluntary commitment to asylums - we could increase the list ad infinitum.

Half measures availed us nothing. We stood at the turning point. We asked His protection and care with complete abandon.

The similarity between any addiction is the belief that the addiction may be controlled. If you are presenting "betting systems" as equivalent to the alcoholic's trying to limit his drinks, never drinking alone, never drinking in the morning, switching from scotch to brandy, etc. etc., in other words, saying that betting systems are like trying different approaches to gambling hoping to avoid the inevitable loss, then that is one thing, but in general, the end result of addiction is acting on the addiction until severe repercussions result. In other words, acting on the addiction for too long - unable to control it.

I am sure that any gambler approaches the tables hoping to win and probably assumes or at least hopes that he will have more positive results this time around compared to a prior losing session, but I don't think that the adverse consequences that a gambling addict experiences have necessarily to do with trying a betting system - they have to do with not being able to stop playing until all the chips are gone, and not being able to avoid going into the casino too frequently.

For example - I've been in Vegas for six months now, living in casinos. I could go downstairs and play anytime. I have close to unlimited funds available to me relative to even my very high credit lines, and could get blown out at every casino at which I have a line, times about ten and not even have it disrupt our lifestyle, and yet, lately I barely play a few hours a week. And when I do play sometimes I play less than an hour, get ahead, and then just leave. I have not run around town trying to play at every casino at which I have a line.

On the other hand, I know of someone who spent an extended time in Vegas and ended up losing every penny could get his hands on - wiped out. And I know of someone else who spent a very short time in Vegas and lost everything could get hands on too. Those sorts of actions show inability to stop in the wake of adverse consequences, which is the definition and nature of addiction. These gambling addicts didn't lose big because they believed in a betting system, they lost because they couldn't pull away from the tables until to the felt.

"There is simply no way to subtract a series of negative numbers from one another such that the result will be a positive number. To deny this would be to deny reality, much like so many alcoholics deny that they are alcoholics."

True, but how does that apply to negative progression? E.g. 1. $5 Lose (Total -$5), 2. 8 L (-$13), 3. 13 L (-26), 4. 21 W (-5) 5. 8 W (3).

The above fibonacci sequence (negative progression) resulted in a positive number (profit).

"If a betting system was sufficient to beat a game, then it would have been discovered, exploited and the applicable bet or game would no longer be offered in casinos."

Possibly...but a betting system to beat 'the edge' may not have been discovered yet.

"The Table Maximum on a particular game, generally speaking, reflects the most that the casino is comfortable losing on a given hand, which by extension, reflects the maximum that they are comfortable possibly losing within a finite amount of time."

I would say that this is not the only reason, but that the minimum and maximums are also to limit the profits made from progressive strategies.

"Betting system believers simply want to will the nature of negative expectation gambling to be something else by virtue of the fact that they believe it should be a different way."

For addicted gambling believers this may be so, but not for those not addicted who are trialing systems.

"If betting systems had a long-term expectation of profit, then you wouldn’t be able to just do that anytime you want."

Not so. If you knew your betting system well, and it worked, there would be nothing stopping you from using it anytime.

Quote: lilredrooster

_________


IMHO a gambling addiction is more like a porn addiction or being a shopaholic than it is to alcoholism

with alcoholism something is going into your bloodstream

with gambling or porn or shopping it's all in your mind - nothing went into your bloodstream

it's all in your mind
.

.

link to original post

That's a very good point when it comes to introducing something that, by design, changes the body chemistry.

However, don't forget that these other forms of addiction also change body chemistry. The sense of euphoria or excitement, whether it be caused by shopping or gambling, comes from the release of dopamine by the brain and how it is received by the body, which can be influenced by one's receptor genes:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538242/

While this gene has been linked also to substance abuse, studies have indicated that it can also play a role in gambling, and other (non direct substance) addictions.

For some people, there seems to be a link to the D2A1 allele when it comes to both gambling addiction and substance abuse. In this study:

https://journals.lww.com/jpharmacogenetics/Abstract/1996/06000/A_study_of_the_dopamine_D2_receptor_gene_in.4.aspx

It was found that over 50% of two different subsets of pathological gamblers carried this D2A1 allele, compared to only 17.8% in a control group of non pathological gamblers wherein gambling didn't move the needle whatsoever for 45 of 48 of the participants in the control group.

It has also been found that addicts with this particular allele are more likely:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8033754/

If they are substance abusers at all, to be abusers of more than one substance. Participants in this second study with the D2A1 alleles also experienced higher percentages of addiction, though not necessarily always statistically meaningful, overall.

