A recent and real incident of casino slot cheating!!!

Read this or sleep

The upshot is that the casino was being cheated at slots by some of its employees. Now, that's what I'm talking about ...

Fly me to the moon ...

--Dorothy

It'd be interesting to find out what they did to rig the machines..

Even without reading the article, I'd ask: Is that cheating? I would call it stealing and / or embezzling.

Now that I read it, it's obvious that the people involved, cheated the casino.



All the threads here about casinos cheating, refer to beliefs that the casinos rig the machines to cheat the customer. There is no evidence of that here.

This isn't relevant to anything that's been discussed elsewhere on these threads; obviously, employees steal from their employers all the time, and not just in the "gaming" industry.

I used to play at Sho-Ko-Wah back when they were a small inflatacasino. They had 10-6-4 JOB with a $1200 royal (almost 101%), and you got the 960-1 royal payoff even if you played one coin! Nothing like an Injun VP machine. Several nearby casinos at Clear Lake had 20-8 Joker, which was 102%. I beat the hell out of those games.

Hey mkl are there any more good VP machines in N California? Want to go hit up them sometime?

Yet more evidence of the dubious integrity of these places.

When I was a member of the corporate world, I used to teach classes on detecting employee theft. I used to tell managers that if they were ever going to steal money from their employer, they should steal a LOT of money, and take off. The crime is the same whether it's $10,000 or $10,000,000, so you might as well steal the $10,000,000 if you're going to do it. The problem is, employee theft usually involves small amounts of money, done repeatedly, over a large period of time. The most common example is someone who takes $20 a week or so out of a cash register, or even $20 a day. That amount of money doesn't do much good, so the person has to repeatedly do it to get any real amount of money. The problem is that, in doing something repeatedly, they set up a pattern of behavior, and, eventually, any pattern like that gets discovered. The other thing I would tell people is to never get others involved. The more people that are involved, the more chances that you have of somebody saying the wrong thing to the wrong person.

The article states that the main perpetrator was charged with embezzling $102k, over a period of 19 months. That's a little over $5k a month. It's not clear from the article if that amount was the amount stolen by all 7 people, or just for that one person. If it's for all 7, then it's like $750 a month for each person.

Setting themselves up to do things repeatedly and establishing a pattern is what got them caught. But, more than likely, after the first time, they got sucked in to the "easiness" of committing the crime, and kept going for it. Why or how the additional people got involved isn't known, but that was a mistake as well.

Quote: konceptum

... employee theft usually involves small amounts of money, done repeatedly, over a large period of time. The most common example is someone who takes $20 a week or so out of a cash register, or even $20 a day...

I've noticed that people of different classes, measured by the kind of wealth they are used to, are tempted by different amounts of money. That's obvious, but often overlooked when making derogatory judgments about lower classes. A guy from a poor background might foolishly steal $100, it looks like a lot of money to him. The Madoffs of this world have the same corrupt instincts, but are only tempted when it involves millions. And they are the ones in position to really hurt people.

Alot of clever stuff goes on in these small casinos with no histories and few people who know what is going on. Those Indians are often getting ripped off by other tribal members with many of the tribes really being clubs run by a few with crumbs given out to the many. I think it may have been in the Carolinas somepleace but a politician was paid off thru slot machine jackpots which probably means some rigging had to be going on.

$102,000 over 3 years? How much did that affect their daily lives? Maybe they were working under the radar, paying out jackpots of less than $1,200. Maybe they knew that some jackpots would not require management sign-offs. "Manipulating jackpot slot machines to cheat the casino" was the crime.

But I agree with Konceptum. If you are going to embezzle or steal, do it big, do it once, and get out of town. Otherwise, you will get caught. And if you do get caught, you should have enough money to take off to a country or place where the feds can't bring you back or can't find you... so you need to get yourself setup for life. In any case, the odds of you getting caught are far less when you do it once for an amount of money that's unnoticeable. If you start creating a pattern, you will very likely make a mistake and get noticed (not that I have any experience in doing this).

Much of my work is redesigning business processes and trying to prevent fraud, or at least complying to the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations (thank you, Enron). People joke with me when I am creating/designing customer checks to "make it out to them and add a few zeros". I usually tell them that if I was going to do that, I would find out the company's bank balance, write them a check for the entire amount, and then advise them to skip town.

I've been trying to work out how Casinos could possibly make a profit, on European roulette, where the margin is less than 3%.
Their overheads (gaming staff, security, cleaning, maintenance, hospitality etc) must be astronomical.
Their power costs, alone, would be enough to bail California out.

Quote: NicksGamingStuff

Hey mkl are there any more good VP machines in N California? Want to go hit up them sometime?

