Proposed Rule Change -- Respect the Ten Commandments of Gambling
Poll
 | 18 votes (25.71%) | ||
| | 4 votes (5.71%) | ||
| | 40 votes (57.14%) | ||
| | 2 votes (2.85%) | ||
| | 6 votes (8.57%) |
70 members have voted
Quote: WizardI was referring to recreational gamblers with commandment number 3.
I would suggest that "Be prepared to lose" is a more apt commandment, applicable to all. For the most part, they're all negative expectation games.
Quote: VCUSkyhawkYour new signature is a bit disturbing Lemieux.
It's more than a bit disturbing, it is offensive.
Also a violation of rule six.
Gotta keep it PG, Lemieux.
Quote: MrVIt's more than a bit disturbing, it is offensive.
Also a violation of rule six.
Gotta keep it PG, Lemieux.
FINE. So sensitive.
Quote: AZDuffmanI'd be opposed to this as if you want to ban people for bad behavior you can just do it. Give a warning and tell them to move on. Leave room to disagree.
For example, I have disagreed with #7, "Thou Shalt Not Hedge" on here. This is simple background views as I have training in finance and locking in a gain when you can, and protecting your position. I wouldn't be a child about it, but I really don't want yet another thing to worry about in offending a rule.
Quote: kewljSomeone mentioned number 3, 'expect to lose'. I too would like some clarification on that Wiz. AP's don't expect to lose. Despite, that I am currently a hair in the red for the year (not to be confused with a red hair), I do not expect to lose. Not in the long run. Not in the short run. Not when I sit down at the table tomorrow. I may lose in the short run, but I am not expecting to. If I am going in, even to a session, EXPECTING to lose, I'd be better off just staying home.
So some clarification please Mr Wiz. Either I don't understand what you are trying to say. Or maybe, you are saying AP's aren't welcome? (I don't think that is the case)
AZ: aren't you talking about Arbitrage? that is quite a different thing
kewlj: the way #3 is written addresses recreational gamblers, as Michael explains, but slightly different wording would apply to APs. Your recent posting has confirmed strongly that all gamblers need to adjust emotionally ... "expect" shall we say ... to losing at times for the short run [APs] ... the long run [recreational negative expectation]
Quote: Lemieux66I already mentioned that was a friend of mine. It's also none of your business.
Wrong once again Lemieux, you made it every member's business when you opened the original thread, solicited comments, and responded to them.
Quote: MidwestAPWrong once again Lemieux, you made it every member's business when you opened the original thread, solicited comments, and responded to them.
I was never wrong to begin with, BUT I meant none of his business because it's not Drmarios place to suggest banning. Especially when these new rules are after the fact, and it's not even involving another forum member.
Quote: odiousgambitAZ: aren't you talking about Arbitrage? that is quite a different thing
No, I am talking protective puts or calls mostly. Or short sell and sell naked puts then buy long calls in a greater number. Arbitrage would be a different specialty and next to impossible anymore.
Perhaps you have forgotten about online sports books.Quote: AZDuffmandifferent specialty and next to impossible anymore.
Quote: Lemieux66I was never wrong to begin with, BUT I meant none of his business because it's not Drmarios place to suggest banning. Especially when these new rules are after the fact, and it's not even involving another forum member.
OK, so let's presume that's what you meant, how is it not Drmarios business when the Wizard asked this question to open this thread?
Quote: Wizardhow do you feel about adding this rule?
Since one of the threads that triggered this proposed new rule was your sorry ass attempt to defend bet welching, it's absolutely any member's place to comment on the proposed rule as it relates to you.
Quote: Lemieux66it's not even involving another forum member.
Quote: Community Statistics 4 August, 2014
Total Members: 8,182
Total Active Members: 4,872
That statement could easily be inaccurate.
Quote: AxelWolfPerhaps you have forgotten about online sports books.
Was thinking more along the lines of financial markets. I know you can get a good arbitrage if you work at it online, just need to be watching lines all day and have fast fingers.
I oppose the rule only because, do we really need another rule?
Put another way, violate the Ten Commandments, and the gods will enact their own punishment.
Violate the Ten Commandments of Gambling, and the gods of chance will enact their own punishment.
Bottom line, as long as the discussion is civil, discuss anything and any point of view.
Quote: AlanMendelsonUmmm... without noting approval or disapproval doesn't Lemieux have it backwards? Shouldn't it be ten eyes for an eye? Or is he giving a discount?
