Do you play negative expectation games?

Just curious how people on this board break down.

Positive games include negative expectation games that turn positive with cashback or promotions.

Choice #2 means the casino gives back 50% or more of your theoretical loss in comps. (Food, Bev, Hotels, etc. NOT cash).

No judgment passed on what choice you make. And no, whether a table/slot/keno game is negative or positive is NOT arguable. (Take it to mrjjj's thread).

While I strive to play mostly +EV, I'll play table games like Pai Gow Poker or Ultimate Hold Em for entertainment value. I will also play Monopoly slots on occasion, because they're a lot of fun, and the bonus games are frequent, adding variety (I also have ferreted out where the best-paying ones are, and play when there are big bonuses in points earned on slots, like a 7X day).

I am often drawn (I'm sure as the casino plans it) to try out whatever the lastest gimmick game to come on the scene. I have to try it once, at least. I suppose they can rake in quite a bit, just on people trying out a game, as long as there's lots of traffic through a place.

Yeah, I was going to point out that they're all negative.....

OK, I can see your point that the comps can make it positive, but I'm not sure it's possible to accurately calculate the expected comps.

Therefore, I don't see a choice that applies.

Life is a negative expectation game and no casino is going to be impressed with my bankroll to comp me very much so I guess I just stick with negative expectation games and hope I hit a blackjack on the next hand.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Yeah, I was going to point out that they're all negative.....
OK, I can see your point that the comps can make it positive, but I'm not sure it's possible to accurately calculate the expected comps.

It's not too hard to guesstimate. The Wizard does it every time he reviews a hotel. Just play for a certain number of hours--flat betting--and estimate how many hands you play an hour. Then multiply that times the house edge to find your expected loss. Check your comps. If you get more than 50% of that back in comp value, that is a generous allowance.

There are lots of positive games. But they are mostly in Las Vegas. https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/2699-profitable-strategies.

Quote: FleaStiff

Life is a negative expectation game and no casino is going to be impressed with my bankroll to comp me very much so I guess I just stick with negative expectation games and hope I hit a blackjack on the next hand.

This. My attitude is such that I really don't compartmentalize my casino time apart from the rest of my life in the way the question is asked. I try to balance risk, variance, and thrill. "Positive expectation" is what I do behind a desk.

Quote: Mosca

This. My attitude is such that I really don't compartmentalize my casino time apart from the rest of my life in the way the question is asked. I try to balance risk, variance, and thrill. "Positive expectation" is what I do behind a desk.

That sounds very much like an excuse for not putting in the effort to play +EV games. The thing is, you can get "risk, variance and thrill" with a +EV game, so why not play those games as well?

Quote: FleaStiff

Life is a negative expectation game and no casino is going to be impressed with my bankroll to comp me very much so I guess I just stick with negative expectation games and hope I hit a blackjack on the next hand.

It's your action, not your bankroll, that determines how much you get comped. A low house advantage game with low variance can keep you in action long enough to accumulate several thousand dollars in bets before the game busts you.

And if life were truly negative expectation, the human species would be extinct.

Quote: mkl654321

That sounds very much like an excuse for not putting in the effort to play +EV games. The thing is, you can get "risk, variance and thrill" with a +EV game, so why not play those games as well?

Quote: teddys

No judgment passed on what choice you make.

For the love of God, Jesus, and Blaise Pascal, please don't do that here.

Quote: mkl654321

That sounds very much like an excuse for not putting in the effort to play +EV games. The thing is, you can get "risk, variance and thrill" with a +EV game, so why not play those games as well?

The scale for EV wasn't set forth. Most games are -EV(cash) even though many of those same games can be +EV(cash+comps). If you throw in entertainment value as well, I would hope every game you play is +EV.

Quote: mkl654321

That sounds very much like an excuse for not putting in the effort to play +EV games. The thing is, you can get "risk, variance and thrill" with a +EV game, so why not play those games as well?

I think, that's exactly what he said (at least, that's exactly what I would say :)), except, I would not cal it "an excuse", because of the negative connotation. I put in enough effort 40 hours a week at work. When I play, I want it to be fun. There are better (easier/more profitable) ways to make money than trying to beat the casino, why would I waste my effort on such a tiny cause?

You're slightly delusional if you believe that you can walk into a casino, put your card into a slot machine, or play a table game with the advantage. There are a few exceptions of course which are listed in another thread, but playing strictly for advantage is very difficult to achieve. It requires a great deal of discipline, a large bankroll, and patience. Even when you are playing those positive return VP games with a great player's card deal, you've got to be playing that game perfectly, and the money to be earned at those games is far less than what my day job pays, and a hell of a-lot less entertaining (for me) than both my day job and other forms of gambling.

So for me, these days, gambling is all about entertainment. I try to play the games with the least house advantage at my local casino. Sometimes, I count cards. I play alot of switch, blackjack, and craps, and VP. Once in a while, to switch things up, I'll put a $100 of bankroll on a carnival game.

