WHY do people gamble anyway?
Poll
 | 13 votes (50%) | ||
| | 8 votes (30.76%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 1 vote (3.84%) | ||
| | 4 votes (15.38%) |
26 members have voted
It's interesting. I watched Theroux's Gambling in Las Vegas again last night. Granted, that millionaire mattress maker Allan (and Dr. Martha - the slots player who had dumped 4 million over the previous 7 years), were depicted as degenerate gamblers, but something Allan said made a lot of sense - that the CHANCE of winning is what brings people back to Vegas over and over. I mean the Allan guy was a multi multi millionaire obviously, but he kept coming back to play (and lose) again and again.
Allan even said, "I think in a lifetime - everyone's a loser" and then added, "But the thrill of being able to win today, lose next month, win the year after, I think it's the challenge, I think it's the thrill, I think it's the entertainment in the city."
Now, I couldn't relate to the "thrill of losing" as it were - if I lost year after year or trip after trip I'd have quit long ago, but for some people, including successful people, the thrill of gaming brings them back regardless of the outcome.
And I have in fact seen many high rollers like that in Vegas over the years - who dump millions and then come back, just weeks later, to do the same again, without blinking an eye.
By the way, it's mostly self employed or self made people who tend to like to gamble more than salaried, at least according to some of my hosts, and at least with regards to mainline, high rolling. Many of these high net worth people tend to be risk takers, and don't mind, or maybe even thrive on more of the same - taking risks - in casinos. I put myself in that category of a successful risk taker who doesn't mind taking a chance in life, including in the stock market, in crypto currency, or in a casino, where let's face it, AP play or not, nothing is guaranteed. At a minimum, even the best AP play might someday be cut off, and therein as well, lies the risk regardless of any advantage.
Gambling - is all about risk.
Quote: Mission146Why is the thread not being hidden so important to you? You have one verified session win and whatever else constituted part of the agreed-upon terms of the, "Challenge." You claim that you're up...what...has to be over a half million or million, for the year, playing Baccarat. Isn't the money enough? I don't really understand why the thread appearing in Recent Threads should be of any great concern when you have a metric ton of money. To be playing at these stakes, you'd report your worth as what...multiple millions? Over ten million? I don't know. Just seems like a really unusual thing to care about.
link to original post
I'll tell you where I'd be if I had several million dollars. Actually, I can't say where I'd be, but I know where I wouldn't be---and that's here.
I think I've said it before, if there was someone following me around offering me 90% of EV on all of the plays that I find, then they could have the plays and I would just take the guaranteed 90% with 0 Variance, at least, for plays that have a quantifiable value. For known advantage plays where the value is more difficult to strictly quantify (such as variable-state slots) I guess we'd just have to decide how much I would take to give them the play.
I'm a rare breed, though. I'm one of the more risk-averse gamblers you're likely to meet.
Even looking at online casino promotions, the first question I ask myself is usually, "Okay, is there an all but guaranteed way to play this that nets some sort of profit." At that point, I compare it to the EV of other potential ways to play it and make a decision.
When I started playing, individual hands would thrill me. Getting a blackjack on a hand I'd just bumped my bet on was better than trick drill. That gave way to figuring how to get over on the casinos. Soon, I had a nice route where I'd pick up free play and some BJ coupons and make a few hundred over two days. Then I got sick and was unable to go collect my route money for a month or so and I realized it didn't make a difference one way or the other. Didn't need the money and wasn't having a particularly good time getting it. When I asked myself why did I gamble, there was no clear answer. Boredom, because it's there, because if I play for a few hours, I get a free meal, ect,ect.
you seem to know a lot about gambling, MD, and you enjoy it and are interested in it. there may be opportunities for this on the web or youtube? there are so many facets to the gambling scene that people would find interesting.Quote: MDawg
By the way, it's mostly self employed or self made people who tend to like to gamble more than salaried, at least according to some of my hosts, and at least with regards to mainline, high rolling. Many of these high net worth people tend to be risk takers, and don't mind, or maybe even thrive on more of the same - taking risks - in casinos. I put myself in that category of a successful risk taker who doesn't mind taking a chance in life, including in the stock market, in crypto currency, or in a casino, where let's face it, AP play or not, nothing is guaranteed. At a minimum, even the best AP play might someday be cut off, and therein as well, lies the risk regardless of any advantage.
