Is AP Gambling? (Split from Why are you an AP)

Quote: djatc

I don't know many people who can honestly say without twisting the truth that what they do is productive to anything, let alone society. If you boil down 99% of employees amibitions for working it's for that check. Lots of people enjoy being unemployed, since they just go through the motions to find a job and sit back and collect that govt cheese.

Reminds me of a saying where I used to be employed.

"I thought I wanted a career, as it turns out I really just wanted the money"

Quote: MathExtremist

You've made up an incorrect definition on the spot and now you're trying to use it to justify its own correctness?

I have a correct definition. Nitpicking is for Star Trek discussions and trick problems.

Quote: AxelWolf

Not sure what you mean by this, unless you were just agreeing with what I said. I think I said this?

Possibly you were just pointing out that I didn't even need to use such an extreme example of what might bankrupt someone.

Depending on how the % of the +EV is distributed I agree. There are somethings with a you can almost guarantee yourself to win even after only a short period of time. With a very small number of units/bankroll.

Now would that be gambling? I have used Nareeds theory to explain to my Mother I'm NOT really gambling because its almost impossible that I will lose.
This way she completely understands I'm not standing at the craps table shouting, "Daddy needs a new pair of shoes!" and praying my numbers come up, while risking everything I have on the next roll of the dice. I have to explain I use computers, statistics and well though out guess work to make sure I will win in the long and short run. Not sure she totally understands but, she knows I can afford to send her some extra money if she needs it and I am the only one of her kids that has never asked for anything.

I was agreeing with you. But I was pointing out a more extreme example of a +ev game could have an average payout of 1000x and still bankrupt almost all of its players. Many of the mathematicians/APs I have known at least initially said they would bet huge amounts on the game described in St. Petersburgh paradox (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox). I wouldn't advise explaining APing in any way to your mother. If she can't understand the math, she is probably reciting half of what you tell her to the rest of your family. And things like "he has a system" or "a way to always win" will just make you sound like every other delusional person with a gambling problem.

Quote: Nareed

I have a correct definition.

Citation needed.

Quote: wudged

Citation needed.

I'm not going to join a flame war over something so trivial.

Quote: Nareed

I'm not going to join a flame war over something so trivial.

It's not a flame war. You made an assertion and people made counterpoints. You insist you are correct and now people are asking for evidence. This is the style of debate.

Quote: geoff

It's not a flame war. You made an assertion and people made counterpoints. You insist you are correct and now people are asking for evidence. This is the style of debate.

Ok. I'm not going to keep wasting my time with something so trivial.

So, in the 80sand 1/2 the 90s I would always buy a golf cap from the hotel/casino I was staying at. The hat was the finest of quality of material made by 50 Virgins. Over the years I must have acquired 50 of those golf caps. Those beautiful caps which I still have had a price tag of 2000.00 each due to my losses each trip. Now a days due to the way I play each and every time I buy a new golf cap and it is free. My comps are usually 2,000 to 5000.00 depending. Lose nothing or very minimal amounts in the casino. Am I an AP? Am I still considered a gambler?

Quote: Nareed

Ok. I'm not going to keep wasting my time with something so trivial.

Okay then, let's put this to bed: you defined "casino gambling" as requiring both "completely random" outcomes and a "house advantage [that] renders a negative expectation in the long term." Setting aside the indefinite nature of whatever you might mean by "completely random," because the vast majority of casino games played in the past 30 years are based on deterministic electronic algorithms:

Under your improper definition, a typical state lottery progressive jackpot keno game played by ticket slips in a convenience store just off the highway would therefore be "casino gambling" (which it is not), while a +EV progressive jackpot keno game played in an actual casino keno lounge would not be "casino gambling" (which it is). Under your definition, the line bets in craps are "casino gambling" while the odds bets are not. Playing 9/6 Jacks or Better video poker with a progressive royal in a casino would be "casino gambling" until such time as the jackpot meter exceeded 4886 coins, at which point your definition requires that game to be excluded from the "casino gambling" category. Playing poker in a casino may or may not be "casino gambling" under your definition based solely on your relative abilities compared to the other people at the table. I trust you see the problem with your definition.