No decent VP any more, anywhere in NoCal. There are a few scattered $1 JOB, and I think Trash Creek has a very few decent machines (about four), not that anyone would want to make the long and tedious drive to that isolated shithole.

Quote: chook

I've been trying to work out how Casinos could possibly make a profit, on European roulette, where the margin is less than 3%.
Their overheads (gaming staff, security, cleaning, maintenance, hospitality etc) must be astronomical.
Their power costs, alone, would be enough to bail California out.

But all of the overhead you mentioned is shared with games that have much higher edges. They figure they can afford a couple of (perhaps) "loss leaders". Sure, if your casino was NOTHING but European Roulette, you might have a problem. But it's not. They also hope that some of the winnings will be spent in their restaurants, shops, hotel, etc.

I am reminded of the old sales quip: We lose a little bit on each transaction, but we make up for it with volume.

Quote: chook

I've been trying to work out how Casinos could possibly make a profit, on European roulette, where the margin is less than 3%.
Their overheads (gaming staff, security, cleaning, maintenance, hospitality etc) must be astronomical.
Their power costs, alone, would be enough to bail California out.

They can make out on true odds. That is to say that at craps, for instance, casinos do not lose big money on free odds, or they would not offer it. In addition to the built-in mathematical house advantage in all games, no matter how minuscule, the casinos have powerful advantages in bankroll and time--always being open. And then there is that powerful motivating force for more than 95 percent of the population -- blind greed (for "free money").

You're right.
I forgot to factor in greed.
There is no accounting for that.

Quote: chook

I've been trying to work out how Casinos could possibly make a profit, on European roulette, where the margin is less than 3%.
Their overheads (gaming staff, security, cleaning, maintenance, hospitality etc) must be astronomical.
Their power costs, alone, would be enough to bail California out.

The reason is, you are misinterpreting "margin". They aren't buying widgets, bagels, cars, etc. at $1 and selling them for $1.03. THAT would generate overhead, which that 3% margin would indeed be insufficient to pay. But when a casino accepts a $1 bet on roulette, it immediately hands back 97 cents to the customer, mathematically. No actual tangible good is exchanged. Therefore, the only overhead is to pay the minimum-wage dealer and to keep the lights over the table lit. Bets don't have to be physically stored, and don't have to be paid for (to be resold in advance); the casino simply waits until someone walks up and wants to sell his $1 bill for $0.97.

It's a great scam, and a terrific business to be in, and anyone who manages to run a casino into the ground is either a moron or a crook.

You're right.
They really are on a good thing if they can selectively isolate their costs the way you are suggesting.

Quote: mkl654321

It's a great scam.

A scam implies deception. Most I've spoken with (those who are not advantage players ...) who go to a casino EXPECT to lose money, viewing the loss as the cost of entertainment.

A scam implies deception. No deception here.

Quote:

anyone who manages to run a casino into the ground is either a moron or a crook.

Or happened to be in management at a casino since 2007 at the start of the great recession. There are many costs associated with running a casino, and if players aren't walking through the door, it is very tough.

And remember, casinos employ vast numbers of entry-level workers, people who could not otherwise find a job.

I like casinos. Especially ones with rainbows in them.

--Dorothy

Quote: DorothyGale

A scam implies deception. Most I've spoken with (those who are not advantage players ...) who go to a casino EXPECT to lose money, viewing the loss as the cost of entertainment.

A scam implies deception. No deception here.

Or happened to be in management at a casino since 2007 at the start of the great recession. There are many costs associated with running a casino, and if players aren't walking through the door, it is very tough.

And remember, casinos employ vast numbers of entry-level workers, people who could not otherwise find a job.

--Dorothy

The deception lies in misrepresenting the true nature of the games, advertising implying that they are offering value, and packaging the games so that the worst bets are made the most appealing. At its heart, as I've said before, casino gambling involves getting people to exchange a $100 bill for $95, and making them think that they have actually received anything in return. Whether you call selling something that is completely worthless a "scam" would depend on your point of view, I suppose, but a person involved with the casino "industry" might be biased in this regard...

As far as the Second Great Depression goes, I have observed that the reaction of Nevada casinos to the business challenges created was to raise prices, cut down on service and amenities, and reduce the quality of their product. NO OTHER MAJOR INDUSTRY HAS RESPONDED IN THIS MANNER. I have watched, incredulously, as the casinos made the gambling worse--FAR worse, in most cases--reduced the quality of their restaurants while raising the prices, and tacked on "resort fees", which if you want the purest definition of a scam, those certainly qualify--charging people extra for hotel amenities that they should reasonably expect are part of what they get for staying in the goddamn hotel in the first place. Next, they'll start putting meters on the toilets.