This particular allele is, to a statistically meaningful degree, associated with even more problematic, "Stronger," addictions compared to less severe addictions, which you can read about in this study:

https://books.google.com/books?id=KZAvvrofyrIC&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=D2A1+allele&source=bl&ots=BUhdNPp1iX&sig=ACfU3U10z22mC2L0UNfCfGnOPbUkWTD46w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi7z6bxr4HzAhWfFFkFHcMnCdcQ6AF6BAgUEAM#v=onepage&q=D2A1%20allele&f=false

Pathological gambling is thought of as one of the, "Pure," addictions as it doesn't rely on the introduction of outside drugs.

Another interesting study is this one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758772/

Anyway, what happens with this Taq1 allele is that it impacts D2 receptors (reward center) at baseline, whereas taking part in whatever the addictive activity is tends to free up the receptors. This particular allele has also been linked with depression (as has substance abuse), obviously, for the same reasons.

Essentially, what ends up happening is that the reward center of the brain is unlocked and the dopamine receptors are working at a higher level than this person's baseline. What they are getting from it is the sort of reward level that others may get from non-addictive activities which, for people with this particular allele, basically might not even move the needle at all.

So, it's definitely in the mind, and sometimes deeper. Apparently, it's sometimes within the genes!

Great post by MDawg! I'm going to respond to that sometime today if I am coherent, but it might have to wait until tomorrow.

I have a dentist appointment in a little over an hour and I'm not sure if they are going to end up drugging me or not. I certainly hope not! Anyway, that's why I don't know if I am going to be clearheaded later or not.

Quote: Wellbush

"There is simply no way to subtract a series of negative numbers from one another such that the result will be a positive number. To deny this would be to deny reality, much like so many alcoholics deny that they are alcoholics."

True, but how does that apply to negative progression? E.g. 1. $5 Lose (Total -$5), 2. 8 L (-$13), 3. 13 L (-26), 4. 21 W (-5) 5. 8 W (3).

The above fibonacci sequence (negative progression) resulted in a positive number (profit).

"If a betting system was sufficient to beat a game, then it would have been discovered, exploited and the applicable bet or game would no longer be offered in casinos."

Possibly...but a betting system to beat 'the edge' may not have been discovered yet.

link to original post

It applies to the expected value of individual bets on a negative expectation game. That's what I am referring to when I refer to their hope of putting negative numbers together hoping for it to somehow result in a positive one.

"People who wish to employ betting systems (absent anything else) don’t truly believe that the mere act of betting a certain way is going to result in an expectation of profit. They can’t possibly believe such a thing, because such a catastrophic failure of basic logic should be impossible."

Oh yes some do believe their betting system will give them an expectation of profit. Otherwise they wouldn't go to the casino to trial it.

"People who employ betting systems DO NOT WANT TO WIN. It’s that simple. THEY WANT TO PLAY. That’s all they want to do. They want to gamble. They want to pretend that they believe that the system makes an actual difference in the expectation."

Not so. This statement only applies to addicted gamblers.

"By arguing with people about it, you’re just engaging in denial, anger and bargaining simultaneously."

Not if you're trialing a system.

"2.) That they are, “About even,” lifetime, but want to win.

Ouch! That’s not ideal, because this person hasn’t even gotten past the denial stage yet."

Agreed. At a certain point I will pull the plug if I've exhausted the mathematical possibilities. If anyone cannot come to grips that they haven't got a winning system, after enough trials, then yes they are addicted.

“Normal existence,” is the default. Believing that Betting Systems will work is not, “Normal existence.” If you are not in normal existence, then you are in one of the stages that is neither, “Normal Existence,” nor, “Acceptance.”

Incorrect. There would be countless people who would initially go to a casino wishing to trial a system. It's after repeatedly losing that things start to become abnormal.

Some people believe the moon is made of cheese. I find that as long as they aren't doing harm to themselves or me and mine, it is best to leave them to their beliefs.

"If a betting system was sufficient to beat a game, then it would have been discovered, exploited and the applicable bet or game would no longer be offered in casinos."

Betting systems cannot work. A systematic way of playing will not work with random outcomes. There are methods of play, however, that are not systemic. For a system to work it has to be used on something that produces reliable predictable results. Random outcomes do not fall under that category and this is why all systems fail eventually. You need a method of the play that involves making a unique decision for the next bet on a random outcome.

"2.) Denial:***

We have already touched on denial, for both the alcoholic and the Betting Systems advocate.

Essentially, the gambling systems advocate must deny one of two things:

A.) That the House Edge exists.

Or:

B.) That the House Edge is immutable in the long-term."

Not for the short term gambler trailing systems, but the long term losing gambler, yes.

"Often, they will have a two-fold argument:

A.) That the House Edge does not have a, “Real,” effect on anyone in the short-term. After all, you cannot bet $10.00 on the Pass Line and lose 14.1 cents. You can only win $10 or lose $10.

