Any thoughts on how the current stock market/economic downturn is likely to affect the gambling industry? 2008 was a real game changer for many casinos and, to my mind, marked the beginning of the end of full-pay video poker. Will Crisis 2.0 finish it off?
<p>living paycheck to paycheck wasnt working for me I was completely exhausted all my stress went right out the window!<br><a href="http://www.bergansoutdoor.cz/redir.php?vitubet=facebook.com&jewevy=google.com&url=http://job-reporter.net/esubmit/bizopp_main.php">http://www.bergansoutdoor.cz/redir.php?vitubet=facebook.com&jewevy=google.com&url=http://job-reporter.net/esubmit/bizopp_main.php</a> now I dont feel something missing anymore dont hesitate trying this out<br>Dont say I never help anyone!</p>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Anything posted not relating to poker, will subject the poster to their posting privileges revoked, and possible permanent removal from the group. You have been warned.....
-- Mike, Co-Owner.
> "Frank" <frank@> wrote:
> In their defense, ownership changed after the machines
> were put in.
> "caribou321" <caribou321@...> wrote:
> What are you talking about? Ownership changed last
> year, not during the life of these progressives!
> http://articles.philly.com/2010-10-09/business/24980841_1_casino-gambling-space-eric-schippers
In October 2010 Penn National took ownership of only the M Resort's debt. Unfortunately a news release went out, picked-up by philly.com and a lot of others, saying that Penn National took ownership of the casino.
On June 1, 2011 after getting regulatory approval, Penn National officially took control of the hotel-casino. Anthony Marnell was appointed president but has no ownership interest.
The correct information is in this 6/1/11 LVRJ article: http://www.lvrj.com/business/m-resort-officially-acquired-by-penn-national-gaming-122936233.html
Well as I recall from Vegas gang podcast from June, Mr. Marnell III said he had just been relicensed in his new position with Penn gaming, and that his own compensation was still being negotiated, so I think both sides could be correct on this one.
Sent from my iPad
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:
>
> As far as I knew 1 month after we put them in management changed.
>
> It's possible the ownership changed before that, and they simply hadn't put in the new people yet.
>
> ~FK
>
I am sure there was something RECENTLY in print about the Penn takeover becoming final. I am half-way talking out my ass (not unusual) without finding the exact article. So perhaps both of you are right, the proceedings may have started earlier but something just finalized. I'll look for the article if no one else does. It must have been in the LVA I would think.
As far as I knew 1 month after we put them in management changed.
It's possible the ownership changed before that, and they simply hadn't put in the new people yet.
~FK
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "caribou321" <caribou321@...> wrote:
>
> What are you talking about? Ownership changed last year, not during the life of these progressives!
>
> http://articles.philly.com/2010-10-09/business/24980841_1_casino-gambling-space-eric-schippers
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@> wrote:
> >
> > Well it's worse than that. They had me ask vpFREE for recommendations and had me waste several days (and my time) accumulating suggestions and passing them along, and then went with a different plan of their own.
> >
> > There were multiple people involved in the decision and the person I had been dealing with was overruled.
> >
> > In their defense, ownership changed after the machines were put in. That's always a recipe for out with the old and in with the new.
> >
> > Had M not experienced a change in ownership, I have little doubt things would have gone differently.
> >
> > ~FK
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey" <mickeycrimm@> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > So it was scenario C. The M was making a little money but didn't figure it was enough. Now I'm LMAO!
> > > >
> > > > I think the M should have tried a 1% meter cut instead of chopping the payscales.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > They lowered the paytables, in at least the case of Double Double they lowered it from 8-5 to 6-5, skipping 7-5. They also lowered the meter rise from cumulative 4% to 3.2%. And, they eliminated the multipliers. A triple whammy!
> > >
> > > I don't blame them for needing to do something. But WHAT were they thinking? Seriously, I would have loved to had been a fly on the wall when they were discussing the proposed changes. I am sure they never asked anyone for advice, they just did it. I mean, it was Frank's suggestion in their ears to start with. One would think they would at least ask him for his ideas on their new changes before they implemented them. So apparently after they went ahead and did their own thing, the machines sat there with NO ONE touching them. lol SURPRISE!!!