If I were managing ANY decent-sized casino in Vegas, I could absolutely destroy the competition, simply by offering value commensurate with what was widely offered in, say, 2004. The fact that this hasn't been done is no doubt due to collusion or coercion. You can't sell gas for $4 a gallon unless every other gas station owner in town goes along, or is murdered.

And as far as the noble casinos providing jobs to the great unwashed who would otherwise be starving in the streets--well, even taking that as 100% true, the societal cost of casinos far exceeds any additional minimum-wage jobs they provide. Hundreds of studies have shown that the net impact on communities when a casino is built near them is profoundly NEGATIVE. The only exceptions are absolute disaster areas like Atlantic City or Tunica, where a very small percentage of casino revenue is grudgingly diverted to helping the community. Even there, though, what is REALLY happening is that the surrounding communities are being heavily taxed to support the casino operators, and peripherally, the citizens of those communities.

Quote: mkl654321

At its heart, as I've said before, casino gambling involves getting people to exchange a $100 bill for $95, and making them think that they have actually received anything in return.

What I really, really hate, is giving Harrah's or MGM several hundred dollars, watching 90 minutes of a show or concert with my wife, and then not having them give me any damn money at all in return. What the hell kind of scam is that, not giving me any value at all for my money! At least the crap table usually lets me walk away with some cash.

Did someone say that entertainment has value? Where did they get an absurd notion like that and what does it have to do with craps?

Quote: Doc

What I really, really hate, is giving Harrah's or MGM several hundred dollars, watching 90 minutes of a show or concert with my wife, and then not having them give me any damn money at all in return. What the hell kind of scam is that, not giving me any value at all for my money! At least the crap table usually lets me walk away with some cash.

Did someone say that entertainment has value? Where did they get an absurd notion like that and what does it have to do with craps?

I was making a somewhat subtle point--evidently, TOO subtle.

The "entertainment" from gambling is illusory if you understand what is going on mathematically. I put a $100 bill on the roulette table, and INSTANTLY, that $100 is now $95. It's only the confusion caused by the inability of our primate brains--and the limbic system--to comprehend the equivalence of a whole buncha numbers that maybe, could possibly, come up, and the stark fact of the house edge. It "entertains" us because we have the ILLUSION that we don't know the outcome--but WE DO know the outcome: we will lose $5.

Let me put it this way--if they took the $100 from your hand, and gave you back 19 $5 bills, that would not be "entertaining". But spinning the roulette wheel in between those two events is just a smoke screen--they are still handing you back 19 $5 bills. To me, that's about as entertaining as watching a cat lick its crotch.

Of course I understand the concept of the value of entertainment. But at least when you see a show, you're getting something unique and different (though the only show I would pay "several hundred dollars" for would involve, perhaps, seeing Adam Sandler and Paris Hilton burned alive).

some people are willing to pay a few hundred thousand dollars a year for box seats to see their favorite sports team. seems like quite the "scam" when they can just watch the games on TV instead. or you can have the opinion that sports are stupid and anyone willing to pay that much money is an idiot. well people enjoy different forms of entertainment. saying that people dont get any value from something that doesnt appeal to you is ridiculous. some people enjoy gambling. you may not but others do. there are some things i couldnt bear sitting through but just because i dont enjoy it doesnt mean other people dont enjoy it either.

mkl654321

Great explanation about gambling, 99% of the players will never understand what happens when they put their money down on any bet. The only thing they are looking at is what they think they can win, and not about how they are losing. The casinos have done a good job of convincing all the players that gambling is entertainment, and evidently players don’t mind losing so much of their bank roll that they set aside for gambling when going into a casino!

The products that the casinos now sell to the players suck, but you still have suckers that will give their money to the casino, without knowing anything about the games they are playing they will never pick-up the first book about the game they are playing.

They think they are having fun, till all their money is gone, and just what did they get for it, maybe a few whistle and bells and that’s about it!

Quote: mkl654321

At its heart, as I've said before, casino gambling involves getting people to exchange a $100 bill for $95, and making them think that they have actually received anything in return.

What do you get in return when you see a movie or a concert? What do you get when you pay for a hotel so you can stay at the beach? Nothing. What about donations to a church? What's that worth. To me religion is the biggest "scam" of all -- offering salvation (or some crap) in return for your money. What about paying money so you can parachute?

It's up to each of us to place value in an experience. There is no value outside of what "we make it so." You cannot say because there is no tangible therefore there is no value.

Do you think there is value in going over the rainbow? What's that worth?

There is nothing wrong about paying $1 and getting $0.95. What you got was the experience of a wild ride, an adrenaline rush, a bit of socializing, the ability to be doing what you want to do with your money at that moment.

