Most Royals in 24 Hours?

[Frank Kneeland]

Would anyone mind if I posted an exerpt from my book on "Is Professional Gambling Really Gambling?"?I think it's applicable to the current thread.I'll wait an hour or so and if no one objects I'll post it.~FK

[Frank Kneeland]

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }h1 { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }h1.western { font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 16pt; }h1.cjk { font-family: "DejaVu Sans"; font-size: 16pt; }h1.ctl { font-family: "DejaVu Sans"; font-size: 16pt; }h3 { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }h3.western { font-family: "Arial",sans-serif; }

Is Professional Gambling, Gambling?

“What
authors like myself are trying to do for people is to minimize the
‘gamble’ in gambling.”
~ Dan Paymar





A common stance among pros is that
professional gambling is not gambling. Assuming this is true, it would come as welcome news since
anything other than occasional vacation gambling has developed negative connotations in modern
society. There once was a time when colorful characters like Minnesota Fats were idolized. Sadly, in
this current age of psychological whitewashing with our catechisms and dysfunctional
awareness—more often than not—anyone who gambles for a living is
treated like the illegitimate child at a family reunion.



Perhaps because of this growing
negative connotation surrounding gambling, there has been a great
impetus of late to replace the term gambling with the politically
correct euphemism gaming. Does this movement have merit, or is this
just a self-delusion akin to throwing a nice coat of paint on a rotting tool shed?





Many professional gamblers attempt to
side step this issue completely (with all the expertise of Clinton at an indictment hearing) by
taking the firm stance that they are businessmen or investors and disenfranchise themselves from the
term gambling. They will deny, tooth and nail, that what they are doing for a living has any
connection to gambling. Is this valid? Or, is this poppycock? Let’s pick this idea apart a little
bit and try to answer the question intelligently,

“Is ‘professional gambling’
gambling?”



This is one of those insidious
questions that on the surface may seem simple, but by the very act of trying to answer, only raises more
questions. By the end of this subheading, you will see what I mean.

First we need a definition for
professional gambling. Here’s mine: Gambling correctly with the
odds in your favor for the sole purpose of making money.


And here’s another run at it, ~ Ed:
Playing a game of chance [with favorable odds/the odds in your
favor] skillfully for the sole purpose of making money.


We can elaborate on this definition
with the following points:

Many people enjoy their jobs.
Thus, having fun while you play does not necessarily disqualify you
from gambling professionally, as long as having fun is not your
primary reason for being there.
Not everyone who gambles with the
odds in their favor gambles professionally (it is possible to simply
be an informed recreational gambler).
Gambling does not have to be your
sole source of income for you to be considered a professional (many
people have more than one job).



Next, we need to define gambling. This
is a bit tougher since everyone has his or her own opinion. There is
a plethora of opinions on what is and is not gambling. (I was
determined to use the word plethora in the book, at least once…
oddly, now that I have, I do feel better.)


Math teachers and scientists are mostly
in agreement, and they categorically state that playing a correct
strategy with the odds in your favor is not gambling. Therefore, they
do not include playing with a positive expectancy under the umbrella
of gambling. Unfortunately, this opinion is not widespread outside
the world of math teachers, scientists, the pros themselves, and a
few other academic professions (which proliferate the knowledge
required to understand probability math).

The current sociological definition of
gambling clearly seems to focus around simply playing casino-style
games of chance and does not extend to those hosting the games of
chance (500 people surveyed, top answer: casinos don’t gamble).


The dictionary defines gambling as
“taking a risk”. If we took this explanation to its logical
conclusion, then anyone doing anything “risky” could be
considered to be gambling. All financial risks, such as investing in
the stock market, owning a small business, buying your home or really
any type of investment would have to be included.

