"The Cooler"Saw this movie recently.
Mini-review without spoilers, an old fashioned casino in Mob days employs a "Cooler", a big loser who's luck is so bad they send him in to tables where people are having too much luck to suit the casino. This "cools off" the table; he is considered "the best". He wants to quit, though, and he is so valuable in the mind of the character played by Alec Baldwin that this must not be. So the story revolves around ironic developments thereafter. Good performance by the actors, Alec is good in this one. Contains as good a depiction of action at the craps table as I have seen in a gambling movie; it strictly showed only rolling the 7,11, or craps in the come-out though [perhaps understandably]. Maybe some hard-ways were mentioned.
Wound up wondering about this movie, though. How common was the practice of using Coolers in the old days? Does it still happen today? Additionally, according to the movie, any big winner was intolerable and subject to harassment even if it was clear they weren't cheating. They would be back-roomed or worse. Was that really true in mob days? Also, I believe in this movie it was suggested people who were just too lucky would get themselves banned, there was none of this smarter ploy of encouraging them to stay by all means possible. I think I can answer that one myself: the casinos couldn't possibly have been that dumb!!
PS: one scene shows Baldwin catching a cheating dice player using a device that fed crooked dice into his palm from his sleeve. Baldwin would seem to be using x-ray vision to spot this! You have to wonder why the director thought that was the right way to show the scene, geez.
Coolers? Pure Hollywood. Absolute utter hype.
Las Vegas used to employ "hotters" rather than coolers. Yep. Shills. They were of two types. Movie stars who would shill for them and just ordinary attractive young men and women who knew how to look good, smile and be pleasant players who would "open" games and then quietly fade away. What is now known as Big Table Baccarat used to be the only Baccarat there was: hoity toity pretense, separate rooms or alcoves, evening wear, chandeliers, more mature dealers in atleast suits but usually evening dress. Games like that would often be started by shills who would even beckon passersby. The dealers didn't but the shills could. The rule for shills was simple. Any male shill who cashed chips ever would get worked over but good, no matter who he was related to.
A winner? The mob knew you had to let there be winners or there would be darn few gamblers. Sure there was some distrust because usually a winner just probably was a cheater and if they couldn't tell how he was cheating that didn't make them think he was lucky. Send in a special dealer? No, not usually. It would be either normal rotation or it would be a trusted dealer who had been with them for years. Would a floor person try some foolish and cutesy trick such as writing Shazam on a piece of paper and throwing it on the floor under the craps table? Sure. Did it ever work? You tell me. Did some in Vegas think that it worked? Sure. Some of them were real superstitious.
Macy as always was great in that movie. My luck is so bad I started wondering where to apply for the job LOL
"Additionally, according to the movie, any big winner was intolerable and subject to harassment even if it was clear they weren't cheating. They would be back-roomed or worse. Was that really true in mob days? Also, I believe in this movie it was suggested people who were just too lucky would get themselves banned, there was none of this smarter ploy of encouraging them to stay by all means possible. I think I can answer that one myself: the casinos couldn't possibly have been that dumb!!"
The late Frank Rosenthal said on his site that the APs who were not cheating would be given a friendly but very firm tap on the shoulder and told to get lost. But remember "Casino" where he keeps the big winner in the casino? In his book he said that winners should be comped like crazy, free everything, so that they lose it all back and so that you can find out if they are on the level.
Rosenthal was a very intelligent individual and had business sense. What he did might not have been what the earlier-era mobster or lower-level guy might have done. From my readings, however, I think they tolerated a few big winners because then as now they knew you bring in losers by sending out winners. In that regard, repetition looks like it was key. A nice guy or couple from Cleveland who had a winning vacation, let them go home and tell everyone about it. Local has a winning session, who cares as they will drop it all back next visit. But if someone came in and won, week in and week out, that is the one they back-roomed. For example, look at Ken Uston. Early wins were tolerated but eventually he was escorted to the parking lot where he seems to have fallen down and the "secutiry" tried to help him get up.
In the 60's the Mob still ran NV. My mothers
husband would sometimes win 10k to 15k in
Reno. The casino would always send a twin
engine plane to Sacramento to pick him up
the next weekend, and he'd lose it all back.
He loved this, it made him feel important. If
he'd refused to go, I wonder what the 'boys'
would have done.