And:

B.) That certain negative progression systems, such as the Martingale, could not be defeated if a player had an infinite bankroll and the casino did not have Table Limits.

Remember, this IS their best argument."

No, it's not their best argument. They may have a large (not infinite) bankroll with a less risky system than the Marty.

"Okay, Mr. Real World, so why are you talking about casinos with absolutely no table maximums and players with infinite bankrolls? Do you want to deal in real world terms, or don’t you?"

Incorrect. A large bankroll; player starting with small bets on the minimum table; player can move up to higher limit tables.

"Here’s the thing: Probability is a real world term."

And mathematicians have known to be wrong and updated their flawed understandings over time.

"It’s not true only in casinos, it’s true everywhere."

Even the Wiz would tell you that certain formulae does not apply well in different situations. So, wrong again.

"Option B: Some random guy who believes he has found the code to crack the safe of negative expectation games by subtracting negative numbers from other negative numbers, but in a certain way, by which the result will be a positive number."

I totally agree that the formula for negative expected value, as applied by math, produces negative results. I'm not convinced yet, that negative expected value can be applied to all negative progression gambling systems.

"Hell, even if the ridiculous Betting System proponents’ positions had any intellectual merit, which they don’t, they rely on an argument relies either upon the shortest of short-runs or the concept of, “Infinity,” which is a long-run so long that it can’t, by definition, exist in the, “Real World.”"

I agree that it's ludicrous to apply infinity to prove betting systems work, solely because no-one has an infinite amount of money. But a betting system may be worth exploring if it's initially shown to work with a large amount of money.

If I have an addiction to gambling, but I could stop if I wanted, is it still an addiction or do I just enjoy it?

If a person has two options;
option 1- conduct experiments at home, with paper gains or losses
option 2- conduct experiments in casino, with real wins or losses

Which option would a rational person do, and which would an addict choose?

I'll go through the rest of the article later, unless you suggest otherwise 146.

Quote: FinsRule

If I have an addiction to gambling, but I could stop if I wanted, is it still an addiction or do I just enjoy it?

link to original post

doesn't sound like an addiction if you can stop if you are able. It's just like going to the pub to enjoy some drinking. As long as you can stop anytime, you're not addicted.

Quote: EvenBob

You need a method of the play that involves making a unique decision for the next bet on a random outcome.

here we go:

a message from the genius that has figured out a way to win at roulette that nobody else in the world knows
he would be world famous if he revealed it
he has done what every mathematician in the world would say is impossible
but he's not interested in being world famous - he just wants to make nickel and dime bets

how lucky everybody is to have a genius like this amongst the proletariat here

.

Quote: MDawg

All addiction diseases involve a malady of the spirit, or whatever you want to call it - the disease based model to addiction is the one that has been accepted for a long time now - meaning, that any addict has a bad head, there is something organically different to his brain whether due to genetics or environment or both that may not be fixed by simply sitting down for a while and thinking about what is wrong and fixing it himself. Hence the dry drunk is still an alcoholic and spiritually deficient even after not drinking for a while.


From the Alcoholics Anonymous big book:

The idea that somehow, someday he will control and enjoy his drinking is the great obsession of every abnormal drinker. The persistence of this illusion is astonishing. Many pursue it into the gates of insanity or death. We learned that we had to fully concede to our innermost selves that we were alcoholics.

Here are some of the methods we have tried: Drinking beer only, limiting the number of drinks, never drinking alone, never drinking in the morning, drinking only at home, never having it in the house, never drinking during business hours, drinking only at parties, switching from scotch to brandy, drinking only natural wines, agreeing to resign if ever drunk on the job, taking a trip, not taking a trip, swearing off forever (with and without a solemn oath), taking more physical exercise, reading inspirational books, going to health farms and sanitariums, accepting voluntary commitment to asylums - we could increase the list ad infinitum.

Half measures availed us nothing. We stood at the turning point. We asked His protection and care with complete abandon.

The similarity between any addiction is the belief that the addiction may be controlled. If you are presenting "betting systems" as equivalent to the alcoholic's trying to limit his drinks, never drinking alone, never drinking in the morning, switching from scotch to brandy, etc. etc., in other words, saying that betting systems are like trying different approaches to gambling hoping to avoid the inevitable loss, then that is one thing, but in general, the end result of addiction is acting on the addiction until severe repercussions result. In other words, acting on the addiction for too long - unable to control it.

That's basically what I was presenting, which as you correctly gathered, results in continuing to act upon the thing they were addicted to in the first place. Of course, the gambling addict (in any case where the person is one) might not yet realize that he is addicted to gambling, so he simply sees the system as trying to find a way to win.

