Party blackjack is attracting some sick gamblers [Archive]

NLfool

12-14-2005, 11:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's the max bet?

[/ QUOTE ]
$200

[/ QUOTE ]

oh. is there a limit to how many tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

1 table only. LOL funniest thing is I think my friend is one of the sickest gamblers and plays tons of BJ. He has something like 5000 pages of hand history (10 per page) in the last 2.5 weeks.

EDIT just saw, it started on the 9th. the day he played the least. Dude if this started 1st of Dec he'd be first no prob

Dude he isn't even in the top 10. BTW he lost over 20k in this time span. Can't imagine what some of the top players are losing.

MicroBob

12-15-2005, 12:14 AM

BJ on party with correct strategy is probably about a -1% game.

you can do the math for those top guys.

there is a slim chance that maybe 1 or 2 of these "winners" will actually lose less than $5k to get this $5800 package.

I suspect that most of the "winners" will be close to $20k in the hole (or more) for their $5800 package.

Can you say 'sucker bet'?

12-15-2005, 12:18 AM

sucker bet

12-15-2005, 12:56 AM

He's gottttttttta be up. Right? That is sick.

slickpoppa

12-15-2005, 01:02 AM

People who gamble against the house on the internet are sick. At least people who suck at poker have a chance of one day becoming profitable players. These guys are just throwing money down a hole.

Losing all

12-15-2005, 03:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
People who gamble against the house on the internet are sick. At least people who suck at poker have a chance of one day becoming profitable players. These guys are just throwing money down a hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Lots of 2p2 tards throwing hard earned poker income down that hole.

scott8

12-15-2005, 03:21 AM

Does anyone actually believe that Party's BJ is legit?

Wondering because I don't.

Pokeraddict

12-15-2005, 03:50 AM

According to Wizardofodds.com blackjack calculator the edge is about .55% with perfect play.

lighterjobs

12-15-2005, 04:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People who gamble against the house on the internet are sick. At least people who suck at poker have a chance of one day becoming profitable players. These guys are just throwing money down a hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Lots of 2p2 tards throwing hard earned poker income down that hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

yesterday i played party bj for the first time and lost 1.7 bb's and am still sick about it and i'm stuck 37 bb's today in poker and i'm still more pissed about the blackjack.

MicroBob

12-15-2005, 05:12 AM

there's no reason to suspect it ISN'T legit.

Blackjack naturally has an edge for the house anyway.

gabyyyyy

12-15-2005, 05:23 AM

Here is a question to Bob or anyone else for that matter.

If you could afford to blow thousands playing online blackjack why wouldnt you just go to vegas? You know you are getting a guaranteed fair game and I am sure it would be a hell of a lot more fun.

Heck I cant see any intelligent person on this forum with 20 grand to blow playing BJ online.

So why do people do it? Just insanely wealthy or what?

MicroBob

12-15-2005, 05:35 AM

well...for 20 grand of losing who knows??

obviously when they start playing they don't plan on losing that much. They think they are going to run hot...or use some sort of progressive doubling-up betting system and hopefully win big.
Then they've suddenly deposited for the 5th time that night and they are DEEP in the hole.

Some people don't have time to fly to Vegas and aren't into that scene.
Personally, I was not blown away by Vegas. I would rather play poker online actually. If I'm going out I'd usually rather be doing something OTHER than poker.

Casinos are smoky and kind of loud.
Lots of people are able to get in a gambling fix from home, work or college.

Some people liked playing blackjack so much AT the live casino that when they find out they can play it for real money on the internet they decide to do that BETWEEN live casino junkets.

Sick day or vacation day at home and nothing to do??
10 hours of online-blackjack is just the ticket for some folks to kill off the day.

There are lots of reasons.
Same reasons why lots of bad poker-players are playing online and aren't playing live.