> > >
> > > After that, probably a combination of confusion and embarrassment I'm guessing, they threw up their hands in ANNOYANCE and said "fk it, let's yank them, they're a pain in the ass anyway."
> > >
> > > And Mickey, lest you get the wrong impression from me, I was a huge supporter of the idea and I am very grateful to Frank for his effort. I hope he will not get discouraged.
> > >
> >
>
What are you talking about? Ownership changed last year, not during the life of these progressives!
http://articles.philly.com/2010-10-09/business/24980841_1_casino-gambling-space-eric-schippers
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:
>
> Well it's worse than that. They had me ask vpFREE for recommendations and had me waste several days (and my time) accumulating suggestions and passing them along, and then went with a different plan of their own.
>
> There were multiple people involved in the decision and the person I had been dealing with was overruled.
>
> In their defense, ownership changed after the machines were put in. That's always a recipe for out with the old and in with the new.
>
> Had M not experienced a change in ownership, I have little doubt things would have gone differently.
>
> ~FK
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey" <mickeycrimm@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > So it was scenario C. The M was making a little money but didn't figure it was enough. Now I'm LMAO!
> > >
> > > I think the M should have tried a 1% meter cut instead of chopping the payscales.
> > >
> >
> >
> > They lowered the paytables, in at least the case of Double Double they lowered it from 8-5 to 6-5, skipping 7-5. They also lowered the meter rise from cumulative 4% to 3.2%. And, they eliminated the multipliers. A triple whammy!
> >
> > I don't blame them for needing to do something. But WHAT were they thinking? Seriously, I would have loved to had been a fly on the wall when they were discussing the proposed changes. I am sure they never asked anyone for advice, they just did it. I mean, it was Frank's suggestion in their ears to start with. One would think they would at least ask him for his ideas on their new changes before they implemented them. So apparently after they went ahead and did their own thing, the machines sat there with NO ONE touching them. lol SURPRISE!!!
> >
> > After that, probably a combination of confusion and embarrassment I'm guessing, they threw up their hands in ANNOYANCE and said "fk it, let's yank them, they're a pain in the ass anyway."
> >
> > And Mickey, lest you get the wrong impression from me, I was a huge supporter of the idea and I am very grateful to Frank for his effort. I hope he will not get discouraged.
> >
>
See a doctor - again -- not to assure that you're not having a heart attack, but to get your pain fully evaluated (probably best done by an orthopedic surgeon), diagnosed, and if possible, treated. ASK about a referral to physical therapy as well -- they can often help you with preventative and therapeutic activities. You will need to do the exercises that are recommended by PT for them to work - seems obvious, but I would guess compliance after the initial treatment period is pretty poor.
I strongly suggest listening to these health care professionals -- if you don't like their advice, see another professional, but don't go shopping until you find someone that will tell you what you want to hear, whatever that is, if others seem to have consistent agreement on what's wrong with you and what to do. If they agree, it's probably because the science, along with their experience and expertise, are consistently supportive of what they're telling you.
If they advise treatment, medical or surgical, do as they recommend (you can, of course, and should, of course, ask what the alternatives are, and what the benefits and risks of all your options are, including "doing nothing" - and in the end, it's your decision -- but trust the information you're given in making your decision).
It may be that you need to limit, or even stop, certain kinds of physical activity, and this may include playing at certain kinds of machines -- your alternative may be continuing to play, getting worse, and eventually having no choice but to quit, only with the pain still there after you've given it up.
--BG
==================
> 2a. Body Wear & Tear
> Hi Gang:
> I've been meaning to pose this question to these forums for
> awhile hoping
> to open up some dialogue to a problem I've been
> experiencing for some time
> to see if it's as prevalent in the VP community as I
> believe it is.