Quote:

I am sure that any gambler approaches the tables hoping to win and probably assumes or at least hopes that he will have more positive results this time around compared to a prior losing session, but I don't think that the adverse consequences that a gambling addict experiences have necessarily to do with trying a betting system - they have to do with not being able to stop playing until all the chips are gone, and not being able to avoid going into the casino too frequently.

That's true, but it doesn't always have to do with a failure to stop until all the chips are gone. If someone is that way, then as a gambling addict, they are pretty deep into it; I would think. Other people may be able to temporarily stop without all the chips being gone, especially if there is some external event causing them to stop before they otherwise might.

Once again, it's similar to an alcoholic. Just because an alcoholic doesn't necessarily drink to the point of completely blacking out every single time doesn't mean that he's not still an alcoholic. I think it's possible for a person to be addicted to gambling without losing literally every penny they bring with them every visit.

Quote:

For example - I've been in Vegas for six months now, living in casinos. I could go downstairs and play anytime. I have close to unlimited funds available to me relative to even my very high credit lines, and could get blown out at every casino at which I have a line, times about ten and not even have it disrupt our lifestyle, and yet, lately I barely play a few hours a week. And when I do play sometimes I play less than an hour, get ahead, and then just leave. I have not run around town trying to play at every casino at which I have a line.

I'm sure you haven't. I wouldn't know whether or not you have anything to worry about.

Quote:

On the other hand, I know of someone who spent an extended time in Vegas and ended up losing every penny could get his hands on - wiped out. And I know of someone else who spent a very short time in Vegas and lost everything could get hands on too. Those sorts of actions show inability to stop in the wake of adverse consequences, which is the definition and nature of addiction. These gambling addicts didn't lose big because they believed in a betting system, they lost because they couldn't pull away from the tables until to the felt.

link to original post

Not every alcoholic drinks Jagermeister, not every gambling addict uses a system.

Quote: Wellbush

Oh yes some do believe their betting system will give them an expectation of profit. Otherwise they wouldn't go to the casino to trial it.

If so, they only believe it because they are not being objective. They are not being objective because they believe this gives them the ability to win, and therefore, to continue gambling.

Quote:

Not so. This statement only applies to addicted gamblers.

That's not true. They don't necessarily have to be addicted gamblers to have a desire to play the games. They can want to play the games AND want to use a system, without being addicted. Either way, they're trying to convince themselves that they think they should win.

Quote:

Agreed. At a certain point I will pull the plug if I've exhausted the mathematical possibilities. If anyone cannot come to grips that they haven't got a winning system, after enough trials, then yes they are addicted.

It's really a pretty simple matter for you, then. There are no systems that can be expected to beat a negative expectation game, so you have already exhausted the mathematical possibilities without the need to do anything.

Quote:

Incorrect. There would be countless people who would initially go to a casino wishing to trial a system. It's after repeatedly losing that things start to become abnormal.

link to original post

What if they are, "Trialing," a system after they have already repeatedly lost gambling a different way? A system, perhaps, that has already been explained to them to have a negative expectation.

But what if they don't use a system? Suppose they use a method instead?

Quote: Mission146

Great post by MDawg! I'm going to respond to that sometime today if I am coherent, but it might have to wait until tomorrow.

I have a dentist appointment in a little over an hour and I'm not sure if they are going to end up drugging me or not. I certainly hope not! Anyway, that's why I don't know if I am going to be clearheaded later or not.

link to original post

Gahhhh!!!! They had to dig into my sinuses and do a root canal on one of my back teeth! Fortunately, I didn't have to go under, they just put some numbing stuff on it. Then, the one they removed was partially fused with the other tooth!

Now, I have to take antibiotics and not do much the next few days, so you guys get to deal with me. I'll also be coherent because I refused the IbuProfen 800's and refused the Vicodin, just taking the Amoxicillin. Besides that, regular Tylenol will do.

And then I have a post-op next week and have to get a wisdom tooth yanked because it's half embedded in the gums! Today's tooth took her fifty minutes to remove and she said it usually takes five. She expects no similar problems with the wisdom tooth.

I wanted to go ahead and do the wisdom tooth today, as well, but she claims the pain would be unbearable if I did both and still refuse Vicodin.

Quote: Wellbush

"2.) Denial:***

We have already touched on denial, for both the alcoholic and the Betting Systems advocate.

Essentially, the gambling systems advocate must deny one of two things:

A.) That the House Edge exists.

Or:

B.) That the House Edge is immutable in the long-term."

Not for the short term gambler trailing systems, but the long term losing gambler, yes.