Thought I either read that wrong as well or it was a matter of "I try to be Ghandi but fall a little short."
Quote: AZDuffmanThought I either read that wrong as well or it was a matter of "I try to be Ghandi but fall a little short."
Well no, think of it like vengeance. I always put myself first ;)
But ill switch it around if it's weird.
"Zero for loss of your eye. Zero for loss of your tooth. Zero for the loss of the money you covered for me. I s**t on the guy who helped me save face and fatten my wallet."
A more apt sig.
Quote: MrV"10 eyes for an eye. 10 teeth for a tooth. 10 bucks for a buck?! Hit the bad guys where it hurts the most: the face and the wallet."
"Zero for loss of your eye. Zero for loss of your tooth. Zero for the loss of the money you covered for me. I s**t on the guy who helped me save face and fatten my wallet."
A more apt sig.
Clearly you don't know the details. It's fine, it's a huge thread.
Hell I read every post on both threads and I still don't know the details they keep changing.Quote: Lemieux66Clearly you don't know the details. It's fine, it's a huge thread.
Hell I read every post on both threads and I still don't know the details they keep changing.Quote: Lemieux66Clearly you don't know the details. It's fine, it's a huge thread.
Quote: AxelWolfHell I read every post on both threads and I still don't know the details they keep changing.
I put all the Information I currently know into the very post. Had to edit it.
Quote: MrV"10 eyes for an eye. 10 teeth for a tooth. 10 bucks for a buck?! Hit the bad guys where it hurts the most: the face and the wallet."
My favorite is still from AITF when Archie is talking to some Jewish counter-terror guy:
Archie: "Tit for tat, right Boobi?"
Guest: "Well, we call it an eye for an eye but same difference.":
Quote: Wizardwho posted hundreds of times in defense of his betting system.
Isn't basic strategy itself a 'betting system' for
BJ? Sure it is. It has rules just like a system
and tells you what to do to achieve your goal.
System, method, strategy, it's all the same thing.
Quote: IbeatyouracesBasic strategy has nothing to do with your bets.
Sure it does. Doubling down has nothing to do
with betting? Splitting has nothing to do with
betting? BS tells you when to do these things.
Quote: IbeatyouracesBS doesn't tell me how much to put up either..
Lots of systems don't tell you how much
to bet, just when and where. The amount
has nothing to do with anything. BS is a
system, plain and simple. Tells you what
to do, just like every other system.
Yawn.
Quote: IbeatyouracesSure you could call it a "'playing' system", but it still has nothing to do with betting.
How do you figure? BS tells you to split
a pair of whatever, that's a betting
decision. It tells you when to double down,
another betting decision. Of course it's
a betting system. It tells you when to
increase your chances of winning your
bet by taking a hit or staying. What do you
think a betting system does.
definition
(Betting Systems) A betting strategy or betting system is a structured approach to gambling intended to counter the inherent bias held by the house in casino and card games, by bookmakers in horseracing and sports betting, and other gambling situations.
BS fits this definition perfectly. There is nothing
more structured then perfect BS.
Quote: wudgedIts purpose is to play at the lowest HE possible.
That's reducing the HE, which is the intent of
a system. Any systems purpose is to make the
edge more favorable to the player.
Quote: EvenBobBS tells you to split a pair of whatever, that's a betting decision.
It tells you when to double down, another betting decision.
Those are playing decisions. Those plays happen to require additional wagers to be placed.
Basic strategy suggests player actions to be taken between placing and resolving the wager. Basic Strategy is a playing system. It does not suggest an amount to be wagered.
Compare to betting systems like d"Alembert and Martingale where they suggest the amount to be wagered, but do not suggest a player action between placement of a wager and the resolution.
Quote: DieterCompare to betting systems like d"Alembert and Martingale where they suggest the amount to be wagered, but do not suggest a player action between placement of a wager and the resolution.
There are hundreds of systems that don't
tell you how much to bet, only when to bet,
just like BS. A gambling system tells you
what to do, it has rules. BS is nothing but
rules, that's why so few play perfect BS.
You can try and wriggle and squirm all you
like, but BS is a gambling system. It's just
a system that works, so everybody thinks
it should be separated from all other systems.
Quote: EvenBobIsn't basic strategy itself a 'betting system' for BJ?
Quote: EvenBobBS is a gambling system.
You seem to be "wriggling and squirming" with your terminology.
I don't dispute that basic strategy is a gambling system.