Gambling - is all about risk.
i chose number 2 - i gamble to win. so i don't really gamble. i've made it no secret that i'm trying to figure out a way to win. but if i start losing, well i'm not gonna hang around.
Winning at a game where you're supposed to lose does that for some.
this is hilarious😊. are you a comedian, hm?Quote: heatmapi like knowing my money is going to be used for something other than gambling im just an irresponsible person in general and if i had money bad things would happen so i just give it to the casinos
link to original post
Not just the usual way people say that their bankroll could easily be an entertainment budget, but it just fascinates and entertains me to watch other gamblers with their odd habits and superstitions. Plus there’s the social aspect.
It makes me wonder why people play slots, mindlessly, for hours on end.
But I also gamble to exercise the brain muscle. It’s a thinking game if you play right.
Quote: Wellbushthis is hilarious😊. are you a comedian, hm?link to original postQuote: heatmapi like knowing my money is going to be used for something other than gambling im just an irresponsible person in general and if i had money bad things would happen so i just give it to the casinos
link to original post
comedy, like art is subjectively interpreted, as well as the statement "if you do what you love youll never work a day in your life", and when a serial killer is doing the thing that they love are they working?
Quote: Dieter
Winning at a game where you're supposed to lose does that for some.
Name a casino game where you're not supposed to lose. Casinos only offer games they know they're going to win at. When my wife wins $400 in the slots after a session she feels like she beat the casino. She feels like a winner. She totally does not want to discuss the fact that she's down $2,200 for the year. All she did was managed to win $400 of her money back. Big deal. I have learned over the years just to let her feel good and not bring this up because it is the kiss of death.
No, I gamble for entertainment, and more particularly for the stimulation I get.
Every time I make a bet and put money at risk I have simultaneous mini-jolts of greed and fear.
The juxtaposition of the two fascinates me: hello, strange bedfellows.
Quote: MrVI don't gamble for money because I frankly don't need it.
link to original post
No, I gamble for entertainment, and more particularly for the stimulation I get.
Every time I make a bet and put money at risk I have simultaneous mini-jolts of greed and fear.
The juxtaposition of the two fascinates me: hello, strange bedfellows.
im just disgusted as to how accurate this is about myself
As much of an entrepreneur, for example, Bill Gates is - he is not interested in gambling. I watched him play once - red five dollar chips only, and I understand he gave up even that. On other hand, Larry Flynt was a huge gambler, which also makes sense, in that he couldn't derive pleasure from women, being a paralyzed invalid, and he had more than enough money to derive excitement from gaming.
Professional athletes too, tend to be big risk takers, and big gamblers.
Billionaires - I'd day that the gambling streak is probably more prevalent in non-American billionaires, possibly because American billionaires are CEOs of public companies and have an image to uphold.
But in general, anyone who isn't risk averse likes to gamble.
And even those who think that they might be risk averse, might actually have quite the gambler in them. In Theroux's documentary, Dr. Martha, the day in day out slots fiend, points out to staid Louis Theroux that he might be a "gambler" because he doesn't stop right away when he gets ahead on a slots spin. A rather dramatic and perhaps unwarranted conclusion, but Theroux does seem to exhibit the gambling bug on his last night of the documentary, when he wagers some pretty big money, and wins a few grand at Baccarat. He even downs a "sharpener" (Vodka screwdriver) before hitting the casino, playing the role of the gambler to the hilt, and wagers his own money at the tables.
Gambling comes down to getting something for nothing. True, there is not much worse than dumping a huge sum of money and getting comp'ed against it, makes one feel silly about the meager ratio of loss to free complimentaries, but there is also not much better than winning big and getting comp'ed to the hilt, makes one feel like King of the Hill.
Unless you've been there, it's hard to put a price on an extravagant comp'ed meal for you and all your friends or family the night of a huge casino victory. It's also hard to put a price on a narrow table game winning hand at table limit or beyond.