"Often, they will have a two-fold argument:

A.) That the House Edge does not have a, “Real,” effect on anyone in the short-term. After all, you cannot bet $10.00 on the Pass Line and lose 14.1 cents. You can only win $10 or lose $10.

And:

B.) That certain negative progression systems, such as the Martingale, could not be defeated if a player had an infinite bankroll and the casino did not have Table Limits.

Remember, this IS their best argument."

No, it's not their best argument. They may have a large (not infinite) bankroll with a less risky system than the Marty.

link to original post

It wouldn't matter. An expected loss remains an expected loss no matter what their bankroll is. Having a larger bankroll only means that it is expected to take longer for their system to completely fail (defined as insufficient funds for them to continue to attempt) than it might for people with less money.

Quote: Wellbush

Incorrect. A large bankroll; player starting with small bets on the minimum table; player can move up to higher limit tables.

Yeah, don't you think that casinos would tighten the range Min-Max for the entire house if this were ever a concern? Hell, you could start in one of the casinos that have the game for $1-$3 as a novelty; it won't matter.

Quote:

And mathematicians have known to be wrong and updated their flawed understandings over time.

Huh? That's your argument to, "Here’s the thing: Probability is a real world term." Are you saying that probability does not apply in the world, even outside of casinos? If you don't believe in the concept of probability, all I can say is, "Good luck to you."

Quote:

Even the Wiz would tell you that certain formulae does not apply well in different situations. So, wrong again.

Explanation of why I'm wrong? Oh, never mind, you're not going to have one. If you do, I haven't seen it yet.

Quote:

I totally agree that the formula for negative expected value, as applied by math, produces negative results. I'm not convinced yet, that negative expected value can be applied to all negative progression gambling systems.

You're right. You could play a game (if you could find one) upon which you have a positive expected value using a negative progression system, if you did that, then the concept of negative expected value would not apply.

Chew on this: If you play a Martingale System, you're forcing the casino to Reverse Martingale their side. If you Reverse Martingale, the casino is effectively Martingaling against you. How can the casino beat the player when the casino is forced to do the opposite (essentially) of what a player is doing...the answer is by having the edge to begin with.

Quote:

I agree that it's ludicrous to apply infinity to prove betting systems work, solely because no-one has an infinite amount of money. But a betting system may be worth exploring if it's initially shown to work with a large amount of money.

link to original post

Yeah, but if one can amass the sort of sum of money that I assume you're talking about, then they'd really have no need to worry about betting systems to make money. Besides, all else equal, it just means they are expected to go longer before they lose it all.

Quote: FinsRule

If I have an addiction to gambling, but I could stop if I wanted, is it still an addiction or do I just enjoy it?

link to original post

Hmm...I guess the only way to know for sure would be to stop. Of course, as soon as you un-stop (presumably because you think you passed the test), it just means that you have actually failed the test.

It's a weird sort of thing. It's sometimes hard to tell if you're addicted to something, or not, and then you will do things just to, "Prove," you're not, but wanting to prove it to yourself (and being goal-oriented in that sense) might mean that you are.

I guess what I am saying is that wondering if you might be addicted, and then trying to prove otherwise, sometimes results in a paradox.

_________


Mission:


I'm curious - the thought among professionals now is that a person who is addicted should not be blamed - that they cannot be faulted
that they have an illness - really no different than someone having arthritis

I wonder if you agree with that - or what your feeling is about it__________thanks


.

Ok. Well, I'll stop here 146. I'll send you a PM in due course. No point in me continuing here.

Quote: lilredrooster

_________


Mission:


I'm curious - the thought among professionals now is that a person who is addicted should not be blamed - that they cannot be faulted
that they have an illness - really no different than someone having arthritis

I wonder if you agree with that - or what your feeling is about it__________thanks


.

link to original post

I don’t really have an opinion on it. I blame myself for being an alcoholic, but other people don’t have to blame themselves if they don’t want to.

Move to betting systems se room please!!!!

If you wanted to compare gambling addiction to alcoholism, that is more appropriate.

By leaving this in the non betting system area I was subjected once again to EB letting me know he uses a ‘method’, not a ‘system’, to beat roulette.

Quote: SOOPOO

Move to betting systems se room please!!!!

If you wanted to compare gambling addiction to alcoholism, that is more appropriate.

By leaving this in the non betting system area I was subjected once again to EB letting me know he uses a ‘method’, not a ‘system’, to beat roulette.

link to original post

I'm not suggesting that a belief in Betting Systems is the same thing as gambling addiction, or even the cause of gambling addiction. I'm suggesting that it is sometimes (not always) a symptom of gambling addiction.