This movie is one of the most boring movies ever. I understand the reasoning for a dark and dimly lit setting, but come on. The cinematic quality is wretched. The ending is also preposterous. At least the Ocean's series all present the real challenges facing thieves in casinos. This movie sets up a scenario where nothing has existed or would exist today.
Wincraps looks at BlackjackIt occurred to me that Wincraps could simulate BJ in a manner of speaking. I took the Wincraps program and altered the chances of rolling a 7 so that the true probability changed [the program automatically adjusts the chances of rolling the other numbers and will give theoretical HE] and by tweaking it got the HE on the don't pass altered to -0.26%, a pretty good game to find I think most of us could confirm. I wanted to see how longer sessions fared compared to shorter ones. So I ran it untill I had 1200 sessions in each case below. Each session was a different size, 300 rolls with approximately 100 come-out rolls included in the first case, for example. I felt this might simulate about an hour at a full BJ table. It has become my opinion that BJ will grind away a player going longer than that so that there is not much else to expect than to be losing, and seldom winning much, if that would be one's luck.
I had thought 1200 sessions in each case would be pretty stable. The 1200 sessions with 300 rolls each I did last, and it surprised me that the break-even % went up so much, enough that breaking even plus winning got close to 50%. So I ran it again and got two surprises, win + break-even exceeding 50%! and also thus an indication that my sample size is too small. In other words, there is a degree of sampling error and for any 1200 sessions you don't get enough data to be sure about things.
Well, anyway, I'm not sure I will do more than this, but I feel it supports that this grousing about not winning in BJ that we are hearing [including from me] has a little bit of disingenuousness to it. The effect of sitting at a BJ table for long sessions, even at pretty good HE, is really, really trying to get quite lucky, I am now thinking. To expect different results, do something different. Shorter sessions seems to be the way to go, save being an AP.
PS: the good news is I have learned how to get data from Wincraps by session, which stumped me for a long time.
|Session Size-1200 session data||Win %||Break-Even %||Loss %||Win + Break-Even %|
|300 Rolls a||44.33||4.58||51.08||48.91|
|300 Rolls b||47.00||4.75||48.25||51.75|
WWII InterestAs the proportion of associates at work etc. gets younger, it's getting more rare now to find other people interested in WWII, so it is kind of cool to be able to discuss it in this forum.
Do you have books you would never lend to anyone? In the case of WWII, I have two I would never lend, The Two-Ocean War by Samuel Morison and The Luftwaffe War Diaries by Cajus Bekker. I was checking out the second one to see if I might start a thread on night fighter radar, but found I was remembering some things wrong. Anyway, one thing led to another and came across this interesting statement I thought I would share about American research in radar in WWII:
"over 2.1 billion dollars were spent on the development of radar. This was about as much as was spent on the development of the atom bomb."
I was certainly aware that American research paid off. It played a huge role in defeating the Japanese. As far as the Germans go, they were quite advanced in radar but were shocked to find out the British were roughly as developed technologically and were advanced in actual application. I had thought that the Germans were the first to deploy radar in night fighters, but evidently not [the internet helps!].
WWII has always blown my mind, and I find I have to take breaks when getting into it.
I remember watching one of my favorite movies, Midway, when I was really young an thought "oh, so that's what WWII was". That movie got me into the History Channel documentaries on warfare - Operation Barbarossa, Pearl Harbor attack, Wake Islands, Iwo Jima, Battle of Normandy, Guadalcanal, the Holocaust, The Bomb... and it wasn't for years until I realized, holy sh!t, that's all ONE WAR.
And same as you, I wondered at the tech, from radar to jet fighters to munitions. The the carpet bombing of entire regions, the naval battles, the kamikaze, the panzerkampfwagen, it staggers the mind. If it hadn't happened and someone told it as a story, a battle that spanned from the Aleutians, to the southern Pacific rim, over to Northern Africa and the whole of Europe, it'd be laughed off as absurd.
Growing up, I was a big WWII buff. Now, most of that knowledge has been replaced by less interesting things. I do try to pay my respects at the shrine to Butch O'hare whenever I'm at ORD. Ironically, a sushi restaurant has the space right next to it.
A friend of my dad's was in the first wave to land on Guadalcanal. He wrote a memoir. I transcribed it, typos and all; I'll PM it to you if you PM me.