I'd actually venture to guess that there are some people on this forum who have experienced exactly what I am describing, or close.
Quote: EvenBobName a casino game where you're not supposed to lose.
link to original post
Poker.
Proof is in the pudding and there is a whole lot of 'pudding cash' in my pockets and accounts because of MDawg.
Quote: gordonm888
Poker.]
You are supposed to win at poker? Why at the end of the year then are over 90% of poker players in the hole
Quote: EvenBobName a casino game where you're not supposed to lose.
You've hit the nail straight on.
People are trying to derive satisfaction and validation through "beating the odds".
Quote: MDawgIt comes down to risk taking, and the satisfaction one derives from that.
link to original post
As much of an entrepreneur, for example, Bill Gates is - he is not interested in gambling. I watched him play once - red five dollar chips only, and I understand he gave up even that. On other hand, Larry Flynt was a huge gambler, which also makes sense, in that he couldn't derive pleasure from women, being a paralyzed invalid, and he had more than enough money to derive excitement from gaming.
Professional athletes too, tend to be big risk takers, and big gamblers.
Billionaires - I'd day that the gambling streak is probably more prevalent in non-American billionaires, possibly because American billionaires are CEOs of public companies and have an image to uphold.
But in general, anyone who isn't risk averse likes to gamble.
And even those who think that they might be risk averse, might actually have quite the gambler in them. In Theroux's documentary, Dr. Martha, the day in day out slots fiend, points out to staid Louis Theroux that he might be a "gambler" because he doesn't stop right away when he gets ahead on a slots spin. A rather dramatic and perhaps unwarranted conclusion, but Theroux does seem to exhibit the gambling bug on his last night of the documentary, when he wagers some pretty big money, and wins a few grand at Baccarat. He even downs a "sharpener" (Vodka screwdriver) before hitting the casino, playing the role of the gambler to the hilt, and wagers his own money at the tables.
Gambling comes down to getting something for nothing. True, there is not much worse than dumping a huge sum of money and getting comp'ed against it, makes one feel silly about the meager ratio of loss to free complimentaries, but there is also not much better than winning big and getting comp'ed to the hilt, makes one feel like King of the Hill.
Unless you've been there, it's hard to put a price on an extravagant comp'ed meal for you and all your friends or family the night of a huge casino victory. It's also hard to put a price on a narrow table game winning hand at table limit or beyond.
I'd actually venture to guess that there are some people on this forum who have experienced exactly what I am describing, or close.
You either get something for nothing or give something for nothing. Either way, something for nothing is always involved.
Quote: EvenBobYou are supposed to win at poker? Why at the end of the year then are over 90% of poker players in the hole
link to original post
EvenBob makes an excellent point. Aside from a few weird outliers (Fee/Ante Blackjack) poker is the one game where the casino takes some amount of all monies bet regardless of the result.
“A dollar won is twice as sweet as a dollar earned.”- Paul Newman (The Hustler)
Quote: DJTeddybearI gamble for entertainment.
Not just the usual way people say that their bankroll could easily be an entertainment budget, but it just fascinates and entertains me to watch other gamblers with their odd habits and superstitions. Plus there’s the social aspect.
It makes me wonder why people play slots, mindlessly, for hours on end.
But I also gamble to exercise the brain muscle. It’s a thinking game if you play right.
Quote: Dieterlink to original post
People are trying to derive satisfaction and validation through "beating the odds".
I'm a recreational player.
It's the anticipation. The dice are shaking. The cards are dealt, but not revealed. The wheel is spinning. The reels are in motion.
What's going to happen next?
DJTeddybear, that's why people play the slots. Each push of the button is a little shot of "I might be a winner!" Sit at a high limit WoF with enough money for 10 spins. Each push is one HUGE shot of "This might be the one!" And when that SPIN symbol hits, and the fake crowd shouts "WHEEL. OF. FORTUNE!", well, it doesn't matter what you get, you're spinning that sucker again, even after the hand pay.