My Doctors tell me my obesity is at least partially genetic, but unless genetics is what caused me to stop walking three miles a day, I disagree.
Most of my moms brothers were functional alcoholics and one of my older cousins was a falling down drunk until about his fifth stint in rehab. That was thirty plus years ago and he is an almost productive member of society these days.

Double post

Mission146,

Your article contained an incorrect sentence:

"There is simply no way to subtract a series of negative numbers from one another such that the result will be a positive number."

Consider the sequence -1, -2, -3:

-1 - (-2) - (-3) = +4, which is a positive number.

I suggest your replace "subtract" with "add" or "sum".

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

Quote: DogHand

Mission146,

Your article contained an incorrect sentence:

"There is simply no way to subtract a series of negative numbers from one another such that the result will be a positive number."

Consider the sequence -1, -2, -3:

-1 - (-2) - (-3) = +4, which is a positive number.

I suggest your replace "subtract" with "add" or "sum".

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

link to original post

Thanks! I used sum elsewhere, so I’ll make that correction when I’m on the computer tomorrow.

Quote: DogHand

Mission146,

Your article contained an incorrect sentence:

"There is simply no way to subtract a series of negative numbers from one another such that the result will be a positive number."

Consider the sequence -1, -2, -3:

-1 - (-2) - (-3) = +4, which is a positive number.

I suggest your replace "subtract" with "add" or "sum".

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

link to original post

I just saw this or I would not have made the same comment at the article. As I noted there, it's the sort of thing that just has to get corrected, too many people notice

Quote: Mission146

Quote: FinsRule

If I have an addiction to gambling, but I could stop if I wanted, is it still an addiction or do I just enjoy it?

link to original post

Hmm...I guess the only way to know for sure would be to stop. Of course, as soon as you un-stop (presumably because you think you passed the test), it just means that you have actually failed the test.

It's a weird sort of thing. It's sometimes hard to tell if you're addicted to something, or not, and then you will do things just to, "Prove," you're not, but wanting to prove it to yourself (and being goal-oriented in that sense) might mean that you are.

I guess what I am saying is that wondering if you might be addicted, and then trying to prove otherwise, sometimes results in a paradox.

link to original post

I’ve done no gamble January a couple of times. And it was fine. But I enjoy gambling.

So I distinguish it for myself that I have a gambling addiction but not a gambling problem.

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: DogHand

Mission146,

Your article contained an incorrect sentence:

"There is simply no way to subtract a series of negative numbers from one another such that the result will be a positive number."

Consider the sequence -1, -2, -3:

-1 - (-2) - (-3) = +4, which is a positive number.

I suggest your replace "subtract" with "add" or "sum".

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

link to original post

I just saw this or I would not have made the same comment at the article. As I noted there, it's the sort of thing that just has to get corrected, too many people notice

link to original post

I appreciate both of you bringing it up and my poor wording has been corrected!

_________



kinna interesting - to me anyway


most betting systems revolve around the Martingale or some version of it, or some version of the reverse of it
it may not always involve doubling but there is always either increasing or decreasing bets depending on previous outcomes


from the article:


"The origins of the Martingale, like most modern gambling traditions, can be traced back to 17th and 18th century France."


so we're talking about it originating somewhere about 350 years ago


and this from the article:


"The name of this method has been attributed to an 18th century London casino owner, John Henry Martindale, who is alleged to have encouraged the gamblers in his casino to wager using this method. He already knew that it looked too good to be true"


so, if 350 years isn't enough time for Martingale proponents to figure out that it's not the Holy Grail - well, let's give them another 500 years or so_______________(-:\




https://zani.co.uk/zani-culture/item/3022-the-story-behind-martingale-mathematically-perfect-perfectly-probable

.


.

@LilRedRooster

The most bizarre aspect of the Martingale, to me, is that people think it changes the relationship between the player and the casino as far as the game goes.

Think of it this way: If a person is playing the Martingale, then they are essentially forcing the casino to Reverse Martingale against them. If they are playing the Reverse Martingale, then they are forcing the casino to Martingale.

And yet, the casino has no problem ceding this control to the player. I wonder why that could be? It couldn't be that the casino knows they have the advantage either way, could it?

I've always preferred the reverse Martingale myself, although I learned not to do either years ago. I just makes more sense to me to double up on wins rather than losses.
A six or seven hand winning streak pays handsomely while not getting one cost a single betting unit. That I find that the more attractive option tells me my brain may be wired differently than most gamblers. I never understood the attraction of making bigger and bigger bets in a losing streak ,all in an attempt to break even.