You evidently have the predatory "casinos are the dark side" attitude. I personally think McDonald's is far "darker" -- selling us crap they tell us is food -- the result is obesity, diabetes, malnutrition, etc. How about that dollar?

Nonsense, I say. Just nonsense.

--Dorothy

Quote: DorothyGale

What do you get in return when you see a movie or a concert? What do you get when you pay for a hotel so you can stay at the beach? Nothing. What about donations to a church? What's that worth. To me religion is the biggest "scam" of all -- offering salvation (or some crap) in return for your money. What about paying money so you can parachute?

It's up to each of us to place value in an experience. There is no value outside of what "we make it so." You cannot say because there is no tangible therefore there is no value.

Do you think there is value in going over the rainbow? What's that worth?

There is nothing wrong about paying $1 and getting $0.95. What you got was the experience of a wild ride, an adrenaline rush, a bit of socializing, the ability to be doing what you want to do with your money at that moment.

You evidently have the predatory "casinos are the dark side" attitude. I personally think McDonald's is far "darker" -- selling us crap they tell us is food -- the result is obesity, diabetes, malnutrition, etc. How about that dollar?

Nonsense, I say. Just nonsense.

--Dorothy

Your rather strident tone notwithstanding, I actually agree with you about religion and McDonald's---though when you leave a church, you haven't even gotten french fries.

Where you go off the rails is in calling my opinions "nonsense". You evidently have an extremely favorable opinion of casinos. I have an extremely unfavorable opinion of them. Both our opinions are (I assume, in your case) based on experience. Both opinions are therefore valid. Neither opinion--mine nor yours--is "nonsense".

For what it's worth, your analogies with other forms of entertainment are flawed. The "entertainment" associated with making a bet is a)illusory, in that it is EXACTLY equivalent to the pointless--and, profitable for the casino--exchange I have described earlier, and certainly, b) very brief compared to those other forms of diversion. (As far as THAT goes, I would place more value on a sports bet than a roulette bet, for that very reason.)

I highly doubt that I will ever change your opinions, nor would I care to. All I ask is that you acknowledge the validity of mine. You seem to be a person that states her views with an aura of certainty and righteousness. I therefore won't also ask you to consider the possibility that your views may be biased.

Quote: rudeboyoi

People enjoy different forms of entertainment. saying that people dont get any value from something that doesnt appeal to you is ridiculous.

As Client No. 9, former Gov. Elliott Spitzer of New York, will ruefully attest after having spent thousands of dollars and then some.

Quote: SanchoPanza

As Client No. 9, former Gov. Elliott Spitzer of New York, will ruefully attest after having spent thousands of dollars and then some.

Well, I never said that the "entertainment" value of gambling was illusory because it didn't appeal to ME (as rudeboy seems to think). In fact, I've been fooled by that illusion many a time, until I finally realized what was really happening. I think that people are reacting to my statement so strongly because they've thrown away huge sums of money gambling, and then rationalized it by telling themselves they were getting "entertainment" out of it. In reality, there's very little, if any, entertainment value in losing money. That's what causes the sick feeling as we walk out of the casino $800 poorer after a couple of hours of "entertainment".

In my opinion, there is a tangible entertainment component in placing a wager, unless you are comatose, or extremely wealthy and money is of no concern. For me, the 'entertainment' comes in the form of an adrenaline rush. I play these games of negative expectation because:
1.) There is a chance, although the odds are against it, that I can win money. No matter how many hours of craps I play, I will never play enough to constitute anything other than short term results. So while I should get back $95 on every $100 I put into play, sometimes I get back $200 and sometimes they keep it all. The result is not known at the time I put the money into play, and due to the short time frame of my play, any outcome can be expected.

2.) Each time I put money into play, I get an adrenaline rush. The expected 5% loss is my cost to get that rush. Giving you $100 and you give me back $95 does not give me any sort of adrenaline rush. Giving SkyJump $99 to jump off the Stratosphere gave me a hell of an adrenaline rush (well giving them the money didn't do much for me, but that first step got the juice flowing quite nicely!) However, playing $2000 through the craps table for 4 hours gives me the equivalent amount of adrenaline, just spread over a longer time frame. Is the $100 spent on SkyJump any different than the $100 loss experienced on craps?

So, my expected 5% give away is worth it to me to get my adrenaline fix. Nobody forces me to go to a casino. I choose to go there. While there, I get my adrenaline fix, and sometimes I even get to leave with more money than I entered with. No other form of entertainment that I enjoy gives me the option of returning home with more money than I left with.
Well, there is one form, and it is called Investing in the Stock Market. There you can get the same rush as you do in a casino. However, talk about a game where there are no rules, and lots of cheating........topic for another thread.....