The VP-90 folks may be deluding themselves into believing that they are bluffing their opponents out of every pot and their 'system' of raising and raising is a winning strategy...just like an online blackjack or online-roulette player can convince themselves that their double-up betting system is somehow +EV.

gabyyyyy

12-15-2005, 05:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Some people don't have time to fly to Vegas and aren't into that scene.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good Stuff. However, the quote above kind of confused me.

If you are a big wig and making enough coin to drop 20 grand in a day playing online blackjack you have enough time to go to vegas. Regardless I don't buy the argument of these people being loaded. Wealthy buisness people, doctors, buisness owners, work hard for their money and would never blow it online like that.

I have a feeling the people on the top of that list are on the low income spectrum in society. 75 Percent probably maxed out their credit cards, and because of their little binge won't be able to get their children gifts for the holidays. Half of those who maxed their credit cards will end up disputing the charge, or E-CHECK. Thus fueling the debate for banning online gambling in the U.S. Not only that but these games are taking money away from the same people many on here profit from week in and week out.

That is my no spin take on the matter.

SNOWBALL138

12-15-2005, 06:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless I don't buy the argument of these people being loaded. Wealthy buisness people, doctors, buisness owners, work hard for their money and would never blow it online like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats not true. Every group you mentioned has a good amount of gambling members.

[ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling the people on the top of that list are on the low income spectrum in society. 75 Percent probably maxed out their credit cards, and because of their little binge won't be able to get their children gifts for the holidays. Half of those who maxed their credit cards will end up disputing the charge, or E-CHECK. Thus fueling the debate for banning online gambling in the U.S. Not only that but these games are taking money away from the same people many on here profit from week in and week out.

That is my no spin take on the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not everyone who loses a lot of money gambling can afford it, but those who lose the most usually are the wealthiest, and CAN afford it. An exception would be the guy in Owning Mahoney.

MicroBob

12-15-2005, 07:37 AM

I know a guy who was pretty wealthy and owned several restaurants and bars who was a pretty wacky gambler. He could certainly afford it. Went to Vegas 2 or 3 times per year (super heavy drinker....insane).
We went on a trip to Alaska one time and he sat at this bar buying up these scratch-off lottery tickets 100 or 200 at a time (which is the only gambling in Alaska I think...but they can sell them at bars).

Haven't seen him for a few years but I can almost guarantee that he sometimes gambles online just for recreation and probably has swings of $1k-$5k on occasion.

But doctors and lawyers and others certainly are there too.
I dealt BJ at a smallish casino for 8 months and I dealt to a handful of doctors and lawyers who dropped through a few thousand.
And they weren't really even our market.
Go to some of the other casinos in the area to see the more affluent types dropping some big bucks.

Just looking at some of the people at the casino who are varying their bets from $25-$100 per hand in live blackjack is kind of appalling to many people on low-ish to regular incomes who haven't seen that type of thing before.
Then when some regular looking 50-year-old guy walks up and slaps 5 black chips down for a single bet it can be quite jaw-dropping.
And this barely gets you toward some of the high-ish gambling that takes place in live casinos from Vegas to Atlantic City to Tunica ALL the freaking time.

It boggles my mind too....but it's far too common amongst semi-regular folk to just write it all off as people who are taking food out of their kids mouths (I've dealt to people like this too...coming to the casino wearing their uniform from the grocery store...and promptly dropping $500 or so which is likely their whole pay-check).

Certainly some of those on the top of the list are as Gabbyyyy imagines.

People who make $200k a year or so aren't exactly everywhere...but there are certainly a lot of them. Some people do have more money than they know what to do with....and some of those people are spending some of it on online poker or blackjack.

So, in short, it's likely a mixture of idiot degenerates running up a huge debt they can't afford...and idiot degenerate richer folk who actually can make it back or can afford the losses.

scott8

12-15-2005, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
According to Wizardofodds.com blackjack calculator the edge is about .55% with perfect play.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is correct than Party manipulates the game to gain an extra 4% edge?