> The problem/condition is wear and tear on the body after
> years of intense
> video poker play. I recently celebrated my 68th year on
> this planet and it
> seems that the inevitable aches and pains of "old age" have
> been
> accelerated and exacerbated by thousands of hours of
> play at mostly upright machines
> with chairs bolted to the floor that leave my arms in
> an uncomfortable,
> stretched-out position and my body in a ergonomically
> incorrect position.
> This has resulted in sometimes unbearable pain in my arms,
> neck and
> shoulders, and chest. In fact, the pain in my chest got so
> bad a few weeks ago I
> wound up in the emergency room at a local hospital, fearing
> that I was
> having a heart attack. All tests were negative, thank
> God, and the diagnosis was
> that my problems were all muscle-related. So, it was
> logical to assume
> that the repetitive motion of playing video poker was
> the culprit.
> The nerve impingement in my left shoulder/neck area has
> gotten so bad I
> have numbness and tingling in my left arm and it has
> seriously curtailed my
> ability to play long sessions any more. Hedy and I have
> been playing
> seriously since 1998 and the millions of hands we've
> played and the thousands of
> hours we've logged doing so are definitely taking a
> toll on our bodies.
> I've found that in recent months I've cut short my sessions
> and have
> reverted to being a cheerleader for Hedy, who is six years
> younger and has a lot
> more stamina than me at this point in our VP careers.
> I find myself
> taking more and more breaks during my play, getting up and
> stretching at regular
> intervals and basically cutting down on my play time.
> Chiropractic treatment and muscle-strengthening exercises
> have helped
> somewhat but I don't see the situation getting much better
> as we move forward
> and I get older.
> If anyone has experienced these same symptoms/problems and
> has some magic
> elixir or advice to alleviate this pain and suffering I'm
> all ears.
Well it's worse than that. They had me ask vpFREE for recommendations and had me waste several days (and my time) accumulating suggestions and passing them along, and then went with a different plan of their own.
There were multiple people involved in the decision and the person I had been dealing with was overruled.
In their defense, ownership changed after the machines were put in. That's always a recipe for out with the old and in with the new.
Had M not experienced a change in ownership, I have little doubt things would have gone differently.
~FK
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Bartop" <bobbartop@...> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey" <mickeycrimm@> wrote:
> >
>
> > So it was scenario C. The M was making a little money but didn't figure it was enough. Now I'm LMAO!
> >
> > I think the M should have tried a 1% meter cut instead of chopping the payscales.
> >
>
>
> They lowered the paytables, in at least the case of Double Double they lowered it from 8-5 to 6-5, skipping 7-5. They also lowered the meter rise from cumulative 4% to 3.2%. And, they eliminated the multipliers. A triple whammy!
>
> I don't blame them for needing to do something. But WHAT were they thinking? Seriously, I would have loved to had been a fly on the wall when they were discussing the proposed changes. I am sure they never asked anyone for advice, they just did it. I mean, it was Frank's suggestion in their ears to start with. One would think they would at least ask him for his ideas on their new changes before they implemented them. So apparently after they went ahead and did their own thing, the machines sat there with NO ONE touching them. lol SURPRISE!!!
>
> After that, probably a combination of confusion and embarrassment I'm guessing, they threw up their hands in ANNOYANCE and said "fk it, let's yank them, they're a pain in the ass anyway."
>
> And Mickey, lest you get the wrong impression from me, I was a huge supporter of the idea and I am very grateful to Frank for his effort. I hope he will not get discouraged.
>
Just as with video poker professionals, live poker professionals should not all be lumped together. It is certainly true that many of them have little understanding of bankroll requirements and money management, and that many of them engage in additional gambling activity where they do not have a positive EV.
However, there are others who decry the "gamblers" and who even recognize that they are not making contributions to society by their poker play -- and therefore manage their money well, play within their means, avoid negative expectation gambling situations, avoid drugs and/or alcohol (ala Stu Ungar - and others), and yes, as with Jennifer Harman, even engage in charitable activities (Barry Greenstein is well-known for donating all his tournament winnings to charity, as distinguished from his cash game winnings, which must apparently fund his tournament entries as well as his lifestyle).
