Gambling

[Scyobayrynn]

And your mansion.
Also if you got this from his formula, where does the Femto come in? Because I do not see it represented here in this basic count scheme.

Also, his mansion, and yours.

Additionally, and again eidetic memory to count those on the fly.

Not Eidetic memory just lots of practice. Really just addition and subtraction and division.

That is really what keeps it from being a money maker, you have to practice for several days and most casinos spot the behavior and remove you from the blackjack table within hours if not minutes. So you train and practice for days and by hitting up several casinos you might walk away with 3-4 thousand dollars in one day then find all the casinos in town bar you from playing blackjack the next.

Alright, Ill give you that because thats true of card counting. Which is why as counter you should never play any blackjack game that is less than 6-shoe, because double deck games and things like that are really just count traps.

But if the system, and this is a fairly basic count system(which again I dont see being connected to the formula in that video) can be easily spotted than as a system its usualess which takes me back to my original statement-- if you have a system that doesnt involves high math and eidetic memory its garbage, this kind of proves me right.

Doesnt matter if it can work in theory, you have people watching who are trained to spot the behaviors and shut you down, and blacklist you.

So if you arent some savant(or an actual cheat) who can do this without giving themselves away-- the system is worthless.

Where literally at craps you can by legal and allowable play put the odds in your favors, or at the very least cut the house edge down to almost nothing.

Proving that blackjack is the ultimate sucker game...because it makes you feel like you can beat it.

Now, the old saying "The house always wins" is really pretty true, and it should be. If it wasnt true they wouldnt be in business. Ultimately sucker game or not we should walk into a casino not hoping to win rent or double our retirement savings, but to have fun, and be prepared to have fun losing.

We pay for the environment.

[Ifreann]

I'd say the idea that gambling is "harmless" is meant to convey that there is no victim or collateral damage or anything. It's just you as a consenting adult deciding to wager your own funds. From a legal perspective, even if one personally wouldn't gamble because the House always wins, it isn't anyone's place to get in the way of that with regard to someone who would.

As a side note, "The House Always Wins" really only applies to certain games like slot machines and Roulette. Certain games have roughly even odds between player and house.

I've always took it to mean that it doesn't matter the outcome of your games, at the end of the day the house will make their money. You might win today, but give them the chance and they'll win it all back from you.

---

True, and I'm fond of the occasional game of blackjack myself at the casino, and the occasional game of Texas Hold'Em with my friends at home.

But I was just saying that just because one person might not be a fan of gambling because of the adage doesn't mean we need a law saying everyone must share that perspective.

When you play blackjack, do you count cards? Just curious because as far as I know that is the only case where the player actually has the edge.

I think the only casino game where your actions can actually contribute to whether you win or not is craps. You can try to count cards in blackjack, but you'll get thrown out. Roulette may as well be another slot machine. But you could, in theory, learn and practice throwing dice and thus win at craps.

---

I'd like to see some changes in casino practices, like forbidding casinos from barring card-counters. The actual edge that card-counting gives the player is really only evening the odds and I think that black-listing card-counters is unfair.

The idea that casino games should be fair is a bit strange. Yes, the games should work as presented and the rules should be clear and adhered to. But how on Earth do you run a business as a casino if the games you offer have even odds between you and the players? You may as well stand on the street corner and bet people that a coin will come up heads.

---

Horse racing, Im a horse racing junkie.
I have to avoid tracks, and sitting in a place with OTB gives me cold sweats.

Other than that, poker I can play and enjoy, craps, sports betting.

But the ponies, man that shit is my junk.

I also enjoy ponies, but perhaps in a different way.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I love this idea that BDSM is harmless. How do you pleasure without pain?

Well, you're maybe trying to make a joke, but no, BDSM isn't harmless. Obviously it depends what exactly you're doing, but whacking someone with a paddle and the like is harmful. But if those involved are consenting adults, and if they establish and adhere to sensible standards and rules about what they're doing, then any harm will be minimal. Similarly, losing money is obviously a bad thing for anyone, but if you're sensible about only gambling money you can afford to lose without going hungry or getting put out on the street or what have you, then any harm will be minimal.