Parimutuel racing is another example where the house always wins.Quote: Mission146Aside from a few weird outliers (Fee/Ante Blackjack) poker is the one game where the casino takes some amount of all monies bet regardless of the result.
link to original post
A poker tourney with a guarantee that fails to meet its minimum is the reverse - the house losing regardless of the final outcome.
But that Paul Newman quote does say it all.
A dollar won IS twice as sweet …
Some people prefer table games, where the anticipation is built up as the bet is placed and the dice are rolled, the cards are dealt, the wheel is spun - and then the tension is released as the outcome of the roll, hand, or spin is revealed. There is an ebb and flow of tension and release which table game players enjoy.
Slots enthusiasts do not play for a rise and fall in tension, rather - just keep hitting that button / (formerly, pulling that lever) until they zone out - achieve a comfortably numb high. A true slots addict doesn't even get that excited when he hits a jackpot, it just becomes part of the continued high that he experiences throughout the session. An example would be Allan, the gambling addict from Theroux's documentary - he hits a $5000. jackpot and just makes a face at Theroux, mentions that he just won five thousand dollars, and goes on with his play.
There are some that derive pleasure from both slots and table games (Allan would be one example), but for the most part, depending on how your brain is wired, you are going to gravitate towards one or the other.
One example is that the reels might slow down and make a big production out of trying to hit a third, "Free Games," symbol if you have already hit two of them. Slots will also make a big production (which is annoying, to me) out of trying to hit other things, such as the, 'Link,' type games where you need a certain number of reel spots with the symbols containing credit amounts or progressives.
These things annoy me, of course, because I am generally only playing if I perceive myself as being expected to profit. Therefore, I would prefer that it just spin as fast as it possibly could...but some of them do these stupid little gimmick things.
If what you are proposing was 100% true, then they would never have moved on from single-line games and concepts such as, "Free Games," wouldn't have been created in the first place. There'd never be a reason to break up the button pressing at all.
Quote: FatGeezus
“A dollar won is twice as sweet as a dollar earned.”- Paul Newman (The Hustler)
I don't know how sweet it is, but a dollar won is twice as easy as a dollar earned. It's not as valuable in my head though. Easy come easy go definitely applies to gambling winnings for most people. Money is only worth, to you, as much work as you put into getting it. That's why my wife can win $300 on a slot machine and sit there and play till it's all gone. It's not real to her, she did nothing to get it.
Quote: TDVegasUnless you are a poker sharp or have somehow been able to count cards for blackjack under the radar…everyone gambles for entertainment. They may not want to admit that, but that’s simply ego. No one wants to be thought of as one of the schnooks in the casino…even though they are.
link to original post
What? Are you saying that there are only two forms of advantage play? Poker or card counting blackjack?
Quote: Mission146Quote: TDVegasUnless you are a poker sharp or have somehow been able to count cards for blackjack under the radar…everyone gambles for entertainment. They may not want to admit that, but that’s simply ego. No one wants to be thought of as one of the schnooks in the casino…even though they are.
link to original post
What? Are you saying that there are only two forms of advantage play? Poker or card counting blackjack?link to original post
Generally speaking, yes.
Quote: DJTeddyBearParimutuel racing is another example where the house always wins.Quote: Mission146Aside from a few weird outliers (Fee/Ante Blackjack) poker is the one game where the casino takes some amount of all monies bet regardless of the result.
link to original post
A poker tourney with a guarantee that fails to meet its minimum is the reverse - the house losing regardless of the final outcome.
But that Paul Newman quote does say it all.
A dollar won IS twice as sweet …link to original post
I guess it depends on what you call winning. Yonkers had pari-mutual betting for years but couldn't cover its weekly nut. Only after it got permission to operate a racino was it profitable
Quote: TDVegasQuote: Mission146Quote: TDVegasUnless you are a poker sharp or have somehow been able to count cards for blackjack under the radar…everyone gambles for entertainment. They may not want to admit that, but that’s simply ego. No one wants to be thought of as one of the schnooks in the casino…even though they are.
link to original post
What? Are you saying that there are only two forms of advantage play? Poker or card counting blackjack?link to original post
Generally speaking, yes.link to original post
Extremely generally speaking.