What I expect from my gaming experience is to be entertained. Just like going to a theme park or great movie has a negative expectation financially, so is gambling.

I am not sure where sportsbetting would fall...so I will wait to vote until I find out. I am sure it has a negative EV but there must be something else involved....

Edit: I voted...Wiz says is negative...so it must be

Quote: boymimbo

What I expect from my gaming experience is to be entertained. Just like going to a theme park or great movie has a negative expectation financially, so is gambling.

I've done a fair bit of philosophical noodling about the relative morality of gambling vs. other forms of entertainment. For the record, I believe that gambling is a perfectly legitimate form of entertainment. It'd be awfully hypocritical of me otherwise.

The main difference between gambling and other entertainment, like movies or baseball, is that the cost is variable and often negative. You might spend $20 on two hours of playing craps, or you may "spend" -$20 (that is, you might win $20) for the two hours of playing craps. You don't expect to go to the movies and walk out with an extra $20. In gambling, the entertainment derives partly from your own bankroll swings, but also from visual and auditory aspects in the environment, interaction with other players, etc. With movies, your costs are mostly fixed -- assuming you don't go nuts at the concessions -- and the entertainment derives entirely from visual and auditory aspects.

For the most part, when you go to a casino, you know how entertaining the sensory aspects will be. In contrast, sometimes you go to the movies and the film is awful (in spite of what you may have read from the critics). You might say that, while the costs of going to a movie or a ballgame are fixed, the entertainment results are variable. Sort of like you bet money on tickets in the hope that the movie or game would be worth it.

00 Roulette is all I play, not a big deal to me. Ken

i like dice.

Quote: mkl654321

That sounds very much like an excuse for not putting in the effort to play +EV games. The thing is, you can get "risk, variance and thrill" with a +EV game, so why not play those games as well?

It's OK, teddys, I respect mlk654321's comment. We actually agree on many things, just not this one. (Although I DO agree that he finds my attitude somewhat... frustrating? Curious? I can't tell, but I detect some amount of irritation at it, I think.)

Sure, I don't want to put in the effort. It just isn't important to me. I'm not going to spin the Big 6 wheel, but I'm not going to sit and scriven at a blackjack table or a video poker table, either. I don't find that fun. I get anxious and antsy, bet after bet after bet, never more than a little over or under even. I might as well play for free online.

I have my eyes wide open about it. I like playing 3 Card Poker, and I'll play with the 6/4 pay table, and the 6/3 pay table if there is a 100-1 royal. I play quarter slots because my wife likes them, and I love her. Suffice it to say that I get what I want out of the experience. I lose sometimes, I win sometimes. I stop when I hit my number, and sometimes I decide I've won enough.

Oops; double hit.

Quote: mrjjj

00 Roulette is all I play, not a big deal to me. Ken

I assume you'd play single-0 roulette if it was offered?

As to the question, I play Craps and BJ. I am definitely -EV at both.

I agree that gambling is a perfectly acceptable form of entertainment.

BUT I disagree that gambling is as "harmless" as other forms. Stipulating that anything can be taken too far (movies, music, ball games, gambling, clubbing, whatever), I think there's an element in gambling that isn't there for other forms of entertainment.

The best way I can think to describe it is this. If you train a chicken to peck at a button and it gets food every single time, it just learns to peck a button to eat. If a chicken pecks a button and it never gets food that way, it will just not peck the button.

But if a chicken pecks a button and SOMETIMES food comes out, sometimes not, it will sit there and peck until food comes out. If you re-program the dispenser to never give out food, the chicken will still sit there and peck until its beak falls off, hoping for food.

Like all analogies, that one breaks down, so don't take it too far. I don't think there's an ultimate evil scheme out there to one day change all programming. And, I'm not talking about the guy with a gambling addiction.

I'm talking about the effect that the sometimes-yes-sometimes-no has on a person. If you go to a movie/ballgame/whatever, you'll sometimes like it and sometimes not, but you will always have seen a movie/ballgame/whatever.

If you place a bet, it's different in that the placing of the bet is not the whole of the event. The inconsistent result is what I think makes the difference.

Yes, over infinity trials, the result won't be inconsistent. But none of us play infinity times.

Yes, we can manage our expectations, understand the math, manage our bankrolls, and realize that losing money is more probable than winning. But none of us want to lose, and none of us like/prefer losing. None of us would gamble with absolutely no chance of winning, in the same way that there's no chance you'll get your money back if the team you support plays badly.

So yes, gambling is a perfectly good form of entertainment. But one that, I think, requires a little more attention to our mental health than others.

MHO.

deleted

"I assume you'd play single-0 roulette if it was offered?" >>> Interesting topic. Would I? Yes (if the min. bet was not crazy) but I have done threads in the past asking this exact question. Yep, some veteran players did say they would STILL play the 00 wheel. Have a question regarding roulette? I already did a thread. Ken