BruinEric

12-15-2005, 02:04 PM

Not to be a broken record...but BJ on the Party site still ticks me off -- and this information only makes it worse.

All the pushback about how online poker is different (i.e. game of skill, etc.) and should therefore be de-emphasized in governmental scrutiny of online gambling is going for naught.

The integration of gambling games where the house has an "interest" in the player losing with poker is not helpful at all for poker long-term.

Of course, it IS tremendously helpful for Party Poker short term. And given the bad press that resulted from the inevitable "we can't meet the absurd growth expectations we'd hinted at prior to our IPO" they need the revenue.

bpb

12-15-2005, 02:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
According to Wizardofodds.com blackjack calculator the edge is about .55% with perfect play.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is correct than Party manipulates the game to gain an extra 4% edge?

[/ QUOTE ]

What the hell are you talking about?

scott8

12-15-2005, 02:24 PM

Bpb,

Since you have shown such intelligence and class, I will dignify your question with a response.

When you play blackjack, do you normally have a 45% edge?

With nothing but respect,

Caldarooni

bpb

12-15-2005, 02:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bpb,

Since you have shown such intelligence and class, I will dignify your question with a response.

When you play blackjack, do you normally have a 45% edge?

With nothing but respect,

Caldarooni

[/ QUOTE ]

When people refer to a casino game as having an edge of x%, the are almost always refering to the house edge. Party's blackjack has a house edge of around .55%. So there's an expected loss of $5.50 per $1000 wagered. That of course assumes perfect basic strategy. Your average player is probably averaging closer to 1% house edge.

If you don't understand a statistic that someone has posted, ask for a clarification. It's a pet peeve of mine when people start pulling out the "it's rigged" stick with no justification.

jb9

12-15-2005, 02:47 PM

This discussion just reminded me of a good read if anyone is interested: Double Down (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0156010704/qid=1134671877/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9428894-7344112?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)

Autobiographical story from Donald Bartheleme's brothers about losing lots of money at blackjack and slots and getting accused of cheating the casino. This is at least where some of the money comes from.

Here is a blurb from Amazon:

[ QUOTE ]
At first, this dark memoir seems like a simple confessional about how two fiftyish writer-academics lost a quarter-million-dollar inheritance in the late-night world of Mississippi riverboat casinos.... As book-smart gamblers, the Barthelmes indulge in overtipping and betting ludicrous amounts; they are smarter-than-thou, which is their downfall...

[/ QUOTE ]

stigmata

12-15-2005, 03:47 PM

FWIW, I know a highly intelligent & wealthy doctor who regularly go's to the casino, and was convinced he was a winner using his own "doubling up system" until I proved it to him otherwise.

jman220

12-15-2005, 05:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your average player is probably averaging closer to 5 or 10% house edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP (I've watched people play in the casino, the amount they vary from basic strategy is ridiculous).

MrDannimal

12-15-2005, 08:22 PM

They're not (as far as we can tell) dropping $20k in a day. They're making $20k worth of wagers. If we assume they're playing such that the house edge is 1%, then they're dropping $200 in a day. 5% would be $1,000 in a day.

A lot different than your original "I can't believe" claim.

jman220

12-15-2005, 08:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They're not (as far as we can tell) dropping $20k in a day. They're making $20k worth of wagers. If we assume they're playing such that the house edge is 1%, then they're dropping $200 in a day. 5% would be $1,000 in a day.

A lot different than your original "I can't believe" claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless I'm confusing threads, we are in fact talking about people losing $20,000. They're wagering millions.

slickpoppa

12-15-2005, 08:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I know a highly intelligent & wealthy doctor who regularly go's to the casino, and was convinced he was a winner using his own "doubling up system" until I proved it to him otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

It always amazes me how smart people can be so dumb when it comes to gambling. I have a very smart friend, who ironically was a math major, who tried to argue with me that someone can beat craps by picking the right time to bet on a hot roller.