"Dopamine is a type of neurotransmitter. Your body makes it, and your nervous system uses it to send messages between nerve cells. That's why it's sometimes called a chemical messenger. Dopamine plays a role in how we feel pleasure
Often the most common releases of dopamine come from food and sex, which are evolutionary mechanisms that keep the species going by inspiring our desire to eat and to procreate
But dopamine also comes from other activities, gambling being one of them
The dopamine high works in that it is released when something pleasurable happens unexpectedly. This can be a caused by some intense sex or winning at a casino game
The degree of excitement to winning at the roulette wheel and in a game of craps might release the necessary dopamine and endorphin to beat the best sex you’ve ever had
One of the risks of the dopamine high, is that you keep looking for the next thrill, hence why thrill seekers are looking for the next extreme experience to satisfy their addiction"
this quote, I believe, applies most directly to compulsive gamblers
but I believe it also can apply to gamblers who are not ruining their lives gambling but have managed to control their thrill seeking
many, I believe, are not primarily motivated by winning money, but are motivated by getting a chance to get a thrill
winning money can be thrilling because whether we win or lose is so closely tied in to our egos and our self esteem
for many very experienced gamblers - and likely for APs - this does not apply
but APs are humans too - if they experience a very large win - an outlier - it likely applies to them too
and it applies to me
I gamble but there's no way I'm going make bets large enough to have a dramatic impact on my financials - whaling is not for me
but when I do win I get enjoyment - probably not a large amount of dopamine is released, but some is, I would presume
.
Quote: Mission146My one goal in a casino is to win. I also enjoy figuring out the different potential advantages that might be had as well as the conditions for playing certain things. In my opinion, figuring it all out is more fun than the actual playing.
I concur 100%. Playing is not fun, solving is fun when you have solved for an advantage.
Quote: billryanQuote: DJTeddyBearParimutuel racing is another example where the house always wins.Quote: Mission146Aside from a few weird outliers (Fee/Ante Blackjack) poker is the one game where the casino takes some amount of all monies bet regardless of the result.
link to original post
A poker tourney with a guarantee that fails to meet its minimum is the reverse - the house losing regardless of the final outcome.
But that Paul Newman quote does say it all.
A dollar won IS twice as sweet …link to original post
I guess it depends on what you call winning. Yonkers had pari-mutual betting for years but couldn't cover its weekly nut. Only after it got permission to operate a racino was it profitablelink to original post
The think the losses were only on paper. Yonkers survived since 1899. An example of accounting Magic goes like this. MGM CASINOS. buys Yonkers fot $850 million fron the Rooney family in 2019. Then they sold it to REIT MGM growth properties fot $625 million. An immediate paper loss $225 million. Oh
Then MGM leased property back for $50 million a year.
I remember when The Maryland Racing commision forced Pimlico to spend $12 million from breakage that Pimlico was pocketing the interest from instead of using that money for track improvements. So Pimlico bought 6 houses on Rogers Ave and tore them down for a parking lot to charge race goers to park then at $10 per car.
Quote: DJTeddyBearParimutuel racing is another example where the house always wins.
not quite always
if there is a monster horse and enough is bet on him it can create a minus pool
this is because the track is required by its regulations to pay out a minimum 5% profit (in WVA it's 10%) on any bet
if they didn't have this requirement the bettor could win his bet but still lose money
because of this, in some few races, at least in the show or place pools, the track literally gets creamed
but I wouldn't recommend having any sympathy for racetracks and their Execs and investors
in the scheme of things, the above is a tiny thing
.
Quote: FastEddieQuote: billryanQuote: DJTeddyBearParimutuel racing is another example where the house always wins.Quote: Mission146Aside from a few weird outliers (Fee/Ante Blackjack) poker is the one game where the casino takes some amount of all monies bet regardless of the result.
link to original post
A poker tourney with a guarantee that fails to meet its minimum is the reverse - the house losing regardless of the final outcome.
But that Paul Newman quote does say it all.
