Yes, the next generation may just not sit at both tables if they are that gambler in question.


I'm skeptical of why you are requesting me to use my imagination when we can just use current todays lottery as an example. Anywise with todays lottery, yes the research shows that lottery is considered a poor mans' tax and people that enter a casino for hours to play house games frequently are questionable to everyone if they are generally depressed people.


Sports betting != casino games.

You seem to be of the impression that entering -ev games can never be worthwhile. I showed you a hypothetical example of a -ev game that I think would be worthwhile. So you have to argue why this wouldn't be worthwhile if you hold the belief that -ev games can never be worthwhile.

The fact that some depressed people gamble doesn't imply that all people that gamble are depressed. Just think of drinking. Some people who drink are depressed, but most people who drink socially are not.


Well you can bet on sports in some casinos, but I understand what you mean.
I gave it as an example of a -ev game that can be fun. If you agree that sports betting can be fun without an edge, why wouldn't some people find gambling in a casino fun? Even if they understand that they are playing a -ev game?

No......

Casino games being a stupid -EV waste of time is what killed them for me.

Came to lol at this post but then I saw iosys already said what I was thinking, so just adding my voice to his.

Let's start with the first sentence.

Can you give me a real life analog of taking a -ev risk being a good thing?

It depends on your definition of good. If you mean in an economic sense the only thing I can think of is if you otherwise would have used the money on something stupid, like an extra doughnut if you are overweight.

If you mean good in a broader sense, then there can be a lot of reasons like entertainment or education. For example it can be a good thing to play in tough poker games even if you are not a favorite just to improve your poker playing ability.

You seem to be missing the point of my replies and the thread.

Online poker killed casino games for me.
I like many others do not find any worthwhile from casino games anymore.

You understood the second part of my post, so I assume you can tie the post together with that perception.

cherry picking this part of your post only for discussion purposes. I would certainly hope that luck would not become completely not fun for someone who was considering taking gambling very seriously. Luck and skill are not inter-related or at war with each other. You can have a game that involves lots of luck and lots of skill and you can also have a game that involves no luck and no skill.

In my own experience- yes at a very young age looking at all the morons smoking cigarettes and playing slots and people getting excited over a minor temporary hit on a roulette table knowing they were dumping their money long term as I walked to the corner of the casino with the poker table was kind of disgusting but as I got older I began to stop seeing those people as nightmarish scenery and more as people. If you stare at the devil the devil stares back at you.
I learned that the difference between those people gleefully feeding a couple of billionaires day after day and me a poker champion(lolololol) wasn't as big as I thought it was. I actually never would have played a casino game if it wasn't for poker but occasionally ill punt some money at craps and other games because I do find risk fun, even negative ev risks.

The idea that you found poker and plus ev games more interesting than casino games is a good start. And it makes sense; the idea that playing a game with a to of intricacies where you can find an edge is more fun than burning money at roulette. Lots of people have had this thought, especially on twoplustwo a gambling strategy company. Im actually trying to understand if you have a point besides this.

Casinos have nothing to fear from poker and twitch. People en masse will never stop gambling badly. Its part of human nature and will always be exploited by someone. The idea that poker will empty the roulette tables and slot machine usage will become zero is close to absurd. In reality twitch might not even have a net negative affect on a casinos bottom line at all as it could have the effect of inviting a bunch of gamers to casinos.

"The best thing in life is to gamble and win. The second best thing is to gamble and lose."

TL;DR

I don't think that this statement can stand up to scrutiny.

Gambling badly is not part of human nature. Rather, taking a risk and ending up on the wrong side because you didn't have enough information is human nature. Or, having enough information but having something temporarily inhibiting your decision making process is human nature.

To say that humans instinctively take -ev risks - knowing beforehand with 100% certainty that they are -ev - is wholly untrue. The reasons we sometimes take risks that are -ev are twofold:

Either

A) The potential loss is small, we have enough information to know that it is close to 50/50, and, being unsure of which side of 50/50 it's on, the fear of potential opportunity cost overwhelms the fear of material loss, and we take the risk. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. Over time, making decisions of this nature is likely to be neutral ev.

B) We have enough information, but we aren't processing it rationally. We are unlikely to take the right side of the gamble if this is the case. Our ability to rationally and logically process information is what makes humans 'human', and is the reason behind all of the correct decisions that put humans at the top. To ignore our ability to efficiently and sufficiently process the information that surrounds us(and thus take the correct gambles most of the time) is to ignore the fact that humans are the most successful species in known history.

So, either we lack information, or we lack the ability to properly process information.

That being said, why do pit gamblers still take -ev risks when it is common knowledge that they are most certainly -ev?

It is entirely possible that they lack the information necessary to allow their brain to be correct most of the time, and they are just falling victim to impulsive fear when making the decision to, or not to, play pit games. As stated, making decisions in this manner isn't likely to cause you a lot of loss, and will probably be a neutral ev risk in the long term. We can't really fault people if this is the case, as they aren't really causing a lot of long term harm.

However, I don't believe that to be true.

We live in the 'Information Age', and given the availability, scale and diverse nature of the massive amount of peer-reviewed knowledge that we as humans (at least most of the ones who have access to casinos) have access too and are able to process, I don't think it's possible that people who play pit games can realistically lack the necessary information to decide whether or not they are taking a -ev risk when they sit down at a roulette table or a slot machine.***

Therefore, we can, based on the above conjecture, conclude that any person who takes part in pit games is not thinking rationally: Either all of the time, or at the very least temporarily during their decision making process when pit games are available.

