Q #1: only for a 'pro' and most folks break it down in months
or years, not 'lifetime'. Those time periods count, too.
#2: Because their time frame is different than yours.
Most folks look at it on a per trip or per day or
even per session basis. And most people hope
to win, but EXPECT and plan to have fun. How
many points does 'having fun' add to your EV?
#3: That's just silly, Frank.
People call it winning in their own way.
My ex-girlfriend's mother would play slots
until she was so broke, she could not pay
for food and had to wait for us to go out.
But she always breathlessly told us how
much she 'won' with fire in her eyes and
color in her cheeks as she remembered.
It's all in each person's perceptions as
compared to their expectations. She
dropped $500, but felt like a winner.
I ground out $50 an hour in blackjack,
but to her, I was a 'loser' because I
had no jackpot stories.
--- On Sun, 7/17/11, Frank <frank@progressivevp.com> wrote:
From: Frank <frank@progressivevp.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: SP vs. The M. Was: New Game Suggestion for FrankNBobs
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 1:27 PM
For me the issue is I never know. If someone asks me, "how are you doing today?" I'd have to make five phone calls and tally the results of my partners to give a meaningful answer.
Sometimes, I only find out how I'm doing during the weekly square-up, and this number itself seems just as pointless when taking into account the yearly result, or my lifetime earn.
Honestly, people's fixation with daily results and compartmentalization of "how they are doing" into tiny segmented slices of time simply seems bizarre and short sighted to me.
If someone is down $20,000 in casinos overall and hits a $1,000 Royal with no cost on a particular day, they are not "winning" a thousand dollars, they are losing $19,000. Any attempt to spin this as a "win" would seem to require several layers of cognitive distortion, bad record keeping and selective memory to achieve.
From my POV, one cannot claim to be winning if one is down money overall. To do so would seem to be self delusion at best, and outright lying at worst.
By the same token, someone that's ahead gambling overall could not really book a loser in a casino, unless they first lost everything back that they had already made.
This entire topic has perplexed me for years. I'd like to understand it better, if people wouldn't mind sharing their thoughts. So here's the questions I'll pose:
1. Isn't being ahead overall in casinos for your life more important than what happens on any given day?
2. How can people ever claim to be winning, if they are really down huge amounts of money over their life in casinos?
3. Would it not be correct only for people who are ahead in casinos overall in their life, to ever claim that they are "winning"?
~FK
P.S. My guess is that there will be as much confusion on this topic as there was on the whole long vs short term thing, which I found to be immensely illuminating. I hope I have not disturbed a hornet's nest here. Everyone remember that when talking about opinions, their can be many different views and no one side is the absolute truth.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, 007 <007@...> wrote:
I care so little about short term results that I find even being asked
> how I did recently to be excruciating. I had played video poker for a
> while just before joining a friend to watch a Super Bowl. He
> good-naturedly asked me how I did and I couldn't even bring myself to
> answer. One thing I like about what Rob pointed out about
> progressives is that the fact that I'm probably not going to hit any
> particular one makes it easy for me to accept losing, since it's the
> most likely result. But it's funny how the same skill of having a
> long run point of view doesn't always apply to other areas of life. I
> used to play tennis a lot. Particularly after "playing well" for a
> while, when I then "played poorly," I'd get so mad, whether at myself,
> the ball, my racket, the weather, God, or whatever. It never occurred
> to me until years later that the difference between the two was just
> luck, which I could have accepted as calmly as I usually accept luck
> in gambling.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