"He never bothered about mathematics at all"Talking about Einstein, one of the most surprising things about reading Walter Isaacson's Einstein was to learn that Einstein avoided advanced math in his early education. All the pictures of Einstein you see today generally show him at the blackboard writing some seemingly impossibly complicated mathematical equation. But it seems he was a student adequate in math, yet not much interested in it. The book says later in life he realized this was a great mistake, that math is essential to understanding and theorizing in Physics. Nonetheless the book relates how he made little effort to do more than the minimum effort in the discipline while attending the Zurich Polytechnic, skipping most of his calculus classes for example. To show this was not being a case of already having mastered the material, his worst grades were in Math, maintaining a 4 pt average in a 6 point system. Clearly he makes up for this later, though the book does not make clear how [at least I don't remember and can't find it now]. The quote about "never bothering" comes from one of his Zurich P. professors.
I have to tell you that it is my opinion that this attitude today would devastate anyone planning to have a career in science. I have a nephew who claims to be quite interested in Space and the study of the Universe, but I am hardly sanguine about his chances of making this his career. He is attending a private Christian school; I have heard nothing about any interest in math and just know he is not getting the math background he would need, even though on the face of it it could be possible since they have him taking calculus. I have pondered whether to tell his father my brother, he better start getting special tutoring to get him to the level of a couple of years in proficiency in college math by the time he graduates from high school. This leg up for someone who has not been described as a straight A student would be extremely helpful. If he was a natural at math, ready to pick it up at any level no sweat, I think I would be hearing about it. I guess I will just keep my mouth shut, am I going to offer to pay for this tutoring? Plus I could be wrong; perhaps things are different today, they evidently were in Einsteins day.
And maybe it will just happen that he will find himself taking off in a different direction with his studies, and this is all then forgotten. I worry about it though; after all the percentage of people dropping out of college is still quite high. There are plenty of landmines. Why start with plans for going into a profession that are greatly flawed?
Comments on the personal situation are welcome.
i have a degree in Physics and Astronomy and was absolutely killed in my first year Calculus class (I did okay in Algebra) which was required if I wanted to take anything above 1st year Physics or Astronomy. Matrices are instrumental for quantum mechanics. Alot of the skills in calculus are necessary for general relativity and electromagnetism studies.
However, most colleges have prep courses for calculus that lead into the advanced classes necessary for science. People switch degrees all of the time, so if your nephew didn't have the necessary background, a remedial course is available.
But if the kid has a strong desire to do science, I would encourage him to strongly to ensure that he has the correct background in math. Otherwise, he'll just fantasize. You can look at the curriculum of any comparable high school and compare it to what he's taking now. For example, my daughter (who has little interest in science) will be taking all of the math courses necessary to handle college level math should she choose science as a career three years from now. You gotta keep your options over, and if you're missing grade 12 math, you're in for extra credits and a massive learning curve when you hit college to get caught up.
Speaking of math, I got my degree in math. Advanced calculus was in many ways a mystery to me. Nonetheless, when the first quiz
was passed out, I made 86. This was well above in other grade given to a class of 30 or so. Average grade was about 35. Guys sitting next to me made 14, 23..........Now this was at least top 25% students to even get in the school (Univ of Texas), and lots of engineer type guys at that. Same on quiz #2. I'm not sure if this fits in to your topic. I was not especially smart, even in math. I say
try to have an influence on what he is doing. Math is pretty much a major asset in just about every aspect of everyday life.
i have a degree in Physics and Astronomy and was absolutely killed in my first year Calculus class
Getting killed in a math class ... or at least severely challenged ... has to be one of the most nearly universally shared experiences of college out there!
if the kid has a strong desire to do science, I would encourage him to strongly to ensure that he has the correct background in math. Otherwise, he'll just fantasize. ... if you're missing grade 12 math, you're in for extra credits and a massive learning curve when you hit college to get caught up.
Yes, exactly, although in my thinking high school math has to be very much exceeded some way some how before hitting college if such ambition has a chance to be realized. As for fantasizing, I have noticed the bullshitting-the-general-public wavering student starts talking about "marine biology" as his/her goal. Really. I have witnessed this half a dozen times. [Woods Hole here they come!]
I say try to have an influence on what he is doing. Math is pretty much a major asset in just about every aspect of everyday life.
Thanks for the advice guys, I am pretty much determined now to get myself involved.
