Random High Thoughts (some people may be offended)

newatit2010 said:

thexeception I sure am glad you got that off your chest, had to be killing you,, its damn sure killing me. LOL J/K

Click to expand...

come again? I wasnt the OP, did I miss something, lol.

r1tony said:

Click to expand...

too funny.........

beardo said:

If he said something about that he's right it's one of the games where the house has the smallest advantage-but the house does have an atvantage. texas holdem is good because you play other players and not the house.

Click to expand...

he didnt say it has the smallest advantage, he said it was almost an even odds game AND basic knowledge is all that is needed for people to do very well. Let me break it down simply for you, I was in the casino industry 20+ years, as a pit boss, shift mgr, etc. in Las Vegas. There are not too many people that know the game like I do, I am an EXPERT. No way in hell is it almost an even odds game, and the house has more then a small advantage. The ONLY way the house, STILL has a small advantage is from OPTIMAL play (not basic knowledge) and even then it is no guarantee. I can count cards, of course, and that would be optimal play (knowing when to hit, double, etc. AND knowing where the count is) and even then, you have to play for HOURS in a single session more often then not to achieve that edge. The only people that consistently beat the game are people who can count cards, and who have the bankroll, the time, the patience (to bet in a manner as not to tip them off) over a regular period of time & duration to make money playing blackjack. But there is nothing that beats luck. If you have luck on your side, that "starry night" you don't need to know jack.

I ran my own poker room too, LOL, TH....how can you compare a house game to a game against other players. What was the point of that, education for me, or so you thought, LMAO

thexception said:

he didnt say it has the smallest advantage, he said it was almost an even odds game AND basic knowledge is all that is needed for people to do very well. Let me break it down simply for you, I was in the casino industry 20+ years, as a pit boss, shift mgr, etc. in Las Vegas. There are not too many people that know the game like I do, I am an EXPERT. No way in hell is it almost an even odds game, and the house has more then a small advantage. The ONLY way the house, STILL has a small advantage is from OPTIMAL play (not basic knowledge) and even then it is no guarantee. I can count cards, of course, and that would be optimal play (knowing when to hit, double, etc. AND knowing where the count is) and even then, you have to play for HOURS in a single session more often then not to achieve that edge. The only people that consistently beat the game are people who can count cards, and who have the bankroll, the time, the patience (to bet in a manner as not to tip them off) over a regular period of time & duration to make money playing blackjack. But there is nothing that beats luck. If you have luck on your side, that "starry night" you don't need to know jack.

Click to expand...

IIRC from the brief readings I've done on blackjack, with a solid basic strategy the house has roughly a 5% edge. With the (MIT developed, I believe?) optimal strategy, the house edge either vanished, or was reduced to a fraction of 1%. Feel free to correct any of that if I'm wrong, I would never proclaim to be an expert or even good at blackjack, I try to avoid -EV games whenever possible. I do believe that employing optimal strategy while counting cards can give a player a pretty tremendous edge, however most casinos have pretty standard safeguards these days (multiple [4+] deck shoes, reshuffling when the first 1/3 of the deck has been gone through) and card counting is as good as dead I suppose. A while ago they had a promotion at my local-ish casino (The Turning Stone) where they ran blackjack with a two deck shoe (asking for card-counters imo)

I ran my own poker room

Click to expand...

How did you get away with that? I've been under the impression that it's unlawful for most individuals to have a poker room in any state, and very difficult for preexisting parimutuel to add a poker room to their venue.

thedoc08 said:

How did you get away with that? I've been under the impression that it's unlawful for most individuals to have a poker room in any state, and very difficult for preexisting parimutuel to add a poker room to their venue.
[/B]

Click to expand...

Back in oh, late 80's in Great Falls Montana (good times) & it wasnt even the "charity" poker crap most states run under nowadays. Hell most poker machines, have payback rates of 98.8% with optimal play, standard slot machines 95% do you see people consistently winning, of course not. There is no edge. That little % is huge, over the long haul. True, most places you are playing against a short shoe, but in vegas you can still get a hand dealt double deck or at least a deep cut 2 shoe, any day of the week in several casinos with a high roller bankroll. What I am saying is simply whatever edge or % you hear about, or is "calculated" while that may be true are over a time period, or say for example 5,000 hands that doesn't apply to the average player at the table to be able to achieve that duration factor and certainly not consistently. I can tell you the few people that really make a living from it (and there are those that do it with the poker machines too) they are really WORKING for that money for the hours, concentration, etc. it takes to achieve. But I understand, there have been hundreds of books written, seminars given, even personal instruction on how to beat the house or always win at BJ & people are going to believe what they believe, but it was my life for all those years, & most of it is just not factual. I respect other people's opinions and I am not wanting a pissing match for sure, because I already know people believe what they believe, especially when it comes to gambling. I was simply trying to make the point that it takes more then basic play to have any kind of a chance at winning...luck aside.

What is optimal play for a slot machine, I was always under the assumption that there is no way to win on a slot machine?

I do know someone who plays them all the time and tells me he wins money, but I sure he's losing more the he win's, he's not the brightest Ive seen him poor through hundreds of dollars will no win.

lmao i agree with some parts.