State law in Nevada makes no such distinction, nor do state regulators suggest that a "gambling game" is such only if it favors the house. You are free to make up your own definitions for anything, but you should not reasonably expect others to simply agree to adopt a definition that (a) you just pulled out of thin air and (b) is trivially incorrect as shown by the many examples above.

Quote: MathExtremist

Okay then, let's put this to bed:

Look here:

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/gambling-with-an-edge/17424-is-ap-gambling/6/#post339859

Quote: nmacgre

I was agreeing with you. But I was pointing out a more extreme example of a +ev game could have an average payout of 1000x and still bankrupt almost all of its players. Many of the mathematicians/APs I have known at least initially said they would bet huge amounts on the game described in St. Petersburgh paradox (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox). I wouldn't advise explaining APing in any way to your mother. If she can't understand the math, she is probably reciting half of what you tell her to the rest of your family. And things like "he has a system" or "a way to always win" will just make you sound like every other delusional person with a gambling problem.

An average payout of 1000x. That would depend on how its distributed. If you take a video poker machine and add 1000x to the pay table between all the pays in equal units you would not go bankrupt. If fact you would have to try very hard to lose even then redrawing each hand my be enough.

As far as how to explain AP to my family I have that covered. Since I have been doing it solely since the early 90's. and explained it long ago. I was just using that as an example. No one in my family or any of my friends think I'm delusional or have a gambling problem.

Most people can understand if you give them a coin flipping example while using a match play, or give them a roulette example where you make money by betting both red and black and covering green with a few match plays. If that don't work, just say you play poker, they understand poker players make money because they seen it on TV.

Quote: Nareed

I'm not going to join a flame war over something so trivial.

Nah, you'll just start a wild fire and watch it burn.

Quote: AxelWolf

An average payout of 1000x. That would depend on how its distributed. If you take a video poker machine and add 1000x to the pay table between all the pays in equal units you would not go bankrupt. If fact you would have to try very hard to lose even then redrawing each hand my be enough.

As far as how to explain AP to my family I have that covered. Since I have been doing it solely since the early 90's. and explained it long ago. I was just using that as an example. No one in my family or any of my friends think I'm delusional or have a gambling problem.

Most people can understand if you give them a coin flipping example while using a match play, or give them a roulette example where you make money by betting both red and black and covering green with a few match plays. If that don't work, just say you play poker, they understand poker players make money because they seen it on TV.

I meant more a game that pays 1E12 units when you win(assuming betting 1 unit/play), but the hit frequency is 1E9.

Just having an edge is not good enough even if the math shows a huge edge. If I had a $50,000 bankroll and Bill Gates offered to flip coins with me and payed me 2 to 1 when I won, but I only had to pay even money when I lost, I would have a huge edge by the math. But if his caveat was we only flipped once and I had to bet my entire bankroll, then I would turn his proposition down.

If I won I would triple my bankroll and this could possibly lead to me making much more money because of the extra utility of the $100,000. But if I lost I wouldn't just lose $50,000. I would lose my ability to make a living with the $50,000. Starting over in gambling is a SOB. It's unacceptable risk to me. So it's a bet I just wouldn't accept unless I had an easy way to replace the money.

I'll define gambling to be there are both positive and negative outcomes.. maybe you could say if over 99.9999% of the outcomes are positive for all intensive purposes it's not gambling.

so yeah AP is gambling most of the time, it is fairly rare for a single player to play long enough that they would get a comfortable enough threshold to call it not gambling, but what that threshold is would be subjective to the player.

or maybe you come up with something that hasn't been done before and get to that threshold easily.

Quote: chrisr

for all intensive purposes

i stand corrected, good job.

Quote: chrisr

I'll define gambling to be there are both positive and negative outcomes.. maybe you could say if over 99.9999% of the outcomes are positive for all intensive purposes it's not gambling.

so yeah AP is gambling most of the time, it is fairly rare for a single player to play long enough that they would get a comfortable enough threshold to call it not gambling, but what that threshold is would be subjective to the player.

or maybe you come up with something that hasn't been done before and get to that threshold easily.

