> 10c. Re: Need Polite Reply-contest
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com,
> "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:
> > From anonymous: I think one of the biggest advantages
> we have over casinos is the ability to walk out when we are
> losing. If you don't leave when you are losing, how can you
> expect to come out ahead?
>
>
> One of the biggest advantages gamblers have over casinos is
> that they will trespass us when we are winning. When you are
> forced to leave when you are winning, you have by definition
> come out ahead. In fact, if your personal bankroll is
> greater than the casino win tolerance, you have an edge even
> over a breakeven game (your edge is roughly proportional to
> the ratio of your bankroll to the casino trespass limit).
>
>
Casinos don't trespass gamblers just because they are winning (at least not usually); they trespass gamblers when they identify them as advantage players from whom they are not likely (in terms of probability) to recover any winnings the player has gained. Casinos may occasionally trespass a player who they incorrectly THINK is an advantage player, but who is not, while that player is winning, and that IS an advantage for THAT player.
Furthermore, it is NOT an advantage for the "gambler" (if that term can be applied to the advantage player, and since the games all have an element of chance that assures that not all skilled players will win, even in the long run, I think the term DOES apply) to be trespassed when you are identified as a winning player, as it removes the opportunity to realize future winnings.
True, you may actually be trespassed while you are actually ahead, but trust me from blackjack experience, if a casino identifies you as an advantage player, they will gladly trespass you if you're losing at the time (and in fact, will be thrilled that they caught you on a downswing before you cost them a penny; this has happened to me more than once). It is likely true that there is less to make the casino suspicious that one is an advantage player when one plays VP and is not winning, but I fail to see the logic in saying that being trespassed, even when ahead, is a player advantage -- if that were true, wouldn't the casino NOT trespass players, but instead let them stay so that the casino can realize it's edge (oh, wait, the casino doesn't have an edge in this case).
Casinos want you to continue to play, regardless of your wins and losses, as long as they can afford to pay you off, IF they expect you to lose in the future.
If being "forced" to leave a casino when one is ahead is an advantage for the advantage player / gambler, then all such gamblers have the capacity to administer this advantage to themselves, by leaving the premises only when winning, which is what the questioner is suggesting is a correct strategy (combined with leaving when you're losing).
Part of the problem lies in how to define "I'm losing" and "I'm winning" -- is it where you are relative to when you started playing, or relative to a few minutes ago, or relative to a half hour ago, or what? A lot of people get ahead at a game, and then lose some (but not all) of their profit, and now say they are "losing".
And when do you allow yourself to go back into that casino (or any casino, if you accept that they're all the same)? If you can go back in right away, then you really didn't leave, did you? And of course, if you go back in five minutes later, the machines don't know the difference, do they? And if you go back in tomorrow, same story. So, unless you think it makes a difference how long you are not inside the casino, if you ever go back in, then you've never really left.
IF one plays games with a casino edge over the player, one is ALWAYS more likely to be losing than winning in the long run; it's just a question of how long you are willing to stay and realize the long run expectation -- and this guy seems to be willing to stay until he is losing, every time. At what point in your play do you decide you are "losing" and leave -- after you lose the first bet? No matter when, at some point, you are sure to leave a loser, because that's the only condition under which you are allowing yourself to leave - so you will ALWAYS leave a loser. If you stay while you're winning, eventually you will become a loser, and leave a loser.
Now, if the guy says, no, when I'm winning AT FIRST, and then I START losing, that's when I leave -- then he's not really leaving while losing, he's leaving while winning, but winning less than some point earlier in time. Make up your mind.
--BG
====================