Yeah, I'm aware of the law of large lumbers. Even hypothetically playing blackjack with a 10% player advantage, you could pretty easily set up a probability distribution to show odds of losing $ over X number of games. For a majority of gamblers (recreational) the 5% edge the house has in blackjack really isn't meaningful, as someone might see under 500 hands in a session, so you're going to have pretty large deviations. The reduction of that edge to 0 or advantageous to the players is really only noticed in long term professional gamblers. (Whether or not anyone is a lifetime winner in blackjack over 50,000+ hands is a mystery to me).

it would be easier to rob a casino than walk out a big time winner if you are banking on the odds.

burnout88 said:

What is optimal play for a slot machine, I was always under the assumption that there is no way to win on a slot machine?

Click to expand...

Depends on the game. Video poker is pretty easy to find optimal strategy for online. Full Pay Deuces Wild has been claimed to return 100.77%. For the most part though, with optimal strategy on Jacks or Better (no wilds) the Royal Flush has to pay ~4900:1 (4000:1 is standard I believe) for it to be 0EV, at the standard 4000:1, your disadvantage is roughly half of one percent. In short, the only way to be profitable over the long run on any slot machine except FPDW would be cashback/bonus dollars(have to be wagered X% to cashout)/comps/free food and drinks.

Next when it comes to Africa on the topic of all the starvation, i don’t know much on the topic but i believe with more education it would lower that problem. They need to be taught to use condoms or be given birth control. If i had no money and no job and no place to live i would not have a child, i understand accidents happen but it doesn’t seem like they do much to help prevent that, and yes rape also is much higher there, another reason why birth control would be very effective. I would also think after living such a hard life why would you have a child knowing he or she will have to live the same life. So yes help send them food but if no one is sending them condoms and birth control there will always be starvation. [/SIZE][/FONT]

there is alot of education regarding "safe sex practices" in africa the thing is the government there could give a shit less, same with most gov's (if it don't make money it doesn't make sense) that is pretty much the way of thinking for the "big wigs" as of most of you othe thing to be honest my add won't let me read it.. not sayin it isn't interesting because rants are always good! keep it up BurnOut

A lot of people bitch about charities because they think that if only 30% of their money is actually helping than they are better off doing nothing. People think of all sorts of lame ass reasons to do nothing for their fellow man.

Japanfreak said:

A lot of people bitch about charities because they think that if only 30% of their money is actually helping than they are better off doing nothing. People think of all sorts of lame ass reasons to do nothing for their fellow man.

Click to expand...

What percentage of your posts would you say are not intended to incite some kind of rise in someone? For me it's about 40%.

thedoc08 said:

What percentage of your posts would you say are not intended to incite some kind of rise in someone? For me it's about 40%.

Click to expand...

The post was in response to the op's first post about not giving to charities and the reasoning behind it. How many of your posts are beyond fucking stupid? I's say about 80%

Japanfreak said:

The post was in response to the op's first post about not giving to charities and the reasoning behind it. How many of your posts are beyond fucking stupid? I's say about 80%

Click to expand...

Maybe 5-8%, mostly intentional. I know what your post was in response to, but it was also (assumably) intentionally aimed at everyone who passes on charitable donations due to the knowledge that only X% of their contribution reaches the people it is intended to help.

thedoc08 said:

Maybe 5-8%, mostly intentional. I know what your post was in response to, but it was also (assumably) intentionally aimed at everyone who passes on charitable donations due to the knowledge that only X% of their contribution reaches the people it is intended to help.

Click to expand...

lol, comical exchange here, anyway

>A lot of people bitch about charities because they think that if only 30% of their money is actually helping than they are better off doing nothing. People think of all sorts of lame ass reasons to do nothing for their fellow man.

I am one of those one that generally passes for that reason, and I "think" in reality some of the biggest charities only distribute 10% of actual collected monies after their "adminstrative costs" I "heard" United Way is one of the worst. Anyway, there are better ways to help your fellow man, and ways that are not lame & lazy, like convincing yourself that well X% is better then none, & dropping your money in a bucket somewhere or sending some cash off to make you "think" like you actually did your part to contribute. Giving of your time & actually volunteering yourself is a better way to help those in need and interacting with your fellow man. Even "adopting" set family or families & giving directly TO them. Giving money or goods DIRECTLY to your local organizations in your community like a women's & children's crisis center for example.

So actually, People think of all sorts of lame ass reasons to do as little as possible for their fellow man by giving money to charities where the intended recipents get very little and often they are not even in this country, and to where it is easy to really not get "personally involved" and think they have done this great deed by dropping money in an envelope.

The doc and japanfreak at it again lmao

thexception said:

lol, comical exchange here, anyway

>A lot of people bitch about charities because they think that if only 30% of their money is actually helping than they are better off doing nothing. People think of all sorts of lame ass reasons to do nothing for their fellow man.

I am one of those one that generally passes for that reason, and I "think" in reality some of the biggest charities only distribute 10% of actual collected monies after their "adminstrative costs" I "heard" United Way is one of the worst. Anyway, there are better ways to help your fellow man, and ways that are not lame & lazy, like convincing yourself that well X% is better then none, & dropping your money in a bucket somewhere or sending some cash off to make you "think" like you actually did your part to contribute. Giving of your time & actually volunteering yourself is a better way to help those in need and interacting with your fellow man. Even "adopting" set family or families & giving directly TO them. Giving money or goods DIRECTLY to your local organizations in your community like a women's & children's crisis center for example.

So actually, People think of all sorts of lame ass reasons to do as little as possible for their fellow man by giving money to charities where the intended recipents get very little and often they are not even in this country, and to where it is easy to really not get "personally involved" and think they have done this great deed by dropping money in an envelope.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying.Its just a fucked up world man