Sometimes an outside influence can make a difference. Hell, we all know mom and dad are always wrong.
10x Craps ExploredI've been puzzling over a paradox of the Craps world: games can be found that offer substantial free odds, up to 100x, but it is very infrequent to hear that someone takes advantage. Mostly in this forum someone will talk about what they do with other completely different bets; occassionally there is a report on working with 10x or 20x free odds, usually at a table with the remarkably liberal exception of $1 minimum on the line. As someone has been quoted as saying, the casinos don't like to gamble, so that would explain why there clearly is great resistance out there amongst them against offering large-x free odds, only doing it to be competitive. Investigating what casinos are risking, it is a chickenshit attitude for sure, yet somewhat understandable: I'm finding a player religiously sticking to 10x or more can't be guaranteed to be have actual losses over a considerable time period, or even in his lifetime. Assuming there isn't some silent sizeable legion out there doing it, you might think there would be more players trying. Clearly one problem is bankroll; I wanted to check out what might be needed to really take chances with some reasonably comfortable amount to lose. After all with negative expectation this is the equation in any case.
There is now a craps table within driving distance for me that offers 10X free odds for $10 bets, but I was shrugging it off as exceeding my comfort level for my craps gambling and have skipped it on trips where I could have engaged in that kind of wagering. But it has slowly dawned on me that I was wrong to think that there was no way to manage this without 'gambling more'. It would certainly be true if I maintained my old pattern: playing for about 90 minutes a session, two sessions per trip. A hard critique of this old pattern was already underway. I was starting to experiment with shorter sessions, to increase the chances for coming out ahead with a session. Finally I've decided that an extremely short session placing the large bets with the 10X odds would make a certain amount of sense. 90 minutes at a $5 3x4x5x table means wagering about $3600 per session for me. Alternatively, playing at a $10 table laying 10X free odds, counting not by the number of bets on the line, but instead counting the times that a point gets established, and counting to 20 of those decisions, means about the same in wagering. I'm thinking the experience of the very short session gets balanced by the excitement of the larger wagers, and I am definitely finding that shorter sessions are fitting fine with me, and it feels like smarter betting too. So far I have proved to myself I can keep a certain discipline about limits to wagering if I set my mind to it.
One thing I have been able to confirm is that 10x odds takes you into a different universe. I am used to 3x4x5x, and when playing that way I find I am focused pretty much on the line action, with streaks of craps or 7-11 being a bummer or a thrill depending on which side one is betting. I find myself sometimes skipping free odds bets, or not taking the full amount, and certainly almost always failing to call these 'on' during the come-out, all because the line bet just seems the focus. Going the max with 10x free odds, however, all that changes. Lose 3 or 4 bets in a row on the line and it's "who cares"! It's more clear that $10 a whack just isnt going to add up. Once you put up your 10x free odds, another thing becomes clear: this is where the action matters. And IMO there is no longer any doubt that the dark side is the way to go. For me the losing streaks that 'playing right' dish out are too hard to take with the bigger money out there, and there is no doubt that you want your free odds working all the time: that's automatic on the dark side. BTW 5x free odds, I have found, keeps elements of that 3x4x5x experience, with just a taste of that other universe. I also believe the excitement is enough without going to the DC box, although I concede that assumption may not hold.
Dabbling with 10x is in the cards for me, but what about being a steady, frequent, long session 10x player, chancing that very favorable long run? I decided to try 100 different players on Wincraps going for 10x odds through 50,000 rolls [not come-outs]. I chose 50k as an amount that represents the most rolls I am likely to see for the longest period of gambling over the years that I might still be up and kicking. For me this means gambling several times a year but not as often as once a month, with a limit to how many sessions each trip as well, but going at it hard each session. Something might surprise me, but as far as I can tell I likely will see less than this 50,000 rolls for the rest of my life [certainly this would be different for other players]. I set up the Wincraps to have one unit on the line, I'm thinking this will give us constant dollars over decades. As inflation grows the minimum bet will go up, and the gambling bankroll should also go up.
The table below shows this Wincraps experiment with the 100 players. I have listed whether the player came out ahead (W) or lost money (L) but alternatively lost money but came close to breaking even (GBE for gambler's break even). With Comps it is breaking even, Wincraps valuing it at about 60 units, but I am calling it a GBE at -50 or better to adjust for the fact that Comps do not exactly equal money. Since for me the time period is decades I would be happy indeed to only be down 50 units anyway.