WhoIam

12-16-2005, 12:08 AM

Nobody's mentioned that the their edge playing bj is hell of a lot better (better=not as bad) than if they were playing 100/200.

Nathan_2

12-16-2005, 01:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Not to be a broken record...but BJ on the Party site still ticks me off -- and this information only makes it worse.

All the pushback about how online poker is different (i.e. game of skill, etc.) and should therefore be de-emphasized in governmental scrutiny of online gambling is going for naught.

The integration of gambling games where the house has an "interest" in the player losing with poker is not helpful at all for poker long-term.

Of course, it IS tremendously helpful for Party Poker short term. And given the bad press that resulted from the inevitable "we can't meet the absurd growth expectations we'd hinted at prior to our IPO" they need the revenue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep it should tick you off but not because of poker public relations. Party is taking money out of your pocket by enticing gamblers to wager on unbeatable blackjack and sucker flop bets.

12-16-2005, 03:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to be a broken record...but BJ on the Party site still ticks me off -- and this information only makes it worse.

All the pushback about how online poker is different (i.e. game of skill, etc.) and should therefore be de-emphasized in governmental scrutiny of online gambling is going for naught.

The integration of gambling games where the house has an "interest" in the player losing with poker is not helpful at all for poker long-term.

Of course, it IS tremendously helpful for Party Poker short term. And given the bad press that resulted from the inevitable "we can't meet the absurd growth expectations we'd hinted at prior to our IPO" they need the revenue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep it should tick you off but not because of poker public relations. Party is taking money out of your pocket by enticing gamblers to wager on unbeatable blackjack and sucker flop bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think both of your points are right on -- I'm ticked at both.

12-16-2005, 04:01 PM

Other comments on this actually interesting thread:

1. Plenty of doctors and lawyers and executive enjoy playing for significnat money, even knowing that they will be long-term losers. I've seen plenty of them in Atlantic city, including an accountant on a hot streak who turned $1000 into $36000 in one shoe of blackjack playing solo against the dealer. The scary thing is that after getting up to $36k, he was up $2000 for the night. Again, this was an accountant. They enjoy the gamble and the rush it gives them.

2. The point about $100 BJ being better for the players than $100/200 poker is true. If they can't play poker well, but they insist on playing high stakes for fun, they keep their cost down by playing a game like blackjack.

3. Most folks do NOT play to anything like 10% disadvantage at blackjack. It's hard to hit -10% without intentionally trying to lose. Many deviations to Basic -- the most common ones, in fact -- are not that harmful. People routinely get chastised for not hitting hard 15 or 16 against a dealer T, when it really makes little or no differnce what they do. It's a high-percentage loser either way, and the difference is very tiny.

4. On people knowing better: years ago, I deal with a major published author of a book on blackjack who was convinced that he was reading tells from blackjack dealers who were checking for blackjacks using a hole-card reader system at casinos in Atlantic City. He did not understand how the readers worked, and thought that the dealers would know know, when there was no blackjack, whether the dealer held a stiff or not. They dealers could NOT. I knew this because I had used the card readers and had trained people to use them. It took me a long time to explain to him how and why they worked, after which he realized that they dealers really had no knowledge of the down card. Meanwhile, during those same weeks, he had been playing, 'reading tells,' and compiling data to evaluate how well he was reading the tells. Incidentally, his numbers were pretty good -- but within variance. On days that he was running bad, he critized his skill at reading the dealer. People can convince themselves of anything as long as they think it's possible!

5. On the fairness of Party BJ: I would trust Party as much as any major house in Vegas, and vice-versa. I would worry about smaller houses in Vegas before worrying about Party, and I have doubts about smaller BJ sites online, as well. No sizable gambling organization risks their good name (and enormous profit flow) on attempts to juice their game by cheating. If they want more juice, they just add an unfavorable rule for the player. The only places that cheat are those that get so little business they have nothing to lose, so they just try to tap out whoever they can entice to walk in.