A dollar won IS twice as sweet …link to original post
I guess it depends on what you call winning. Yonkers had pari-mutual betting for years but couldn't cover its weekly nut. Only after it got permission to operate a racino was it profitablelink to original post
The think the losses were only on paper. Yonkers survived since 1899. An example of accounting Magic goes like this. MGM CASINOS. buys Yonkers fot $850 million fron the Rooney family in 2019. Then they sold it to REIT MGM growth properties fot $625 million. An immediate paper loss $225 million. Oh
Then MGM leased property back for $50 million a year.
I remember when The Maryland Racing commision forced Pimlico to spend $12 million from breakage that Pimlico was pocketing the interest from instead of using that money for track improvements. So Pimlico bought 6 houses on Rogers Ave and tore them down for a parking lot to charge race goers to park then at $10 per car.link to original post
Yonkers was closed for several years. It came very close to being sold to developers for housing but the community was against it and the Rooneys didn't need the money. They would have preferred opening the casino without resuming racing, as I was told. Roosevelt Raceway and Parr Meadows are two local tracks that went belly up.
Yeah, I was talking about the initial win. I’m well aware that many racetracks are struggling with the bottom line.Quote: billryanI guess it depends on what you call winning. Yonkers had pari-mutual betting for years but couldn't cover its weekly nut. Only after it got permission to operate a racino was it profitable
link to original post
Taxes on casinos with them. Because Horse Racing must be protected at all times. Until the property the race track sets on becomes too valuable. Or use the track to become a racino then close the tack track. A sweet con indeed ! !!
The City got tired of subsidizing betting parlors while schools were using gyms and restrooms for classes.
extreme example but often even waiting till last minute. 2 to 1 shot will pay $3.60 or less
monmouth was supposed to have fixed odds when legislation passed but it never happened
You can play craps all weekend at $25 plus 3/4/5 odds and have an average loss of only $50. This comes with a a standard deviation of $3000, which is what makes it fun
Where else can you get a weekend of entertainment for $50 (drinks included, and possibly meals too)
Quote: Ace2One good reason to gamble is value
link to original post
You can play craps all weekend at $25 plus 3/4/5 odds and have an average loss of only $50. This comes with a a standard deviation of $3000, which is what makes it fun
Where else can you get a weekend of entertainment for $50 (drinks included, and possibly meals too)
If I’m on the right side of the bell curve, nowhere.
If I’m 0.2 SD or more on the left side of the bell curve, just about anywhere.
Can’t look at it that way. The variance will net out and a weekend will cost you $50 on average. If it cost exactly $50 every weekend then it wouldn’t be any funQuote: Mission146Quote: Ace2One good reason to gamble is value
link to original post
You can play craps all weekend at $25 plus 3/4/5 odds and have an average loss of only $50. This comes with a a standard deviation of $3000, which is what makes it fun
Where else can you get a weekend of entertainment for $50 (drinks included, and possibly meals too)
If I’m on the right side of the bell curve, nowhere.
If I’m 0.2 SD or more on the left side of the bell curve, just about anywhere.link to original post
Quote: FastEddieJust wondering what anybody thinks of fixed odds betting at race tracks. Many are saying it will save horse racing. I do know I once bet a trotter at 10 To 1 a minute to post. Went off 5 to 1 with one last flash to come Paid $4.40.
extreme example but often even waiting till last minute. 2 to 1 shot will pay $3.60 or less
monmouth was supposed to have fixed odds when legislation passed but it never happened
Like I said in another thread I love a good con. Like racrtracks never giving a bettor and even break. Charging for parking and admission. Every food item and cigarettes overpriced.
I don't believe tracks will ever offer fixed odds - that would force the track itself to gamble - the sharps would crush the line they made - that was tried once by LV books - they quickly abandoned it after getting beat
even with the pandemic the racing handle for 2020 was 10.930 billion - 10.597 billion of it was bet off track - thoroughbreds only
with a handle like that racing will not disappear any time soon although it may continue to consolidate
many more harness tracks are closing than thoroughbred tracks
the vast majority of bettors are not paying anything for parking, admission or food. they're even getting the past performances for free - if they just make one $2 bet on the card - as indicated above more than 95% of betting now is done online or at simulcast facilities - no need to get beat by the track on these things anymore - if you want to watch live racing for the fun of it during the TC series or the Breeders Cup then yes, you will still get beat by the track on their charges
a great many racing bettors gripe about late money causing payouts to be much lower than what is shown on the last flash of the tote - this usually only happens on the fave - although there are exceptions as you indicated
also, it happens much less often at the largest tracks where the win pool is huge and only a gigantic bet can push the odds down by a lot
there is a very simple solution to this - don't bet faves
then if you win your payout will usually be equal to or greater than what was last shown on the tote
faves are often a bad bet anyway
overall, faves fail to win about 67% of the time
http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=8
.
