someone has a gambling problem

[ QUOTE ]
You are dead wrong when you say the casinos make a fortune because they play people who are underbankrolled.
The casinos can win because they get lucky, or the casinos can win because they have the advantage, but the casinos
don't benefit from risk of ruin miscalculations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we will agree to disagree. However the game of casino blackjack is a prime example. The game prospered because of
bad counters overestimating their edge (if they had one at all) and overbetting their rolls.

[ QUOTE ]
You said the casinos made fortunes because advantage gamblers were underbankrolled.
If someone tells you that you are going to make a fortune, do you think he is telling you that you have a +EV opportunity,
or a -EV opportunity? It is hard to interpret what you said as other than that the casinos had a +EV situation that was
made up of -EV gambles against card counters.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you twisted my words. The casinos have a completely different ruin percentage that the typical gambler, including one
including one with +EV. The larger casinos' bankrolls are so large so as to make their ruin percentage infinitesimal.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, many times. I have also been ahead by more than 2 standard deviations many times. Neither makes me think
you can combine -EV situations to create a +EV situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you take pleasure in twisting my words. I never said or implied anything like this. It is a obvious falsehood.

[ QUOTE ]
This is just a common fallacy that many bad tournament players think is the key difference between tournament play and
NL ring game play. As a successful MTT player and NL ring game player and as a mathematician, I'm telling you that idea
is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

With the exception of when you are twisting my words, I can accept that you are coming from a knowledgeable viewpoint and
background. I guess I'll have to think about it some more.

Fair enough?

[pzhon]

You say I am twisting your words. Here are your words:

[ QUOTE ]

... the player is at very high risk to get busted out, even though he may have a net advantage over the long run. It is these kinds of situations that I suggested casinos have made tons of money on over the years.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. You are making a common error, but you are being uncommonly stubborn about it. I've explained enough that you should be able to see that you are wrong.

If you don't accept me as an authoritative source, I am willing to bet a large sum of money that any respected gambling theorist will say that I am right, and you are wrong. Please accept this wager or admit you are wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
You say I am twisting your words. Here are your words:

[ QUOTE ]

... the player is at very high risk to get busted out, even though he may have a net advantage over the long run. It is these kinds of situations that I suggested casinos have made tons of money on over the years.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. You are making a common error, but you are being uncommonly stubborn about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, what you seem to be stating or implying is that every player who walks into a casino with +EV will never bust out. I don't see how anyone could ever accept such a statement.

My point is that many will, many won't. For those that do, the only reasonable causes are over betting their bank or overestimating their edge, or both. For those multitudes who have done so, and for those yet to, the casinos have and will make a ton from them. So yes, I believe this has happened and does happen in blackjack for sure, and most likely in poker as well.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, what you seem to be stating or implying is that every player who walks into a casino with +EV will never bust out.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is a lie. I have repeatedly said the opposite:

"each with a 99.88% risk of ruin"

"you will bust almost all (99.88%) of them. You will still lose money on average, because the few winners will overbalance the losers."

No one can read these statements and interpret them the way you are pretending to. Point out where I have made such a stupid statement, or admit that you lied.


My challenge remains: Retract your claim that casinos win fortunes over the years against +EV players who are underbankrolled, or put your money where your mouth is, and wager on whether a respected theorist will say that you are wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, what you seem to be stating or implying is that every player who walks into a casino with +EV will never bust out.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is a lie. I have repeatedly said the opposite:

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that players with +EV do get busted out? (Not every one obviously, but a significant percentage.)

If so, then it sounds like we have been in agreement all along and shouldn't be debating the issue.

[Ray Of Light]

If you feel that you are clearly a better player than he is, and he is buying back in everytime, then in my opinion, you should play him.

He is going to gamble his money away anyway, whether you sit down to his left or not.

Poker is a business, and players who play badly, (regardless of why they play badly, whether that be because they are gamblerholics or playing solely for fun), are your business oppurtunity.

Poker is a money game, it has nothing to do with ethics or moral duty.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
it sounds like we have been in agreement all along and shouldn't be debating the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
You must be intentionally trolling. Maybe it's your cognitive dissonance, but I doubt you are honestly that stupid.

If you have any intellectual integrity, admit that you were wrong about casinos making tons 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.

Once again, if you don't think you were wrong, I would be willing to bet large amounts of money that a respected gambling theorist would agree with me, and disagree with you. If you think we are agreeing, you should take that bet. If you think you are right, you should take that bet.

That you aren't jumping at the bet is an admission that on some level, you recognize that you are wrong, even if you don't have the courage to say it directly. I'm disappointed.

Pzhon is right in this discussion it seems to me. Underbankrolled advantage players can never be making casinos a ton of money in the long run no matter how silly they manage their bankrolls.. Ofcource, they can save the casino money by playing with too small bankrolls, preferably $0, but I guess that was not the topic of discussion. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

As for the OP. Nice to hear that you have some empathy for the people you meet. That is worth at least a few big blinds. OR, come to think of it, you could bust him out of sympathy! The sooner he lets go of his -EV play the better (for him).

[johnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is a money game, it has nothing to do with ethics or moral duty.

[/ QUOTE ]

It most certainly does. One's ethics and morals don't just magically disappear once you stroll past the casino doors. You have a set of morals and ethics or you don't. Certain people may be forced to justify to themselves that busting an addict is "ok" in order to maintain a living but can never make it right to do so.

[Ray Of Light]

Poker has NOTHING to do with ethics or moral duty. If you are saying that poker players as human beings will have a sense of morality, then of course I agree with you.

But the game of poker, the actions of raising, betting, checking or folding have nothing to do with morals. It is simply about making the best move for extracting the most money from your opponent.

If you don't like to be put in the kind of situation where you are likely to be taking money off someone who can't afford it, then you shouldn't play poker, or indeed gamble at all.

Wherever there is money being wagered on games of chance, no matter how high or low the stakes, there is a chance that there is a complusive, (or potentially complusive), gambler in the game, betting away what they can't afford.

I don't like to see others throw away money complusively like that. But I prefer instead to concentrate on not falling into the same trap (maintaining discipline in my bankroll managament, taking regular breaks from the game and so on).

"Certain people may be forced to justify to themselves that busting an addict is "ok" in order to maintain a living but can never make it right to do so." ... Nice point. So tell me, are you now going to quit playing poker? Or are you only going to play in penny stake family home games that are nice and friendly and everyone gets there money back at the end of the day?

Its nice to think that you only take money from players who can afford it. But it is unlikely that every single player you have ever faced at a poker table, online or off, could easily afford that $200 losing streak that maybe yourself and the other players at the table put them on.

Poker is my job. I am focused on winning, and relish the chance to play players on tilt. This is how I put food on the table and pay my rent. The moment I start to feel bad for my opponent when I am at the table when I find myself beating them, is the moment I start looking for another job.