My point was that whether or not it's harmless is pretty irrelevant as long as it's consensual.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

snip

In poker there is this thing called rake

Rake (poker)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rake is the scaled commission fee taken by a cardroom operating a poker game. It is generally 2.5 to 5 percent of the pot in each poker hand, up to a predetermined maximum amount.[1][2] There are also other non-percentage ways for a casino to take the rake. Some cardrooms will not take a percentage rake in any community card poker game like Texas hold 'em when a hand does not have a flop. This is called "no flop, no drop".[1]

Poker is a player-versus-player game, and the house does not wager against its players (unlike blackjack or roulette), so this fee is the principal mechanism to generate revenues.

It is primarily levied by an establishment that supplies the necessary services for the game to take place. In online poker it covers the various costs of operation such as support, software and personnel. In traditional brick and mortar casinos it is also used to cover the costs involved with providing a dealer (though in many places tips provide the bulk of a dealer's income) for the game, support staff (from servers to supervisors), use of gaming equipment, and the physical building in which the game takes place.

To win when playing in poker games where the house takes a cut, a player must not only beat opponents, but also the financial drain of the rake.[3]

I assume the same principle (of "taxation") could be applied (if it isn't already, i'm not that much into casinos) so that even with actual even odds (or possibly even slight player edge) the casino can still turn a profit. (in other games)

[Ifreann]

snip

In poker there is this thing called rake

Rake (poker)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rake is the scaled commission fee taken by a cardroom operating a poker game. It is generally 2.5 to 5 percent of the pot in each poker hand, up to a predetermined maximum amount.[1][2] There are also other non-percentage ways for a casino to take the rake. Some cardrooms will not take a percentage rake in any community card poker game like Texas hold 'em when a hand does not have a flop. This is called "no flop, no drop".[1]

Poker is a player-versus-player game, and the house does not wager against its players (unlike blackjack or roulette), so this fee is the principal mechanism to generate revenues.

It is primarily levied by an establishment that supplies the necessary services for the game to take place. In online poker it covers the various costs of operation such as support, software and personnel. In traditional brick and mortar casinos it is also used to cover the costs involved with providing a dealer (though in many places tips provide the bulk of a dealer's income) for the game, support staff (from servers to supervisors), use of gaming equipment, and the physical building in which the game takes place.

To win when playing in poker games where the house takes a cut, a player must not only beat opponents, but also the financial drain of the rake.[3]

I assume the same principle (of "taxation") could be applied (if it isn't already, i'm not that much into casinos) so that even with actual even odds (or possibly even slight player edge) the casino can still turn a profit. (in other games)

How?

[Eaischpnaeieacgkque Bhcieaghpodsttditf]

Legalize it.

[Ifreann]

Legalize it.

Only if you get a shorter, pronounceable name.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Legalize it.

Only if you get a shorter, pronounceable name.

I bet it will be Heinrich Schnitzelnazi.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I'd like to see some changes in casino practices, like forbidding casinos from barring card-counters. The actual edge that card-counting gives the player is really only evening the odds and I think that black-listing card-counters is unfair.

Casinos are private property, the casino operators can ban whomever they want for a variety of reasons. Card counting happens to be one of them.

[Gun Manufacturers]

My 2 "big" jackpots in slots are $500 (on a $0.50 machine, with an investment of $40), and $70 (on a $0.05 machine with an investment of $10). It was pure luck though, an exception rather than the rule. As a former slot attendant, I've heard MANY stories of people lamenting the hundreds or thousands of dollars they lost, chasing that big win.

I used to build them, I love to listen to people explain how they are going to "beat" the machine.

Did you work at the factory, or were you a slot tech at a casino?

[Scyobayrynn]

I'd like to see some changes in casino practices, like forbidding casinos from barring card-counters. The actual edge that card-counting gives the player is really only evening the odds and I think that black-listing card-counters is unfair.

A casino can throw you out for just winning too much period.