Betfair was to handle the fixed odds betting at Monmouth. I am not a chalk bettor. But logical horses are often overvalued due to two factors. The obvious one is hort fields. The other is all the exotic money. Once upon a time the only exotic bet was the daily double. My dad got several speeding tickets racing to bet the first race
Now so much is bet on exotics by previous long shot players that previously helped raise the price on logical horse. I would so like to see fixed odds here. Nit just to bet against a wrong line but also for dutching opportunities between fixed odds and parimutuel. Yes favorites do lose 67 percent of time but all other lose more often . even money wins more often than 2 to 1. 2 to 1 wins more often than 3 to 1 etc. While I am ranting i remember bettors complaing about take out at 15 percent. Now majority of handle is exotics at 23 to 30 percent
Quote: Ace2Can’t look at it that way. The variance will net out and a weekend will cost you $50 on average. If it cost exactly $50 every weekend then it wouldn’t be any fun
link to original post
Wouldn't it? $50 for a weekend of drinking seems like a Hell of a deal.
Are you suggesting a craps player will average losing one bet per day?
You also didn't include tipping. Between drinks, meals, chambermaid, ect, ect, you can double your $50 figure.
Quote: FastEddieSomehow England and Australia have had fixeds odds betting. And in the vase of England since like the 12th of never
link to original post
Betfair was to handle the fixed odds betting at Monmouth. I am not a chalk bettor. But logical horses are often overvalued due to two factors. The obvious one is hort fields. The other is all the exotic money. Once upon a time the only exotic bet was the daily double. My dad got several speeding tickets racing to bet the first race
Now so much is bet on exotics by previous long shot players that previously helped raise the price on logical horse. I would so like to see fixed odds here. Nit just to bet against a wrong line but also for dutching opportunities between fixed odds and parimutuel. Yes favorites do lose 67 percent of time but all other lose more often . even money wins more often than 2 to 1. 2 to 1 wins more often than 3 to 1 etc. While I am ranting i remember bettors complaing about take out at 15 percent. Now majority of handle is exotics at 23 to 30 percent
Don't people pay to be bookies in those places, so people aren't betting against other players, they are betting against the house?
Quote: FastEddieYes favorites do lose 67 percent of time 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧. even money wins more often than 2 to 1. 2 to 1 wins more often than 3 to 1 etc. While I am ranting i remember bettors complaing about take out at 15 percent. Now majority of handle is exotics at 23 to 30 percent
Fast Eddie:
yes, you are right about what you are saying
it's a very tough game to beat
just a couple of points - "𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧" - right - except you're not going to bet "all others" - the goal should be to be very selective
I think there are a few "freaks" (very few) who make a lot of bets and do well
but for the rest of us the only hope is to be very, very selective and make few bets, but bets in which we have strong opinions
anybody who logs on and bets the whole card (and there are a ton who do that) are for the most part dreaming that they're going to be long run winners
that is IMO very close to impossible - although I think there are some computer geeks - syndicates - who are somehow doing it - not my thing and I'm no expert on that - I only know it's being done
Andrew Beyer found very selective betting too boring - so he made smallish action bets while waiting for his opportunity for what he thought was worth a whale bet
the way I understand Betfair is that the fixed odds are offered and taken by other bettors - Betfair takes a cut - Betfair can't lose - they're not offering any bets - they're just allowing others to offer them
I would expect as gambling expands Betfair will become legal in other states - it's now I believe legal in N.J.
but, if Betfair takes a big chunk out of the parimutuel handle - well, that could cause racing to disappear - real fast
.