6. Aren't I a windbag?

KingMedicine

12-16-2005, 04:17 PM

i dont play bj online or in a casino, but nice post mogobu. very interesting read.

Eder

12-16-2005, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I know a highly intelligent & wealthy doctor who regularly go's to the casino, and was convinced he was a winner using his own "doubling up system" until I proved it to him otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

It always amazes me how smart people can be so dumb when it comes to gambling. I have a very smart friend, who ironically was a math major, who tried to argue with me that someone can beat craps by picking the right time to bet on a hot roller.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do this...play pass line a few rounds...pick out who actually nailed a few numbers and then start feeding the come spot when it gets to their turn...

NSchandler

12-16-2005, 08:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It always amazes me how smart people can be so dumb when it comes to gambling. I have a very smart friend, who ironically was a math major, who tried to argue with me that someone can beat craps by picking the right time to bet on a hot roller.

[/ QUOTE ]

Similar situation - I have two friends who for the longest time argued with me that one could beat roulette by picking up on patterns. What was so surprising is that they are two of the best mathematicians I know - both have masters in systems engineering and both are getting their PhDs in experimental design systems.

Their argument was basically "any pattern must end at some point, so the longer a pattern lasts, the more likely it is to end soon." It struck me as an absoludicrous argument, but they just kept telling me that the mathematics behind it is over my head.

Then, I finally figured out what they were talking about - if a pattern last long enough, that indicates that the roulette wheel is flawed. They confirmed that this was all they were saying... DUH

tylerdurden

12-16-2005, 09:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have a very smart friend, who ironically was a math major, who tried to argue with me that someone can beat craps by picking the right time to bet on a hot roller.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can beat craps if you pick the right time to bet on a hot roller. Unfortunately, you can't pick that time correctly until *after* the guy has rolled, at which point most casinos won't book the action. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

12-17-2005, 12:26 PM

While I was a student in college, I hit upon the only 100% guaranteed sure-fire way to profit in the casino. I used the method to pay my way through college; I came away with a profit from EVERY session. I'm not sure if I should share my method publicly, though. . .

Hint: my method required getting a dealer's license.

Quicksilvre

12-17-2005, 12:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thus fueling the debate for banning online gambling in the U.S. Not only that but these games are taking money away from the same people many on here profit from week in and week out.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest with you, I wouldn't mind if every form of online gambling except poker got banned, but I realize that poker is likely in the same boat as blackjack.

ElSapo

12-17-2005, 12:41 PM

I must be the only person out there who plays online roulette from time to time. Yes it's -EV but it's also fun...

NLfool

12-17-2005, 01:06 PM

the sickest people I've seen lose the most money at BJ or other gambling are damn near great poker players. To say people losing at online BJ is taking money out of your pocket isn't quite true. People who keep 20k+ in their accounts almost always are not fish.

RollaJ

12-18-2005, 04:54 PM

RikaKazak

12-18-2005, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I must be the only person out there who plays online roulette from time to time. Yes it's -EV but it's also fun...

[/ QUOTE ]

I do it all the time, when I'm drunk, I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!

MicroBob

12-18-2005, 06:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"any pattern must end at some point, so the longer a pattern lasts, the more likely it is to end soon."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
if a pattern last long enough, that indicates that the roulette wheel is flawed. They confirmed that this was all they were saying

[/ QUOTE ]

These two ideas are contradictory.
If the wheel is flawed then that means the pattern should continue (not end soon).

I'm not convinced that a mis-calibrated wheel was all they were talking about.

Most roulette wheels these days are weighted correctly. But it is true that 'back in the day' one could find wheels with enough bias for the aware player to actually be +EV.

Homer

12-18-2005, 06:32 PM

Homer

12-18-2005, 06:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your average player is probably averaging closer to 5 or 10% house edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP (I've watched people play in the casino, the amount they vary from basic strategy is ridiculous).