It occurred to me that the real question is bankroll and ruin. Yes, some players get the W or GBE, 37% to be exact, but whether they got to see it to the end depended on that bankroll quite often. I decided for the first 33% of the rolls that if a 500 unit bankroll held up, that was good, not busting 700 units running total for the next third, and not busting 900 units at any time, that would be a sustainable situation for me, and if exceeded I would have to consider that as Ruin for my bankroll. How another person with a better bankroll could do became a question, to make it easy I just looked at whether a flat bankroll would last. I decided you need a 1500 unit roll, out of my league but represented in the last column.
Out of the 37 W's and GBE's, the smaller bankroll went to Ruin 12 times; in other words, only 25 times out of the hundred players did a small version bankroll get to W/GBE without Ruin. 63 are losers 'period'. Some of those L's do not experience small bankroll Ruin, however. If you went with the liberal definition of "worth it" as not experiencing Ruin [after all it is negative expectation] then you can count 30 as players who probably enjoyed themselves whether they came out ahead or not.
For players with a larger absolute bankroll, $15,000 in today's money for a $10 table, then 73 of these players with that roll on them could be considered to have gotten the play they wanted [again, possibly for decades depending on player]. Of note is the fact that the larger bankroll avoids Ruin for 11 of the W/GBE's. But Ruin for the large bankroll still occurs for 27 players, some of whom you just wouldnt want to be [g].
This was a lot of work and probably shows how crazy I am [g]. In Summary, for the bankroll I am going to be comfortable with risking, Ruin occurs too often to think that this might be worth a shot. A dabbler on a more limited basis looks like the deal for me. 30 players out of 100 "enjoying themselves" is not an inviting prospect.
|Player||Win or Loss||amount||lowest pt in bankroll||highest pt in bankroll||with low bankroll?||with high bankroll?|
|1||W||+219||-674||+127||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|4||L||-412||--610||+617||Loss played out||Loss played out|
|5||W||+145||-632||+1130||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|6||L||-956||-1122||+987||Ruin||Loss played out|
|8||L||-1072||-1182||430||Ruin||Loss played out|
|10||L||-887||-1383||+315||Ruin||Loss played out|
|12||L||-406||-967||+635||Ruin||Loss played out|
|15||L||-1085||-1140||+183||Ruin||Loss played out|
|16||L||-185||-1189||1347||Ruin||Loss played out|
|17||W||+178||-716||+471||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|18||W||+1464||-360||+1966||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|19||L||-1306||-1480||+849||Ruin||Loss played out|
|22||L||-1252||-1367||+273||Ruin||Loss played out|
|23||L||-916||-1244||+1562||Ruin||Loss played out|
|24||W||+1156||-33||+1685||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|27||W||+338||-196||+1576||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|28||W||+1446||-288||+1790||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|30||L||-1310||-1310||+1089||Ruin||Loss played out|
|31||L||-352||-1184||+587||Ruin||Loss played out|
|32||W||+527||-360||+2184||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|33||W||+941||-441||+1495||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|34||L||-878||-1158||+920||Ruin||Loss played out|
|36||L||-639||-1452||+308||Ruin||Loss played out|
|38||W||+2420||-408||+2935||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|39||W||+2330||-192||+2330||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|42||W||+1065||-182||+1859||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|43||W||+124||-613||+1409||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|44||L||-261||-607||+879||Loss played out||Loss played out|
|45||L||-288||-679||+2326||Loss played out||Loss played out|
|46||L||-194||-1498||+596||Ruin||Loss played out|
|47||L||-498||-828||+260||Ruin||Loss played out|
|50||L||-403||-1353||+369||Ruin||Loss played out|
|51||GBE||-24||-543||+1349||GBE Realized||GBE Realized|
|54||L||-440||-973||+743||Ruin||Loss played out|
|55||L||-729||-1301||+1257||Ruin||Loss played out|
|56||L||-938x||-1421||+453||Ruin||Loss played out|
|60||L||-528||-959||+587||Ruin||Loss played out|
|61||W||+687||-209||+1330||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|64||W||+711||-248||+1448||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|65||L||-135||-339||+587||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|67||W||+203||-185||+809||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|68||L||-149||-1062||+537||Ruin||Loss played out|