Quote: billryan

I've always preferred the reverse Martingale myself, although I learned not to do either years ago. I just makes more sense to me to double up on wins rather than losses.
A six or seven hand winning streak pays handsomely while not getting one cost a single betting unit. That I find that the more attractive option tells me my brain may be wired differently than most gamblers. I never understood the attraction of making bigger and bigger bets in a losing streak ,all in an attempt to break even.

link to original post

I think that it feeds the denial. "Oh, the system works. I can keep doing it. There was that one time, but it was a fluke. The system almost never loses."

A betting system clearly does not give a player any advantage from an EV point of view. The flip side of that is that it also does not give a player any disadvantage from an EV point of view.

So there doesn't seem to be anything fundamentally wrong, judging solely from an EV point of view, about playing with a system. Some people just like to gamble, and they will not lose anymore in the long term by using a wager variation system vs a flat bet system. No harm no foul. I'm not infuriated by people who believe that a system might improve their long-term EV, because I see and know many people who simply do not understand mathematics at even the most basic level and who simply do not understand probability theory. To despise these people for their ignorance is to populate your world with hatred.

However I am indeed absolutely intolerant of people who wish to exploit the ignorance of poorly educated and unintelligent people, by selling systems. There are scam artists in almost every aspect of life, and I have no respect for them.

But using a system is NOT inherently destructive behavior, IMO. Rather, it is "gambling addiction" that is similar to alcoholism, It doesn't matter whether the addicted gambler believes in hunch betting, or that "my luck will change" or in wager sizing systems or in flat betting systems. They get dopamine from gambling and they are addicted to the dopamine.

_______


the book "13 against the bank" by Norman Leigh purports to be non-fiction but it's actually fiction

he begins the book by explaining his motivation -
his father played a Martingale and lost everything and the casino Manager laughed in his face

so the author comes to the absolutely brilliant conclusion that if a Martingale fails then a reverse Martingale must be a big winner

he tweaks a Martingale into a reverse Labouchere and recruits 12 other players to do it at various times on various wheels

and then claims that they cleaned up___________the book is a total lie like so many gambling books



.

How do you feel about people selling thier handicapping pix ? Especially those who advertise 80 % winners on Nfl Nba etc. And show results from Monday night specials 5 star plays etc sorta like all the different funds low cap high cap asian eyc on stock market so the stock market house can always point to a winning fund. I knew a guy in Denver who sold dog race picks based on biorythymns in the 70's when the dog track handle was 10 times that of the horse track Centennial. He said gamblers will buy anything !
I almost wound up selling a horse pick card at Pimlico race track in the 1960s. Along with Jacks Green card and Stable boy.
But it was 5k to each of those two guys to be able to sell
I mean no implied threats. But well things happened sometimes.
Even with an uncle as a sargeant and 2 cousins as patrolmen fair was fair. Before I could raise that much Uncle Sam needed me in Vietnam. At least I came out with a trade. My buddy got
Drafted into Marines. Stationed in Quantanamo or however you spell it. Every few months digging up mines to make sure they were still there. For some reason not much call for mine maintenance in civilian life.

__________


there was a guy here a few years ago who had a horse racing system based on horse's birthdays
I could search and find it but I'm feeling lazy
I used to bet at Laurel and I remember Stable Boy - I never bought his picks though -

I know there's some sports handicappers who do this:

they tout team A as the Lock of the Decade to half their clients
and team B as the Lock of the Decade to the other half

then if team B wins they go back to the clients who they touted team B to - divide by 2 and tout half to team A and half to team B on a different game - another Lock


.

Quote: Mission146

That's true, but it doesn't always have to do with a failure to stop until all the chips are gone. If someone is that way, then as a gambling addict, they are pretty deep into it; I would think. Other people may be able to temporarily stop without all the chips being gone, especially if there is some external event causing them to stop before they otherwise might.

Once again, it's similar to an alcoholic. Just because an alcoholic doesn't necessarily drink to the point of completely blacking out every single time doesn't mean that he's not still an alcoholic. I think it's possible for a person to be addicted to gambling without losing literally every penny they bring with them every visit.

link to original post

The nature of any addiction is not that the addict will end up in the gutter each time he indulges in the addiction, but that eventually, if the behavior is not arrested, that major life problems will ensue. Addiction is a progressive, but eminently treatable, disease - and the best cure is total abstinence.

The most recently accepted model of the progress of addiction is not that the addict goes straight downhill - but actually experiences periods when things are getting better followed by movements downwards. The over all movement of addiction over time is downwards, but because there are periods when things seem to improve, many practicing addicts are lulled into thinking that they have it licked, only to find themselves eventually in a lower state of affairs.

Quote: Mission146

I blame myself for being an alcoholic, but other people don’t have to blame themselves if they don’t want to.

link to original post

I was actually surprised to read this. I know you talked about quitting drinking but I didn't know you considered yourself an alcoholic. The reason this surprises me is that I gathered from so many of your gaming related posts that you are indifferent to casinos, and not much interested in the thrill or action of gaming either - that you're just more interested in getting to the strictly +EV results and derive no pleasure from the process.