PLEASE NOTE: I believe some people will say that people are playing the games for 'fun' as if there is some other entertaining aspect of pit games other than the risk of winning/losing money. I would like to remind those people that there are free versions of all pit games, and I don't think many people actually think that's fun. In reality, all the 'fun' comes from the risk of not knowing, and people are playing pit games because they are irrational.

What causes this wide-spread irrationality wrt casino-goers is the real question, and one that could be difficult to answer, given the complicated and little understood nature of the human brain.

So then, if irrationality is the driving force behind people gambling badly, and rational thinking is the defining characteristic of "human nature", it would not follow to argue that gambling badly is part of human nature.

***One might argue that it is in fact possible or likely for a pit gambler to be oblivious to the fact that solid proof exists to show him that he is making a -ev decision, and thus is making a decision in the matter described in point A above. I would argue that, in modern society (based on the 'Information Age' conjecture above), it is - in fact - impossible not to be aware of the existence of mathematical theory, while concurrently being unaware of the effect that knowledge of mathematical theory would have on your ability to decide whether or not pit games are + or - ev(given of course that this person is mentally healthy and part of free society).

Thus, failing to acquire the necessary knowledge of mathematical theory to sufficiently aid you in making the correct decision when it comes to pit games, is irrational thinking rather than impulsive risk taking(option B above rather than A).


CLIFFS:

Pit gamblers are just stupid. They might not be stupid all the time, but they are at least more likely to make poor decisions than someone who never plays pit games. Given humans heightened ability to make correct decisions, along with the solid evidence of said heightened ability that is our success as a species - It does not follow logically to say that making poor decisions is human nature.

What % of casino whales do you think are fundamentally aware that the game is -EV for them, and they are likely to lose in the long run?

I believe this number is very very high. I gamble in casinos with professionals from all walks of life, including poker players, who understand fundamentally the nature of the games better in some cases than the casinos do.

This myth that pit gamblers are "stupid" is a fallacy. People enjoy -EV games. Many people (myself included) enjoy -EV poker. People just like the idea that a little luck mixed with a little perseverance, guts, and maybe even skill, can get them out ahead some of the time.

Life itself is 0EV.

As stated in my previous post: All of them should be. If they aren't then they are being ignorant of knowledge that they know exists and that they also know could help them make a better decision. Either way, they are being irrational.

As thoroughly explained in my previous post, this isn't true. If this were true, you would find rational people knowingly throwing money away all the time cause it was fun. You would find people scratching their own cars for 'fun'. Starting their house on fire because the look of the flames was totally worth it.


Pit gamblers might not be 'stupid', but they are most definitely irrational.

Oddly, I got into poker in part because I never liked casino games. Never had fun playing them (thus, no entertainment value) and knew from jump that they were -EV games (thus, no monetary value). As I've said elsewhere, I thought poker was just another casino game until my early 30s, when a conversation with a friend made it evident that a player can be skillful enough to be +EV when the conditions are correct.

That still didn't get me to the poker tables, mind you. But when the poker TV boom happened, I got more interested, found I enjoyed the game, realized I could make money, and have enjoyed it ever since.

I will say online poker killed video games for me, though. Generally found the two equally entertaining, but a few hours of the latter couldn't make me beer-and-pizza money like the former. Every time I felt like firing up the PlayStation or some PC game, I'd inevitably opt for Stars or Tilt.

On a weird side note, I often used to choose video games over poker because I didn't want to have to deal with the risk of losing money at that particular moment.

Lots of young people are apparently disinterested in purely luck-based gambling.
NPR's Planet Money did a show a couple weeks ago citing the lack of interest in slot machines of US residents <35. They claim "if you look at the people who play slot machines, only 2 percent of them are under the age of 35."

It was the lead-in for an interesting piece on the free throw competition they ran at Borgata. They propose that skill-based video games will begin to replace slot machines.
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/20...row-experiment

Further supporting evidence for my above conjecture, might I add. Thank you for sharing sir!

I like blackjack. I can start off betting 5 bucks on one hand, run good and end up betting 30 on 4 hands and then go busto. I would never do that in poker, but I know that blackjack is a losing game anyway, so what the hell. I really can't play poker carelessly and without BRM. So if I just want to have some fun and gamble, blackjack is the way to go.

Besides BJ I've only really played roulette and I really don't get it. I feel like the bad odds just aren't disguised at all. Especially the way I've seen most people play it when they put bets on like 10 spots on the board every spin or whatever is the terminology. I also don't get sports betting, I understand people who like to follow sports and think they're good enough to beat it but I don't get how people can get their gambling fix from it.

Pit games and slot machines are played exclusively for the variance - no one's advocating trying to spend 40 hrs/week earning a solid w/r, lol.

Situations when -EV games would be positive are when you can play blackjack (which you enjoy) and receive complimentary drinks, food, credits, etc. Most people want to enjoy their time in Vegas, and saving 10 dollars / drink is 10 dollars you can play at the tables.

almost everyone who gambles at the casino knows the house has an advantage. they don't care.

On some superficial level, almost everyone understands that Vegas was built off of patron's gambling losses. But I'm not convinced that on some deeper emotional level that a nontrivial number of gamblers don't believe that the house advantage doesn't apply to them. It's the other idiots that are bound to lose.

Blackjack players will blame their losing hands on everything but the house edge. It's the dealer's fault. He took the bust card. She took a hand out. He put a hand in. It's the autoshuffler. They have a neverending string of excuses that just doesn't jive with acceptance of the house advantage.