I do dispute that it works - it does not turn a negative expectation into a positive expectation.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI suppose all this time, chess players had a system and not a strategy.
Most chess players do use a system. They
have standard moves to counter the moves
of the opponent. Chess is a combination
of system and strategy. BS is pure system,
it gives no leeway for you to use your own
strategy.
"A betting strategy or betting system is a structured approach to gambling intended to counter the inherent house edge in casino and card games, by bookmakers in horse racing and sports betting, and other gambling situations. A successful strategy should increase the odds of winning in order to produce long term profits from a pursuit which under normal circumstances will only ever result in a long term loss."
Quote: EvenBobMost chess players do use a system. They
have standard moves to counter the moves
of the opponent. Chess is a combination
of system and strategy. BS is pure system,
it gives no leeway for you to use your own
strategy.
"A betting strategy or betting system is a structured approach to gambling intended to counter the inherent house edge in casino and card games, by bookmakers in horse racing and sports betting, and other gambling situations. A successful strategy should increase the odds of winning in order to produce long term profits from a pursuit which under normal circumstances will only ever result in a long term loss."
Using your definition BS isn't a system since it is not intended to counter the inherent house edge. It does not lower the inherent house edge nor does anyone advocating it claim that it does.
Quote: TwirdmanUsing your definition BS isn't a system since it is not intended to counter the inherent house edge. It does not lower the inherent house edge nor does anyone advocating it claim that it does.
It gives the player the lowest house edge
possible, which is in effect countering it
to some extent. It's a all a word game, you
say potatoe and I potato. Some sites call
card counting a betting system. Are they
wrong?
Are you arguing over the definition of a word? Or are you arguing that continually talking about a betting system should not be cause for a suspension, or talking about BS BJ should be meet with the same consequences?Quote: EvenBobIt gives the player the lowest house edge
possible, which is in effect countering it
to some extent. It's a all a word game, you
say potatoe and I potato. Some sites call
card counting a betting system. Are they
wrong?
Quote: EvenBobIt gives the player the lowest house edge
possible, which is in effect countering it
to some extent. It's a all a word game, you
say potatoe and I potato. Some sites call
card counting a betting system. Are they
wrong?
No it is in no ways countering it. You have a baseline HE which is perfect play than mistakes increase that HE. If you argue that BS is countering the HE you have to say it is lowering it from some baseline so what are you arguing that baseline should be. Now if you want to argue card counting is a betting system that is fine and according to the definition you gave I could easily see card counting as fitting the bill since it lowers the house edge below the baseline of not considering previous cards dealt. With that we can then get into a semantics argument over whether you are using an appropriate definition and blah blah boring stuff. But BS doesn't even match the definition you gave unless you also want to introduce some other incredibly odd definitions that no one accepts.
+1Quote: TwirdmanNo it is in no ways countering it. You have a baseline HE which is perfect play than mistakes increase that HE. If you argue that BS is countering the HE you have to say it is lowering it from some baseline so what are you arguing that baseline should be. Now if you want to argue card counting is a betting system that is fine and according to the definition you gave I could easily see card counting as fitting the bill since it lowers the house edge below the baseline of not considering previous cards dealt. With that we can then get into a semantics argument over whether you are using an appropriate definition and blah blah boring stuff. But BS doesn't even match the definition you gave unless you also want to introduce some other incredibly odd definitions that no one accepts.
Quote: EvenBobSome sites call card counting a betting system.
Are they wrong?
Yes.
Card counting is a manner of observing the changes in house edge as cards are played from the deck. Card counting by itself is not a system, but it is a tool used by other systems.
Various advantage play systems base decisions - like increasing the wager and deviating from otherwise correct basic strategy - based on the information derived from card counting.
Calling card counting a betting system is on par with calling a right hook "boxing".
Quote: TwirdmanBut BS doesn't even match the definition you gave
Of course it does. It tells you WHEN to bet. It's
tells you WHAT to do. That's what a system does.
What do you think a system is?
Noun 1. Gambling System - a system of rules for placing bets that is believed to lead to winning
BS is nothing but rules, for placing bets, and
rules to give you the best chance of winning.
It's a perfect example of a system.
It's all about semantics. A method, a system,
a strategy, are all words that have about the
same meaning. The system pooh-pooher's
don't want BS called a system because it puts
it in with all other systems. It should be called
Basic Strategy System, that's what it is.
Isn't card counting a system? It tells you when
to bet and is referred to everywhere as a betting
system. Or is that a strategy too, for the system
pooh-pooher's.
