Who here Honestly knows people who win most of the

[Tedlark]

DaBurglar I knew perfectly well what I wrote so there was no need to highlight it.

It's interesting that you had no rebuttal to what I wrote in my most recent post regarding royal frequency, me, and olds but yet you zeroed in on my use of the word several instead of many.

In case you haven't picked up a Thesaurus some other synonyms for the word several, include: a lot; considerable; many; numerous; and, quite a few.

For you, a few antonyms of the word several would be: not many entries into the monthly Seven Stars contest; or, not many daily high scores.

[DaBurglar]

DaBurglar I knew perfectly well what I wrote so there was no need to highlight it.

It's interesting that you had no rebuttal to what I wrote in my most recent post regarding royal frequency, me, and olds but yet you zeroed in on my use of the word several instead of many.

In case you haven't picked up a Thesaurus some other synonyms for the word several, include: a lot; considerable; many; numerous; and, quite a few.

For you, a few antonyms of the word several would be: not many entries into the monthly Seven Stars contest; or, not many daily high scores.

First, what is there to rebut????   All you did was type a piece of info that combined the universally known frequency for Royals  with  a well known anecdotal dry spell of another member......big f-ng deal.   And don't even try the backhanded remark that I dodged something because YOU DO THAT ALL THE TIME, including just now.   And your desperation ploy on the word "several" is just that,,,,,,desperate.     Several means several, universally accepted to be around 3 or 4 (maybe.....usually 3)......you just slipped up in the same thread because it is getting harder to keep your story/fantasy straight.   2007 thru today is at least 10 years (11 years if 2007 is inclusive)     No one in contemporary American society equates several with 10 or 11......Just can it Ted, seriously......I actually don't care nearly as much as you do, but since you insist on ruining every single thread I post here, and derive such perverse joy in the process, I am going to put forth the minimum effort (for me) to make you look like the colossal jerk you insist on being......and fyi,  "JERK" is not namecalling, since JERK is not in fact a name (usually).....

[Tedlark]

It appears that you put forth minimum effort in most everything that you do. I did not "slip up" as you may state.

[billslim]

I do seem to remember a while back Tedlark claiming he had credit card debt. That doesn't seem possible with 10 years of constant winning.

[Tedlark]

My credit card debt has been gone for a year billslim, wiped out June 2016. This credit card debt was in no way connected to gambling.

Edited to correct debt from debit.

[felix]

Ted gambling on credid cards is the fast route to he11. No gambling with rent, grocery money, ect

[Tedlark]

You are so right felix, people who gamble with any money other than disposable income are just digging a VERY deep hole.

[DaBurglar]

You are so right felix, people who gamble with any money other than disposable income are just digging a VERY deep hole. This is an example of someone attempting to appear more sophisticated, or more nuanced......or even more "smart" than they actually are in a certain topic or area of expertise.    The proper (or correct) term should be Discretionary Income given the topic, context and implied message of the writer.,,,,,disposable income is incorrect terminology, far too broad and encompassing a term to be applied to a person's gambling budget IF in fact it is intended to portray that person as a responsible and disciplined gambler.  I will not go into depth regarding the definitions of the two terms (DIsposable Income  vs.  Discretionary Income), especially since every time I do it seems to enrage the willfully ignorant denizens of this forum who shun enlightment and feel any one demonstrating knowledge and intelligence is somehow "showing off" while showing THEM up.....go figure.....still, once others do their own homework and fully explore the correct meanings, definition and application of   "Discretionary Income"  vs.   "Disposable Income",  I'm confident they will all clearly see the truth.

[Tedlark]

Why thank you for the Economics 101 lesson Professor DaBurglar, your classroom must be sandwiched between those of Professor Henry Higgins and Professor Julius Kelp.

For those of us who are willfully ignorant, what Professor DaBurglar was trying to say was that:

Discretionary Income is disposable income, after taxes, minus all current bill payments, while Disposable Income is merely personal income left after only taxes have been taken out of it.

So in today's lesson Professor DaBurglar was expectorating that I erred and should have used the term discretionary income to better solidify my point.

So, I hope that Professor DaBurglar has indeed taught us willfully ignorant denizens who shun enlightenment the difference between discretionary income and disposable income.

I'll make sure there is an apple on Professor DaBurglar's desk tomorrow morning for him to polish.

[billryan]

   Getting back to the original question, I had lunch today with a number of people who gamble for a living, although I don't believe they consider it to be gambling. Several derive most of their income from VP and promotions, with BJ and taking advantage of sports books a large factor.
The longer I live here, the more it seems that the number of people living off casinos is a lot larger than I previously thought. What I thought was dozens, is easily hundreds. Maybe more.