I recently played, and had someone play for me, something I could not lose on, no matter what happen(unless the casino didn't pay me) no matter what the play/roll/spin/hand was each time I bet, I made money in multiple ways(i have witnesses) I still considered it gambling because I was playing a casino game meant for gambling. Its reported to the IRS under gambling, therefor its gambling.

My definition of gambling vs non- gambling - the degree to which a person can bust out a bank roll over an extended period of time.

A casino rarely if ever gambles. They have coffers of hundred millions to billions of dollars, and every single player (even the most effective APs at the highest limits) could not hope to clean out a casino even in the most unlikeliest of negative standard deviation runs for the casino. The casino has way, way too many negative EV games and too many hugely negative EV players for that ever to happen.

If some whale (or whale AP in don Johnson's case) hits a massive hot streak, the casinos will always back him off...or in the case of Phil Ivey sue him for the winnings. I guess you could say casinos gamble in the fact they can bust out because of taxes and expenses eating up their insane +EV from the cattle...but that rarely happens. The massive amount of insanely risk adverse games (for the casinos) being plugged away at by the populace makes this hard.

Every player in the casino - even the most highly effective +EV APs - is exponentially closer to what you'd describe as a "gambler" compared to the casino.

Quote: AxelWolf

I recently played, and had someone play for me, something I could not lose on, no matter what happen(unless the casino didn't pay me) no matter what the play/roll/spin/hand was each time I bet, I made money in multiple ways(i have witnesses) I still considered it gambling because I was playing a casino game meant for gambling. Its reported to the IRS under gambling, therefor its gambling.

Surely this example can't be classified as gambling, regardless of how it's reported to the IRS? Assuming, as you mention, no problems with the casino paying you, there is zero risk involved for you in this scenario.

Quote: Nareed

I'm sure that's a contradiction in terms.

Quote:

In other words, I gamble at an advantage so I can gamble at all otherwise, I would probably almost never gamble.

If you play with an advantage then you're not gambling at all.

Is AP not gambling? Is anyone who steps into a casino who doesn't grab their ankles and prostrate themselves before the casino not a "gambler"? I'm sure we'll figure out the answers to these questions one day.

The casino and the AP are both gamblers...we can both come out of hours of play a loser.

Anybody who plays the game lawfully is a gambler. Anyone who cheats is a cheater (and a felon).

Quote: Swanson234

Is AP not gambling? Is anyone who steps into a casino who doesn't grab their ankles and prostrate themselves before the casino not a "gambler"? I'm sure we'll figure out the answers to these questions one day.

The casino and the AP are both gamblers...we can both come out of hours of play a loser.

Anybody who plays the game lawfully is a gambler. Anyone who cheats is a cheater.

Anybody who thinks that you aren't gambling if you have an edge either doesn't understand gambling, or doesn't understand AP, or (likely) both.

Worst is the players who think that they are not "really gambling" because they are playing with an edge. These people tend to not really understand what they are doing and are not that successful. These are the people who get mad when they get sucked out on in poker, because they think that they are not gambling so stuff like that shouldn't happen. The fact is that it should happen sometimes, exactly because they are gambling.

Reminds me of the "would you be mad" thread. Of course I wouldn't be mad, because that is just part of gambling. Maybe if I didn't understand that I was gambling, then I would be mad.

Casinos can back off and trespass. APs can use their brains. Everyone is adequately equipped.

Funny it's not gambling but I doubt a bank would loan money just from the description of the advantage. It's a sure thing Jamie Diamon!

Quote: chrisr

I'll define gambling to be there are both positive and negative outcomes.. maybe you could say if over 99.9999% of the outcomes are positive for all intensive purposes it's not gambling.

so yeah AP is gambling most of the time, it is fairly rare for a single player to play long enough that they would get a comfortable enough threshold to call it not gambling, but what that threshold is would be subjective to the player.

or maybe you come up with something that hasn't been done before and get to that threshold easily.

Yes, imagine a single AP with 5% against the bank. It takes long to be comfortable.
And, conditions might change to vanish the edge for some time.
Bank´s 2.7% to 5% edge is against thousend of players.