someone has a gambling problem

[SheridanCat]

I played in a game in suburban Chicago that had a guy like this. He was action, personified. I always felt bad when he got crushed. However, he would also occasionally have huge wins but was overall a big loser. I know he played in another game that he lost in even worse.

Overall, he was not a pleasant guy. He had his own business, and in the end I really felt he was old enough to make his own decisions. Had I been a friend and seen how it affected him up close - assuming it did affect him adversely - I would have intervened. It just didn't seem to be my place.

I know one of the other players tried to talk to him about tightening up and not being so maniacally aggressive. He didn't want to hear it.

Regards,

T

[lastsamurai]

I use to work in a casino and it would really break my heart when i see a player i liked that would lose their ass...go to the local juice man...and get more money. Usually i would tell them to take up a new hobbie but to be honest with you...gambling is an addiction that alot of people dont acknowledge. I seen people lose homes and businesses because they love that action.

The other day my friend told me he lost about 20 K in gambling and i really felt bad...I am up on my net accounts and you have to realize how many people you crack to get to that point.

If i were you i would tell him its ok to take a break...

[ QUOTE ]
If you have any intellectual integrity, admit that you were wrong about casinos making a ton of money by playing underbankrolled advantage gamblers. Admit that you lied when you said that I claimed the opposite of what I said repeatedly. Underbankrolled advantage gamblers will often bust out, but on average, their wins will overbalance their losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, I never made any such lie, so of course I won't admit to it. If you want to go on holding a different opinion, then so be it.

Second, your last statement hits the a part of the point I have been trying to make all along, which is that even if a gambler has a net +EV, frequently negative statistical fluctuation will work against it and bust him/her out.

(Obviously if the player is well-bankrolled, kelly-ing, or employing some other risk mitigation strategy, then yes, the likelihood of this event ever occurring could be extremely small if not statistically infinitesimal.)

More to the point, I suggest that in many cases when this happens, the gambler has invested most or all of his/her life savings in the venture, in an effort to "go pro." Once they are busted, they have little if any opportunity to recoup their losses in a subsequent positive swing. Therefore, the casinos have and will have made a lot of money off these kinds of +EV players with minimal risk of the player ever being able to fire back at them.

Finally, in these cases I don't think the proper description is underbankrolled gamblers. Rather, in my opinion, it is more a case of gamblers either unknowingly overbetting their bankroll (if even doing any ruin risk calculations at all) and/or overestimating their edge over the house (causing any variance and ruin computations to be all wrong in the first place).

And yes, I do believe that the casinos have made loads of money off these kinds of players and situations in the last 30 or so years, from games that can be beaten (e.g., live and video poker, blackjack and some forms of sports betting).

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you have any intellectual integrity, admit that you were wrong about casinos making a ton of money by playing underbankrolled advantage gamblers. Admit that you lied when you said that I claimed the opposite of what I said repeatedly. Underbankrolled advantage gamblers will often bust out, but on average, their wins will overbalance their losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, I never made any such lie, so of course I won't admit to it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You aren't fooling anyone. You lied here: "what you seem to be stating or implying is that every player who walks into a casino with +EV will never bust out." This wasn't just ridiculously wrong. It was beyond stupid. You made an intentional misstatement. I called you on it, and you refused to back it up or retract it. You are a liar.

[ QUOTE ]
More to the point, I suggest that in many cases when this happens, the [+EV] gambler has invested most or all of his/her life savings in the venture, in an effort to "go pro." Once they are busted, they have little if any opportunity to recoup their losses in a subsequent positive swing. Therefore, the casinos have and will have made a lot of money off these kinds of +EV players with minimal risk of the player ever being able to fire back at them.

[/ QUOTE ]
It appears you have learned nothing. I think almost everyone else sees that this statement of yours is wrong; you can't win money on average from taking the wagers of advantage gamblers. I explained why it was wrong, and gave a concrete example, and offered to wager a large amount of money on it. Despite all of the evidence against you, you simply repeat yourself, but refuse to take the wager.

What makes you think such defiant ignorance is a good idea? You have destroyed your credibility and made a public fool of yourself. I will ignore you henceforth. <font color="white">(If you ever want to put your money where your mouth is, I'm sure a lot of other people would jump to take the other side.)</font>

[ QUOTE ]
You made an intentional misstatement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said what I said after you chose to twist my words. I did not lie about you. I simply speculated on what you appeared to be trying to say and you obviously took offense to it. When you twist my words, my response is a result of that. If you got bent out of shape, then it is your own fault.

[ QUOTE ]
It appears you have learned nothing. I think almost everyone else sees that this statement of yours is wrong; you can't win money on average from taking the wagers of advantage gamblers. I explained why it was wrong, and gave a concrete example, and offered to wager a large amount of money on it. Despite all of the evidence against you, you simply repeat yourself, but refuse to take the wager.

[/ QUOTE ]

BS.

You have constantly referred to cases that happen in the long term over time. I have constantly referred to cases that happen in the short term. You're talking averages and I'm talking statistical fluctuation. You know and I know these aren't the same things, especially when comparing the individual gambler's perspective versus the casino's perspective. Although the underlying mathematics is essentially the same, the long run, the short run, the possible statistical fluctuation and ruin risks between the two are like night and day, apples and oranges, however the heck one wants to describe it.

Your example was a single explicit case in which there was only one obvious answer. So only a fool would take that bet, despite all of your woofing.

[ QUOTE ]
You have destroyed your credibility .............. I will ignore you henceforth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone is entitled to their own wrong opinion, yourself included. Feel free to commence ignorance.