Quote: mkl654321

...I think that people are reacting to my statement so strongly because they've thrown away huge sums of money gambling, and then rationalized it by telling themselves they were getting "entertainment" out of it. In reality, there's very little, if any, entertainment value in losing money.

I agree that there is very little entertainment value specifically in losing money. Maybe for somebody, but not for me.

For many of us, though, there can be a good deal of entertainment value in playing games, either the casino kind or others. I personally get quite a bit of entertainment out of playing craps. I get a fair amount out of playing blackjack. It has been years since I have played any other casino games, I think, because they no longer seem to appeal to me -- they don't offer entertainment that I feel is worth the price.

When playing craps or blackjack, I do not behave in a manner that has ever led me to have "thrown away huge sums of money gambling". Considering the games that I play, I have to assume that I have been a net loser of cash to the house over the decades since I first played, and I do consider that paying a price for the entertainment I receive.

I don't always lose while being entertained. I have reported previously around here that so far in 2010 I am ahead after 47 sessions of craps and 7 sessions of blackjack (at casinos that didn't have crap tables). And yes, I have more fun winning than losing. I have no delusions that this 2010 pattern is something that will continue indefinitely. I rather expect to be behind before the year is over. But I also expect to continue to have fun along the way.

Why would I expect a casino to pay all the costs of operating their facility and at the same time also give me an advantage or a completely even game at the tables? Not even the Pinball Hall of Fame would let me play games for free.

Quote: Doc

I agree that there is very little entertainment value specifically in losing money. Maybe for somebody, but not for me.

For many of us, though, there can be a good deal of entertainment value in playing games, either the casino kind or others. I personally get quite a bit of entertainment out of playing craps. I get a fair amount out of playing blackjack. It has been years since I have played any other casino games, I think, because they no longer seem to appeal to me -- they don't offer entertainment that I feel is worth the price.

Why would I expect a casino to pay all the costs of operating their facility and at the same time also give me an advantage or a completely even game at the tables? Not even the Pinball Hall of Fame would let me play games for free.

To each his own. I guess that I've simply learned to cut through the Gordian knot, and when I realize that the sum of all my results is ultimately going to be that I've given them $5 over and over and over, I also realize that each play--though I will NOT get that specific result in that play--is for all intents and purposes the same: I hand over $5.

When you realize that, the adrenaline drains away. The key observation that a gambler needs to make is that he bets $100: WHETHER HE WINS OR LOSES THAT $100, he has actually lost $5. The loss was incurred when he made the bet, not when the bet reached an outcome; the actual outcome was irrelevant. The moment he exchanged his $100 bill for a $100 bet on Red (or whatever), he lost $5.

Where the casino makes its money is by creating the ILLUSION that a series of wins and losses while fighting a 5% house edge is anything different than your handing them a $5 bill, over and over and over. It's like throwing up a smoke screen. By representing a certainty (they win; you lose) as an uncertainty (you MIGHT win!), they artificially create that adrenaline rush. I agree that it's entertaining for many people, but ONLY because of the casino's fundamental misrepresentation of what happens when the player makes a -EV bet. Of course, the player either has to be ignorant, or complicit in fostering that illusion. I cured myself of craps when I realized that every time I plopped down a $5 Pass Line or Come bet, I was giving the house seven cents, EVEN IF I WON (or lost) FIFTY SUCH BETS IN A ROW. Once I realized that, it was easy enough to wean myself away.

I'm curious, mkl654321. Some of your thinking seems quite different from mine. Perhaps you can help me understand better. I'll start with a couple of hypothetical/rhetorical questions.

How much cash do you expect to come out ahead playing pinball? Or PacMan? Or playing basketball at the fitness center where you pay either per entry or for a membership? What is the expected, long-term cash gain for a player at the bowling alley?

Do these places only have customers because they have created an "illusion" of entertainment for ignorant players who are perhaps complicit in fostering the illusion? Isn't it possible that people are actually getting genuine entertainment? Might that entertainment not be worth what they are paying for it?

Couldn't the same be true for some people playing games at casinos? I personally think so. On the other hand, I know there are some people leading miserable lives who throw away vast sums of money and blame the casinos for taking their money. (Dang it, I know they have to be cheating me!) Not everyone is like that.

There is a thread or perhaps two around here where someone proposed a casino pit where players must pay for admission but in which every wager is at exactly zero house edge. That would eliminate the misrepresentation and immediate loss associated with the house advantage on the wager, would it not? Do you think such a casino would be providing its players with entertainment? Perhaps like the fitness center or bowling alley?