Psychologists have an even broader
definition of gambling and include non-monetary matters. Suddenly,
driving race cars, moshing in the pit at a Slayer concert or even
golfing in the rain would also have to be added to the category of
gambling. They further argue that men and women gamble on unsure
partners, and that going in and out of dysfunctional relationships is
just another form of gambling addiction. Modern anthropology
suggests that gambling and risk taking may be evolutionary traits. It
was our risk-taking ancestors that kept sticking their necks out to
forge the way that may be at fault. Staying in one place and playing
it safe is bound to get you and your whole family killed by a
volcanic eruption, earthquake, tsunami or other natural disaster
sooner or later. Being adventurous, exploring far from home and
spreading your genes far a field is the only way to insure species
survival over evolutionary time spans. Many adventurous people died,
but those who survived passed on their genes and left us with a
legacy of gambling.


The book Best Possible Odds makes an
unexpected point on the identification and treatment of pathological
gambling. The authors voice their amazement at the varied forms
gambling addiction could take in areas of the country that did not
allow legal gambling. The most memorable of the cases discussed was
about a man addicted to buying and selling antiques in a
feast-or-famine fashion that was indistinguishable from the behaviors
exhibited by a pathologically addicted gambler. He would venture his
last penny on speculative purchases with no guarantee he could ever
find a buyer to make good on his investment (too bad the abbreviation
AA is already in use or he could have started Antiques Anonymous and
begun the old-road to recovery).


Clearly this all-encompassing view on
risk taking does not match with the sociological definition of
gambling that propagates in modern America (as I brought out before,
other cultures view games of chance differently). Our U.S. definition
of gambling appears restricted to matters of finance within a game of
chance and would seem to exclude such unsure ventures as business
ownership, stock investment and marriage. This means that those
engaged in what we consider normal gambles escape any of the social
stigma. Effectively saying, “You can gamble to your little heart’s
content, so long as it does not include dice, cards, sports, or
things with handles, buttons or levers.” (I wonder if switches
would be okay?)


If you have frequent and repeated
financial failures, you might well be perceived as a bad
businessman but never ever will anyone think of you as a problem
gambler! Though the dictionary does not differentiate, the masses
clearly do distinguish between money lost in a casino and money lost
on Wall Street. There probably isn’t any difference other than the
price of working attire and the view from the window, but the fact
that it is perceived as different seems fairly clear.
•The Consensus
There is no consensus. It is difficult
to get people to agree on what is professional gambling. It is doubly
difficult to get people to agree on what is gambling. In an e-mail
exchange with Dan Paymar it took us about ten volleys and a broadside
to agree with each other…and we started out with matching opinions.
Finally, the only way we could put the issue to rest was to change
the question.
•Changing the Question

Gambling and professional gambling are
labels. “That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as
sweet.” You can change the label gambling all you want without ever
influencing the reality. Everything in life has risk. Some risks are
acceptable; some are not. Some are absolutely necessary. As a
professional gambler, what one really needs to know is not what to
call the job title; it’s whether or not you are making good
decisions. That’s important. If you have a $5,000 bankroll and sit
down to play a dollar video poker progressive, you’re making a bad
decision. No matter if it’s reset to $4,000 or up to $40,000! It’s
irrelevant whether you call it “gambling” or “gaming” or
“tickling the ivories”—the chance of going bust is far too
great for it to be a sound investment for anyone.
•How to Know You’re Making Good Decisions?


It’s impossible for me to answer this
with a simple equation or numerical value. It would be nice if we could say, “These machines are 102%
return, so I’m making a sound decision by playing them.” Unfortunately, there is no line in the
sand between 101%, 102% or 104% return, unless you’re drawing it in
the shifting dunes of your own mind. Where should you draw the line?
When is the advantage great enough to where you know you are making a
good decision? Here's my non-mathematical answer...

If you feel that you’re “at
risk” while you’re gambling, something is very wrong.


Gambling for a living is precisely like
owning a small business. The advice related to small business
ownership applies here. As a professional gambler you should have
enough money saved up to live on for a couple of years without
income. Or you should have a separate job to cover living expenses.
In addition, you should have enough money to bankroll any plays you
intend to make, such that the worst possible results would have no
dramatic effect on your life.