[/ QUOTE ]

No way this is true for BJ. Using a "mimic the dealer" strategy results in a HA of 5.48%, and most people aren't quite that stupid. I'm guessing the average HA in BJ is more like 2%.

MicroBob

12-18-2005, 06:48 PM

nice post. you know your stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
Most folks do NOT play to anything like 10% disadvantage at blackjack. It's hard to hit -10% without intentionally trying to lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% correct.
If you were hitting your hard-17 against a dealer-6 or something then you could pass 10%.
Otherwise, it would be very hard to get there.
I suspect that 5% disadvantage is pretty much the max for most of the pretty bad BJ players (and this would include the stuff like standing on a soft-16 and not doubling on an 11 vs. a 6, etc).

[ QUOTE ]
On people knowing better: years ago, I deal with a major published author of a book on blackjack who was convinced that he was reading tells from blackjack dealers who were checking for blackjacks using a hole-card reader system at casinos in Atlantic City.

[/ QUOTE ]

How any BJ author can't know how the hole-card readers work is pretty pathetic imo.
Was this guy just a total idiot?
Even most 'ploppies' (BJ slang for 'fish') understand that the dealer only sees an Ace or Ten (depending on which way they slide the card in).

However, the idea of dealer 'tells' is valid at the few places that actually phycially look UNDER the card (they don't use the card-reader thingee).
And if you develop a rapport with the dealer they can even help you out (by passing over your hard-16 vs. T or Ace before you even have a chance to signal).
The very first time I played blackjack I stuck around for a marathon session at $2/hand and was friendly (ummmm....flirting) with some of the dealers. I wasn't even tipping that much either. Good times.

story from that same first-ever BJ session, the casino was running a promotion where you got a token for every BJ with at least a $5 bet out there.
25 tokens and you got a free hotel-room that night.
I didn't want to play $5 on every hand (I was pretty poor at the time)...so I started to count in my head how many aces had come out and decided to increase my bet to $5 when I thought there was an abudance of aces remaining.
Kind of funny that it was the casino's OWN promotion that provoked me into a very rudimentary form of card-counting (I got the free room on back to back nights btw).

theghost

12-19-2005, 12:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a very smart friend, who ironically was a math major, who tried to argue with me that someone can beat craps by picking the right time to bet on a hot roller.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your friend is 100% correct

[/ QUOTE ]
Care to elaborate?

jman220

12-19-2005, 02:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a very smart friend, who ironically was a math major, who tried to argue with me that someone can beat craps by picking the right time to bet on a hot roller.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your friend is 100% correct

[/ QUOTE ]
Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is its going to be something like "After the dice have been thrown."

12-19-2005, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]

How any BJ author can't know how the hole-card readers work is pretty pathetic imo.
Was this guy just a total idiot?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he wasn't a total idiot. . . that's why he should have known better! When he finally understood how the sideways/vertical thing works with the specially printed cards, he realized he couldn't possibly be right -- and wondered at his own dedication to a false idea.

roueful

12-19-2005, 10:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This discussion just reminded me of a good read if anyone is interested: Double Down (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0156010704/qid=1134671877/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9428894-7344112?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)

Autobiographical story from Donald Bartheleme's brothers about losing lots of money at blackjack and slots and getting accused of cheating the casino. This is at least where some of the money comes from.

Here is a blurb from Amazon:

[ QUOTE ]
At first, this dark memoir seems like a simple confessional about how two fiftyish writer-academics lost a quarter-million-dollar inheritance in the late-night world of Mississippi riverboat casinos.... As book-smart gamblers, the Barthelmes indulge in overtipping and betting ludicrous amounts; they are smarter-than-thou, which is their downfall...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Two plus Two could do with more references to Barthelme. And biting reviews like the second one for this book:

"The cavernous lack of common-sense knowledge they display in their forays to the Gulf Coast casinos would be inconceivable to anyone who's punched a clock or handled an insurance claim."

I think that more or less sums up the sentiment in this thread about the party BJ gamblooors.