Would such a place interest you? Would you object to paying the entry fee? If the wagers were all at zero house edge and the casino owners were still denied an admission fee, how would you propose that the costs of constructing, operating, and staffing the facility be covered?

If instead of operating in a fee-but-no-edge manner, the casino operates as most do now, and if at the same time a player conducts his wagers so that his expected average loss for a session is no more than the fair entry fee for the no-house-edge casino, what would you consider wrong or unfair or "ignorant" about a player seeking his entertainment in that manner?

I assume you have some interest in gambling, else your presence on this forum is a bit odd. You also seem to be highly concerned, (some may have suggested paranoid), that the casinos are actively cheating at the games. I can only conclude that if you play at all, you only participate in casino games where you have a clear, persistent advantage over the house. Most people limit the candidates for that list to sports betting, blackjack when you attempt to count cards, poker, and a very small selection of video poker games. (Did I miss anything?) I think that the majority of participants in those games actually wind up losing money, though they may get non-cash value in the entertainment. And since I don't participate in any of those activities, we are unlikely to encounter each other in real life. Perhaps that will work out to everyone's pleasure, or perhaps I have misjudged.

Quote: Doc

I'm curious, mkl654321. Some of your thinking seems quite different from mine. Perhaps you can help me understand better. I'll start with a couple of hypothetical/rhetorical questions.

How much cash do you expect to come out ahead playing pinball? Or PacMan? Or playing basketball at the fitness center where you pay either per entry or for a membership? What is the expected, long-term cash gain for a player at the bowling alley?

Do these places only have customers because they have created an "illusion" of entertainment for ignorant players who are perhaps complicit in fostering the illusion? Isn't it possible that people are actually getting genuine entertainment? Might that entertainment not be worth what they are paying for it?

I understand why you are making the above analogies, but those analogies are unsound. The activities you mention are just that--ACTIVITIES. The goal is not the result, but the pastime itself. A pinball player (presumably) doesn't play solely, or even primarily, to achieve a high score. The bowler reacts similarly--it's just as much fun to bowl badly as to bowl well (especially with beer).

Gambling activity is, by contrast, results-oriented. With the exception of sports bets, casino wagers are resolved in a matter of seconds. Therefore the entertainment value of such bets is going to be negligible compared to the activities you describe. It would NOT, IMHO, add to the enjoyment of a game of bowling to have its cost randomly determined as somewhere between -$100 and +$95; yet, that's essentially what a casino bet amounts to.

I do believe there is an entertainment component in casino gambling, but I also believe that said entertainment is built upon fostering an illusion, as you say. Uneducated/unsophisticated people are NEVER going to understand the exact equivalence between a series of bets and the -EV of those bets x the number of bets made; if you stand to lose $1/bet, then you will be behind $100 after 100 bets, regardless of how the ups and downs of fluctating results swirl around and confuse your primate brain.

As you surmise, I have been an advantage player for many years, playing all the games you mention plus several more, such as bonusing slots, tournaments, etc. The illusion I mentioned has to be fought off in the context of the advantage player as well. You are playing $1 VP, and you hit three royals in two days. You've won $12,000. Woo hoo! But that's an illusion--the high point of the fluctuation, an outlier on the bell curve. What you really won was the number of hours you played x $30.

It's not unlike having a job where you were paid some random amount of money that averaged around $30/hr, but sometimes money was actually SUBTRACTED from your paycheck, and sometimes you got double or triple what you normally received. That would not be intrinsically different from simply getting $30/hr. You can extend this analogy to someone making minus $5/hr, and being deluded by the fact that variance means that sometimes he actually gets a paycheck.

Quote: mkl654321

if you stand to lose $1/bet, then you will be behind $100 after 100 bets, regardless of how the ups and downs of fluctating results swirl around and confuse your primate brain.

A sweeping statement that most of us here know does not hold up.

-------

You are playing $1 VP, and you hit three royals in two days. You've won $12,000. Woo hoo! But that's an illusion--the high point of the fluctuation, an outlier on the bell curve. What you really won was the number of hours you played x $30.

------
Another invalid assumption. But if anyone wants to offer those three royals, I'm more than willing to take them off your hands.

Quote: SanchoPanza

A sweeping statement that most of us here know does not hold up.

-------

You are playing $1 VP, and you hit three royals in two days. You've won $12,000. Woo hoo! But that's an illusion--the high point of the fluctuation, an outlier on the bell curve. What you really won was the number of hours you played x $30.

------
Another invalid assumption. But if anyone wants to offer those three royals, I'm more than willing to take them off your hands.

Well, as I've stated repeatedly, most people don't understand the concept. Just as people don't understand the concept of the regression to the arithmetic mean, the law of large numbers, standard deviation, variance, and all them other good things. All life fluctuates around the mean, which if you understand that, enables you to see life's highs and lows in their proper contexts.