This is interesting because most addicts are cross addicted - for example, the sober alcoholic might have some sex addiction issues, might be a shopaholic, might have gambling issues, and so on.

Your strictly business, ascetic approach to gaming belies the notion of an addictive personality.

Quote: FastEddie

How do you feel about people selling thier handicapping pix ? Especially those who advertise 80 % winners on Nfl Nba etc. And show results from Monday night specials 5 star plays etc sorta like all the different funds low cap high cap asian eyc on stock market so the stock market house can always point to a winning fund. I knew a guy in Denver who sold dog race picks based on biorythymns in the 70's when the dog track handle was 10 times that of the horse track Centennial. He said gamblers will buy anything !
I almost wound up selling a horse pick card at Pimlico race track in the 1960s. Along with Jacks Green card and Stable boy.
But it was 5k to each of those two guys to be able to sell
I mean no implied threats. But well things happened sometimes.
Even with an uncle as a sargeant and 2 cousins as patrolmen fair was fair. Before I could raise that much Uncle Sam needed me in Vietnam. At least I came out with a trade. My buddy got
Drafted into Marines. Stationed in Quantanamo or however you spell it. Every few months digging up mines to make sure they were still there. For some reason not much call for mine maintenance in civilian life.

link to original post

You can check out the first section of this article:

https://wizardofvegas.com/articles/the-rundown/

Spoiler Alert: Not a huge fan!

Quote: MDawg

The nature of any addiction is not that the addict will end up in the gutter each time he indulges in the addiction, but that eventually, if the behavior is not arrested, that major life problems will ensue. Addiction is a progressive, but eminently treatable, disease - and the best cure is total abstinence.

The most recently accepted model of the progress of addiction is not that the addict goes straight downhill - but actually experiences periods when things are getting better followed by movements downwards. The over all movement of addiction over time is downwards, but because there are periods when things seem to improve, many practicing addicts are lulled into thinking that they have it licked, only to find themselves eventually in a lower state of affairs.

That's pretty much how that goes, so I guess the concern that I am expressing in the article is that (for some) betting systems can be an avoidable step in the cause-and-effect chain vis-a-vis gambling addiction. I see an unfounded belief that one is going to win as potentially the expression of gambling addiction that could well have the most devastating of consequences.

Quote:

I was actually surprised to read this. I know you talked about quitting drinking but I didn't know you considered yourself an alcoholic. The reason this surprises me is that I gathered from so many of your gaming related posts that you are indifferent to casinos, and not much interested in the thrill or action of gaming either - that you're just more interested in getting to the strictly +EV results and derive no pleasure from the process.

This is interesting because most addicts are cross addicted - for example, the sober alcoholic might have some sex addiction issues, might be a shopaholic, might have gambling issues, and so on.

Your strictly business, ascetic approach to gaming belies the notion of an addictive personality.

link to original post

Definitely an alcoholic, I didn't fill my Norcos yesterday for a reason; it wouldn't be hard to see myself getting hooked. I totally agree about the cross-addiction, which is why I pretty much avoid all drugs, excepting nicotine (which I am definitely addicted to) and mild painkillers, like Ibuprofen.

I think the good news for me, when it comes to gambling, is that I REALLY hate losing...at anything...so nothing that comes with the possibility of losing is going to move the addiction needle for me.

Either that, or maybe I just very specifically like alcohol, but I'm still going to stay away from other drugs because I have no need to be sure.

Wise choice to avoid the Norcos. And after all, alcohol is a drug too.

Quote: Mission146

I think the good news for me, when it comes to gambling, is that I REALLY hate losing...at anything...so nothing that comes with the possibility of losing is going to move the addiction needle for me.

Either that, or maybe I just very specifically like alcohol, but I'm still going to stay away from other drugs because I have no need to be sure.

link to original post

Still quite interesting, as the fear of negative repercussions will not prevent an addict from moving further into his addiction, at least not before he hits bottom. So, when it came to alcohol, you had to experience something bad before you gave it up, but with gambling you never got into it much at all, because you disliked the losing right off the bat.

In fact, the reason I quit all gaming years ago was because I disliked the roller coaster. I was way up over all, but I got so used to winning year after year after year that when I had just a couple of losing trips, and some major ups and downs during some trips, I decided that I didn't care to pursue it further. So I quit for about a decade.

And indeed, since returning to casino play, if that sort of pattern came back - some losing trips and such, I'd give it up again. I'm doing this for fun, and what's the fun in losing?