If you don’t feel “at risk”
when you are gambling, you’re probably making a good decision.


You could still be deluding yourself;
many pathological gamblers do. If you are on a positive game and you
meet the above criteria for being a pro, the chances are that you are
making a sound business investment, which should likely result in
financial gain over time.


This is a bit like Yoda’s advice to
Luke. When Luke asked, “But how am I to know the good side from the
bad?” Yoda responded, “You will know...when you are calm, at
peace, passive. A Jedi uses The Force for knowledge and defense,
never for attack.”


You may not be a Padawan learner, and
I’m certainly not a Jedi Master, but the advice is still good. Only
once in my professional career did I ever feel like I was “at risk”
and making a bad decision. This occurred playing five hands of
blackjack at $200 a hand during a “Double on Blackjack” promo. I
got up from the play after only an hour (I was ahead at the time),
informing my partners that this play was just too rich for my blood
and gracefully bowed out. Leaving that table cost me $8,000 in
additional gain, and I was not unhappy about losing it. If I had
stayed I would not have been calm, at peace, passive. I would have
been scared out of my wits. Those emotions have no business in this
business. The things I play now are so safe, if you asked me how I
did yesterday, I likely wouldn’t be able to tell you, because I
just don’t sweat it anymore.


Pros don’t like to think of
themselves as gamblers, because gambling is associated with bad
decision-making. I think it is every bit as possible for a
professional gambler to be “making bad decisions” by taking
excessive risks and venturing his or her bankroll on bad situations
as it is for the layman. Many so-called pros I know clearly take
unwise risks, and many do not. Ultimately, it will be a matter of
personal choice that really answers this question once and for all
for each individual.


Remember the question isn’t, “Is
professional gambling, gambling?” That’s irrelevant. A better
question is, “Am I making good decisions?” A question far more
people should be asking themselves far more often about far more
things!

What I can tell you is that few
professions or business ventures release their secrets so completely
to a mathematical analysis as professional gambling. Buck up. Have
some faith in the numbers. When you use modern math, you’re mostly
standing on the shoulders of some really smart and really dead Greek,
Italian, Russian and French people that dressed funny; how can you
lose? (Have some wine and Toga!Toga!Toga!) Wait for good overlays.
Don’t play if you feel at risk. Of course the fact that you’re
making sound decisions won’t stop the uninitiated from still
thinking you are “doing something wrong” just because you’re in
a casino and playing a machine. Save yourself a lot of headache and
let their opinions pass; after all, later, they might pump up a meter
for you to hit.


Oh, and if all you’re concerned about
is what to call the job title, it is “Professional Gambling.”
Deal with it. Whether or not you’re truly gambling or making
excellent business investments doesn’t change the name of the game.

[melulu]

I go once or twice yearly to Las Vegas and Laughlin.. I split my time between the two locations..  My game of choice is Double Double Bonus, Triple Play $1.
My last trip was in Feb 2010.  I did poorly first nite at Treasure Island.  Finaly about 3am, on my way to bed, I hit a royal.  Next day noon, I stopped by the single hands outside my elevators and was dealth another royal.. 
I drove out to Laughlin and about 8pm, started playing in High Limit area.. was promptly dealt A's w/kicker, moved to next machine to wait for hand pay, got 2 royals there.. and so it went for the evening..  I ended up with 17 royals over 3 days..
Will probably never happen again, but was fun then.. will be going back out in Oct.. wish me well..
 
Melulu, Ocala FL

[Frank Kneeland]

I go once or twice yearly to Las Vegas and Laughlin.. I split my time between the two locations..  My game of choice is Double Double Bonus, Triple Play $1.
My last trip was in Feb 2010.  I did poorly first nite at Treasure Island.  Finaly about 3am, on my way to bed, I hit a royal.  Next day noon, I stopped by the single hands outside my elevators and was dealth another royal.. 
I drove out to Laughlin and about 8pm, started playing in High Limit area.. was promptly dealt A's w/kicker, moved to next machine to wait for hand pay, got 2 royals there.. and so it went for the evening..  I ended up with 17 royals over 3 days..
Will probably never happen again, but was fun then.. will be going back out in Oct.. wish me well..
 