Quote: mkl654321

...Gambling activity is, by contrast, results-oriented....

I guess we just have different approaches to and expectations from our gambling activities. It is interesting and educational to learn about others' viewpoints. Thanks.

Back before my knees and ankles decided not to perform reliably, and before I got fat from lack of exercise (or did it happen in the other order?), I played a heck of a lot of basketball. I think that game, with its emphasis on win/loss and on both team and individual performance levels, is fairly results-oriented. I enjoyed it almost every time I played, but I definitely enjoyed it more when winning than when losing. Now, I'm a spectator. I enjoy watching most every game, but I get more entertainment watching my team win than lose.

For me, it's quite a bit the same at the crap table. I get my entertainment by playing, and I get more of it when winning than when losing. I don't often look at an individual wager (very short term) to be my entertainment, but instead it is the entire session, much like the entire basketball game. I never allow myself to lose enough for it to be a problem, and while I may win enough to feel a bit elated, I don't play at levels that present the possibility of life-changing wins -- except for lotteries, which I consider basically throwing the money away in exchange for a fantasy.

I have never played a casino game in which I had an advantage. The descriptions I have heard of most advantage play sound far too much like work to me. I'd rather just have fun and expect to lose just a little. I understand that is not your approach at all. Perhaps we are each getting just what we are looking for and have no interest in what the other is seeking. Doesn't sound like a problem for either of us, so I don't see any reason for either of us to disparage the other's viewpoint. Good "luck"!

Excellent examples Doc, and well articulated. It is the total experience, not just the single bet, that makes up the entertainment value.

Mkl654321

Keep on writing on the subject and just maybe you will get though to someone, but I doubt it. There is a difference between gambling and entrainment, gambling is wagering money on something, that you do not know the out-come of with the idea that you are going to win something!

Entrainment on the hand is paying for some that will stimulant your brain for your enjoyment. If losing money is entrainment for you, please just send it to me, and I promise not to pay you back, if that’s what get’s you off!

I play craps all the time, but know that it’s a negative-expectation game. I go out of my way to read everything I can on the subject, I practice three to four hours a day or more, with shooting and betting. If you do not know the math of the game or how to regress bets you have a problem. Even some of the writers that I say write fiction give out the best advice about the game of craps.

You need to know that you are losing money as soon as you put it on the tables, and have a plan in place to stop your loss.
Most players just play a few times a year, and look at the casinos as entrainment, the casinos have done a great job you hiding the fact that they are there for one reason. “To Take Your Money”

Quote: RaleighCraps

Excellent examples Doc, and well articulated. It is the total experience, not just the single bet, that makes up the entertainment value.

Thanks. But as I noted, there are others around here who are looking for something quite different, which is fine, though some have low regard for what you and I see as value.



superrick:

I think we might disagree on some definitions. I don't think that for most people gambling is wagering money "with the idea that you are going to win something." That is a possible outcome, and one we would all prefer, but if that's someone's idea of gambling, they are quite likely to be disappointed.

And thanks for the offer, but I would get no entertainment (nor "entrainment") value at all from sending you money.

Do you consider yourself a dice controller? (No disrespect intended, but I have never been a believer. I do set the dice, but that's just for more entertainment.) If you do feel that you can control the dice, perhaps that is the purpose of your hours-a-day practice. But you still consider it a negative-expectation game? Is that even with your dice control? If you don't believe in dice control, what are you practicing in your shooting? Just curious.

I do not "practice" shooting or betting. Every time I do either, it is for real. I don't do that for hours each day, since it's half a day's drive from my home to the closest real casino. But I play more than just the few times a year that you suggested. Those 47 craps and 7 blackjack sessions so far in 2010 that I mentioned took place in 44 different casinos on six different trips.

I think that if I played in a casino every day, the entertainment value would fairly quickly wane, and I would become bored with the games. I would then have to find some other sources for my entertainment.

"Advantage players" ought to know that recreational gamblers make their living possible. Without the latter there would be no casinos for the former to "advantage play" in.

Quote: Doc

I guess we just have different approaches to and expectations from our gambling activities. It is interesting and educational to learn about others' viewpoints. Thanks.

I have never played a casino game in which I had an advantage. The descriptions I have heard of most advantage play sound far too much like work to me. I'd rather just have fun and expect to lose just a little. I understand that is not your approach at all. Perhaps we are each getting just what we are looking for and have no interest in what the other is seeking. Doesn't sound like a problem for either of us, so I don't see any reason for either of us to disparage the other's viewpoint. Good "luck"!