They have no obligation to allow you in their establishment.

Fair doesnt pay the bills. Its a business.

[Scyobayrynn]

I used to build them, I love to listen to people explain how they are going to "beat" the machine.

Did you work at the factory, or were you a slot tech at a casino?

I worked for place called Micro Manufacturing Inc in Tennessee. They are long out of business, though online if you dig deep you can find old trade fliers for their Magical Touch countertop touch screen games. No operating website is them

Tried to get work as a slottech in Detroit at the Casinos but no luck.

http://www.google.com/patents/US8075384 < we are mentioned in citations 11, 12, and 16 on this patent. Merit is the company that basically put us out of business.
http://flyers.arcade-museum.com/flyers_ ... 000201.jpg < that is a flyer of second generation touch screen game, global touch was the final gen before we went out business.
Slots stopped being made before that.

As an aside if you ever come across a Global Touch touchscreen game with the rated "R" function and you play any of the 18 and over games...I am the voice of the nonverbal female vocalizations, and no, I am not female.

[Ifreann]

I'd like to see some changes in casino practices, like forbidding casinos from barring card-counters. The actual edge that card-counting gives the player is really only evening the odds and I think that black-listing card-counters is unfair.

Casinos are private property, the casino operators can ban whomever they want for a variety of reasons. Card counting happens to be one of them.

This is an instance where I would agree that a business can refuse service to people. Casinos are offering wagers, basically. "I bet I/we can win this game, with these rules: [paste rules of blackjack/roulette/craps/slots/whatever]". As long as they're doing so honestly, I say they can set the terms of the wagers they offer any which way they like. If they want to have $100 min. Heads I Win Tails You Lose then go ahead, as long as the people sitting down at that table know they're putting their money on a coin landing on its side.

[Scomagia]

I'd like to see some changes in casino practices, like forbidding casinos from barring card-counters. The actual edge that card-counting gives the player is really only evening the odds and I think that black-listing card-counters is unfair.

Casinos are private property, the casino operators can ban whomever they want for a variety of reasons. Card counting happens to be one of them.

New Jersey disagrees with you there.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Casinos are private property, the casino operators can ban whomever they want for a variety of reasons. Card counting happens to be one of them.

New Jersey disagrees with you there.

It looks like New Jersey is the exception to the rule.

[Scomagia]

New Jersey disagrees with you there.

It looks like New Jersey is the exception to the rule.

Any state that has legal gambling could do as New Jersey has done.

[The Underground Movement Union]

I bet you a hundred bucks I don't have a gambling problem.

I win.

[Bontavation]

Gambling is a way of taking money from stupid people. If it's being heavily taxed, and that money is being spent in a way that benefits society, than I support it. If the gambling money isn't benefiting society, and all it's doing is handing over money from lots of stupid people to a few rich people, then I oppose it. People will always be stupid. They'll always waste money. If they're doing it in a way that pays for public schools and roads and safety nets, then that's okay. If they're just doing it to pay for Cuban cigars for casino moguls, then it's less okay.

[Infected Mushroom]

Complete legalisation.

Capitalism is basically gambling, and capitalism is legal.

If its ok to be addicted to buying and selling stocks, its ok to be addicted to playing stupid card games.

Also, casinos make money (not from me because I wouldn't go there, I think the games suck) and so probably help to keep my taxes low by generating some revenue for the state.

Therefore, I support gambling. It's in my self-interest.

[Murkwood]

I follow the Catechism on Gambling:

2413: Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.

[Dooom35796821595]

It would be acceptable if we could have regulation and goverment oversight, of course it would also help if there was a way to ensure people only spend excess money, not their savings or food money. Of course this is far to "socialist" for most people so perhaps instead we should follow the Chinese example of having capatilisim zones, only with gambling instead. A city with its own currency regulated by goverment, like how casinos use poker chips and you have to buy them from the revenue service to try to prevent people gambling to much and forbidding people on benifits from gambling.
Of course there would be abuses of the system, but there always will be. You just have to try to minimise it.