Melulu, Ocala FLNow that is impressive. I haven't equaled that in 23 years of playing professionally. If only we could distill and package your secret. More good luck to you. Don't put it all back. That's a once n a lifetime run.~FK

[royal flush]

nice

[backsider]

That's very nice melulu, a day in the life! Im glad you posted that here instead of trying to get it through the misery squad over on the other forum that Frank K. had to take a leave of absence from. It depends who you are there, then you're either accepted with gold stars or called a liar. Goodness dont dare say anything that drifts from the math, or the village creep will experience catastropic failure, go into shock, then uncontrolably rant about people he doesnt like. My most royals in a day is one  and Im damn proud of it!

[shadowman]

That's very nice melulu, a day in the life! Im glad you posted that here instead of trying to get it through the misery squad over on the other forum that Frank K. had to take a leave of absence from. It depends who you are there, then you're either accepted with gold stars or called a liar. Goodness dont dare say anything that drifts from the math, or the village creep will experience catastropic failure, go into shock, then uncontrolably rant about people he doesnt like.
 No, that is not a description of the other forum. Why do you misrepresent it?

[backsider]

[QUOTE=backsider]

That's very nice melulu, a day in the life! Im glad you posted that here instead of trying to get it through the misery squad over on the other forum that Frank K. had to take a leave of absence from. It depends who you are there, then you're either accepted with gold stars or called a liar. Goodness dont dare say anything that drifts from the math, or the village creep will experience catastropic failure, go into shock, then uncontrolably rant about people he doesnt like.
 No, that is not a description of the other forum. Why do you misrepresent it?[/QUOTE]
 You are so confused. It only takes one person to get a forum going in the right direction and Frank was trying to do that until he didn't want to bother with all the poop. It also only takes one person to ruin a forum and thats arcimedes with his repititious and almost sick math crap over time and again. He argues with lamoney a lot and money is as calm as a cucumber and as decent as an altar boy. At the same time arcimedes is so bothered by the alternate views of money that he goes off calling him and others names and describing anyone who doesnt agree with himself as a liar and stupid. Totally uncalled for. It is much calmer over here.  

[shadowman]

[QUOTE=shadowman]
[QUOTE=backsider]

That's very nice melulu, a day in the life! Im glad you posted that here instead of trying to get it through the misery squad over on the other forum that Frank K. had to take a leave of absence from. It depends who you are there, then you're either accepted with gold stars or called a liar. Goodness dont dare say anything that drifts from the math, or the village creep will experience catastropic failure, go into shock, then uncontrolably rant about people he doesnt like.
 No, that is not a description of the other forum. Why do you misrepresent it?[/QUOTE]
 You are so confused. It only takes one person to get a forum going in the right direction and Frank was trying to do that until he didn't want to bother with all the poop. It also only takes one person to ruin a forum and thats arcimedes with his repititious and almost sick math crap over time and again. He argues with lamoney a lot and money is as calm as a cucumber and as decent as an altar boy. At the same time arcimedes is so bothered by the alternate views of money that he goes off calling him and others names and describing anyone who doesnt agree with himself as a liar and stupid. Totally uncalled for. It is much calmer over here. [/QUOTE]
 Still misrepresenting I see.  If it is calmer over here, why do you bring this stuff up?

[Frank Kneeland]

There is an almost ubiquitous human bias to judge others by their actions, and ourselves by our motives. A related tendency is to refute people's feelings as false, if we feel the reasoning behind their feelings is false. When combined, these two dynamics result in a lot of the human conflict that occurs on an interpersonal level.Good luck in resolving your discussion, and remember that what another person feels is not a lie to them, even if their reasoning behind the emotion is flawed.~All things are true even false things.  ~Malaclypse the Younger~FK