Perhaps that's the difference--I play with a primary goal of making money. I do, however, experience the "entertainment" of short-term fluctuations. Sometimes that's exhilarating--more often, it's exasperating. So I get the thrills (more than I want, sometimes) without the attendant losses. And advantage gambling is more work, certainly, than losing gambling, but not all that much more. APs get their entertainment from seeking out and exploiting moneymaking opportunities.

So I feel that I get everything in fun value that a losing gambler gets, but I don't pay for it: quite the opposite.

Let me illustrate a common situation from Texas HoldEm. I push all-in before the flop, holding AA, and my opponent (inexplicably) calls with 66. I am an 80% favorite to win the pot, yet, I would gladly take 80% of the money right then, and return the remaining 20% to my opponent. I do NOT want the thrill of seeing the actual outcome. My overall goal is to AVOID variance; the classic (losing) gambler seeks it out.

To each his own, certainly. I guess I got jaded after riding the roller coaster too many times; I do understand that for most people, the roller coaster is the whole point. Even if you DO barf up your chili dog afterward.

Doc

The send me your money was not directed at you, sorry if you took it that way! I just get a kick out of players that go into a casino with a bank roll that is just to lose. They come to Vegas with that in mind, and they look at playing and casino game as entertainment!

I am sure you do not do that, and I would hope that you are playing to win when you go into a casino, but most players will never pick-up that first book to even find out how to play the game they are going to be playing!

Yes I am a DI or dice controller; or what ever you want to call us; I don’t get offended by anybody that does not believe in it. Everybody thinks you are just getting lucky when you are shooting, even if they see you do the same thing, every time they see you at the tables.

If I was just a player, I would still read ever book I could get my hands on about craps.
I know that every casino game is a negative-expectation game, and I will not play any other games in the casinos.

Beating the house edge on any of the games is very difficult, I know that the rest of the games have to big of an advantage on everybody, and I can’t change any other games in my favor, or I just don’t want to try, would be more like it!

Living in Vegas you get a different out look about playing in the casino, if you didn’t most players that live here would be broke!


Just like you said, if you play everyday your perspectives would change about casinos and the games you play!

Quote: Doc

I think that if I played in a casino every day, the entertainment value would fairly quickly wane, and I would become bored with the games. I would then have to find some other sources for my entertainment.

Quote: superrick

Doc

The send me your money was not directed at you, sorry if you took it that way! I just get a kick out of players that go into a casino with a bank roll that is just to lose. They come to Vegas with that in mind, and they look at playing and casino game as entertainment!

I am sure you do not do that, and I would hope that you are playing to win when you go into a casino....

My mistake -- I actually though your "send me the money" comment was directed at me, because I was the one who had been promoting the entertainment value of participating in a casino craps game. Maybe I jumped the gun, so I apologize to you for my snippy response.

I do try to win when I play. Unfortunately, I don't have the magic touch and don't yet believe it really exists. I don't come to a casino with a bankroll that is just to lose, but I do look at my casino experience as entertainment. I think it is accurate to say that my objective is to have as much fun as possible, while trying to manage my wagers to minimize my costs and to give me a plausible chance of actually winning a little bit. That seems to work for me.

Doc

Quote: Doc

My mistake -- I actually though your "send me the money" comment was directed at me, because I was the one who had been promoting the entertainment value of participating in a casino craps game. Maybe I jumped the gun, so I apologize to you for my snippy response.

Living in Vegas I get to see all kinds of players, I do play all the time, but wouldn’t if I was just someone who thought it was a fun game to play! For me the game is not about entertainment, and I know that if it wasn’t for the players that think of gambling as entertainment I wouldn’t be able to do what I do!

I just hate to see anybody go into a casino with out a clue, giving their money away!
For the most part I know that few will ever take anybody’s advice when it comes to gambling. They could have bought the best book that is on the market, read it and thought to them self, gee that sounds great, but as soon as they step-up to a table it’s right back to doing the same old stupid things!

Craps is one of the most entertaining games you will find in a casino, with a great social aspect to the game! I would say that 95% of all my friends in Vegas came from meeting them at a craps table! Gee I better get a life!
I have a lot of out-of –town players that will look me up every time they are in town!

The point I try to make is craps is a negative-expectation game, that is hard to beat, and every other game has way to high of a house edge, unless you are advantage BJ player.
Video Poker beats you, because you can never-up your bets! You are locked into betting 5 units at a time. When the machine is playing off you can not raise your bets!

If you are having fun and know when to quit, more power to you, and may you win every time you go into the casino!

I think that mkl654321 is trying to drive home the same point as me losing is not fun, and for most players, that is all they are ever going to do.

You can call it entertainment, but I still call it losing!