|69||W||+1289||-26||+/1606||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|71||L||-82||-1213||+220||Ruin||Loss played out|
|72||L||-739||-1075||+933||Ruin||Loss played out|
|75||L||-1015||-1126||+771||Ruin||Loss played out|
|76||L||-818||-1352||+818||Ruin||Loss played out|
|77||W||+827||-526||+838||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|78||L||-851||-1182||+694||Ruin||Loss played out|
|79||W||+1411||-172||+1601||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|80||L||-215||-687||+389||Loss played out||Loss played out|
|82||L||-112||-567||+427||Loss played out||Loss played out|
|83||L||-388||-992||+470||Ruin||Loss played out|
|85||L||-907||-1367||+1087||Ruin||Loss played out|
|86||L||-354||-1073||+360||Ruin||Loss played out|
|87||GBE||-40||-489||+1345||GBE Realized||GBE Realized|
|90||L||-69||-778||+588||Ruin||Loss played out|
|92||GBE||-37||-496||+876||GBE Realized||GBE Realized|
|93||W||+1683||-230||+2089||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|94||W||+618||-57||+1019||Win Realized||Win Realized|
|97||L||-395||-1150||+381||Ruin||Loss played out|
|99||L||-715||-1042||+583||Ruin||Loss played out|
Very interesting. At some point, every one of the 100 was up (even if just a $1. Sucks to be that guy).
While 10x is too volatile, is there a "sweet spot" at 6x or 8x that might work for smaller bankrolls?
>At some point, every one of the 100 was up (even if just a $1. Sucks to be that guy).
Yes, remarkable! A strategy to try to take advantage of that surely would send a player to the funny farm. If I pulled it off, I would still have to admit to myself I still wanted to keep playing craps, on that I couldnt kid myself.
>While 10x is too volatile, is there a "sweet spot" at 6x or 8x that might work for smaller bankrolls?
20x [not available around here] I toyed with too, increases the no. of players getting the W but the chance of Ruin is awful. So for 8x or so I guess I expect less Ws but better Ruin avoidance. I might check for a sweet spot, thanks. 5x seems too much like 3x4x5x.
Well, I don't know what GBE means: Gross Break Even?
Some of your mental oversights at lower levels of play might be corrected by giving instructions to the dealers or by playing at higher limit tables.
Just because the casino's comps formulas want 3 and 4 hour sessions doesn't mean you have to do it.
That famous Binions guy who put 240,000 dollars on the line sure didn't last 3 minutes, much less 3 hours. He walked in with one suitcase, put it on the line, Benny Binion said "Book It" the whole darn table and anyone within hollering distance came over and jumped on board too and then the guy rolled the dice and walked out carrying two suitcases.
Presumeably however you are desirious of a bit longer entertainment.
I don't see a necessity for the dark side, but it would be useful. Its always better to have the most of your money on odds that you can and if you prefer to be a Right Bettor I would continue that way rather than switching to laying the odds instead of taking the odds just to get the numbers up higher.
Good luck to you and please keep us informed. 10x at 10.00 equal to 110.00 at risk or for a PassLine bet and two Come bets its 330.00. Still, as long as that first one or two rolls makes you a winner you will be fine. You still might have three hour sessions at times.
>I don't know what GBE means
A loss roughly covered by comps, but the term I like for that is "Gambler's Break Even" since I find that most players will say they "about broke even" or something similar when they lose a modest amount. Me too. [g]
>I don't see a necessity for the dark side, but it would be useful. Its always better to have the most of your money on odds that you can and if you prefer to be a Right Bettor I would continue that way rather than switching to laying the odds instead of taking the odds just to get the numbers up higher.
I do like to bet "with the table" and hope to see the shooter who goes for eons someday, but since my current deal is to have limited sessions at 10x, that becomes unimportant. If I truly ever found I could blow $15k and not miss it, and trust that I can adjust that for inflation, I might decide to be a Right Bettor as you say. Actually I could come up with that and not really miss it, but as for now it is just more than I want to put at risk gambling. I'd say the way things are going I get less comfortable with it daily. Will someone please put Europe out of its misery?
Oh, now I get it. Gamblers Break Even. Yeah. Good. Wives hear "broke even" or " just about broke even" no matter what.
Comps never really figure into it unless I've got a free room or some really top quality booze for free.