In fact, charity poker tournaments in my community, and in most others of which I'm aware, are well-attended by those who recognize that (with a big piece of the prize pool going to the charity) these are no longer positive EV games even for the best of players (although the non-poker players who also attend and play, simply to support the charity, do help the situation for skilled players a little bit).
There are good people and bad people in all walks of life, and while casinos in general house a skewed sample of the population at large (in my opinion, anyway, no data to back that up), there are still examples of every kind of person in that population, including the subset that calls itself "professional poker player".
--BG
==================
> >
> > Poker players are known to make high stakes bets,
> sometime when the odds are not favorable. Many are known to
> make high stake wagers on craps, of all things.
> >
> haha a diplomatic way of saying "compulsive gambler". But
> they are high class addicts, and most are "functional"
> unlike Stu Unger. I never understood the thrill of these
> bets for a high stakes pro, look what they play tourneys and
> cash games for. That doesn't give them enough buzz?! I never
> had much respect for those guys, and they are too numerous
> to mention. Sign of our sick society that the media
> glamourizes their "fun".I'd rather idolize someone like Jen
> Harmon, who had the courage to fight a deadly disease and
> helps defenseless animals
> with her charity tourneys.
>
Mickey wrote: If they had bounties in the tournament then they would have been on celebrity poker players. My guess as to who Eric would be is either Eric Seidel, very tall, slender, dark haired and balding, or Eric Lindgren, average height and build, blond haired.
I'm not sure why my entire email didn't post the first time --- but here goes again.
Welcome back, Mick.
The only well-known celebrity poker pro who was there was Annie Duke --- and her "purpose" was to give an autographed copy of her new book to all the media members. She ended up winning the tournament. I went up to her, introduced myself, and told her she was scheduled to be a guest on my radio show on August 4. She said she knew nothing about that, but that if I had set it up with her publicist (I had), everything would probably work out. I told her, "I feel better knowing how much you're looking forward to this interview." She responded with a smile, "Oh, I definitely am." Made my day.
It's tempting to say "Of course she won -- she was the best player" but there's a lot of luck in any individual tournament. On one hand she was ALL IN with an unsuited QJ and was called by a guy with a suited A9. That made her a 3-2 dog (about), but the flop came out QQJ, crushing her opponent
I can recognize on sight both Eric Seidel and Eric Lindgren and virtually all of the others in the now-defunct Full Tilt ads. Neither of them was there.
There were a number of experienced poker players there (you could identify them by the backward baseball caps and the ability to shuffle chips with one hand) --- all of whom knew more than me about playing the game --- but none of the big names other than Annie.
There were twelve "bounties" out of the 130 or so players. Most of the bounties worked for WSOP somehow. During one of the rounds I was seated next to Lon McEachern (yes that's the correct spelling --- although it's pronounced McCAIRen) who is the "straight man" announcer (along with funnyman Norman Chad) on the WSOP television broadcasts. I asked him if there was a bounty on his head and he said, "No, and I'm very upset about it." He tried to deliver the line with a straight face, but couldn't. It came out quite endearing. He was knocked out a few people before I was.
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Mickey" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
>
> So it was scenario C. The M was making a little money but didn't figure it was enough. Now I'm LMAO!
>
> I think the M should have tried a 1% meter cut instead of chopping the payscales.
>
They lowered the paytables, in at least the case of Double Double they lowered it from 8-5 to 6-5, skipping 7-5. They also lowered the meter rise from cumulative 4% to 3.2%. And, they eliminated the multipliers. A triple whammy!
I don't blame them for needing to do something. But WHAT were they thinking? Seriously, I would have loved to had been a fly on the wall when they were discussing the proposed changes. I am sure they never asked anyone for advice, they just did it. I mean, it was Frank's suggestion in their ears to start with. One would think they would at least ask him for his ideas on their new changes before they implemented them. So apparently after they went ahead and did their own thing, the machines sat there with NO ONE touching them. lol SURPRISE!!!
After that, probably a combination of confusion and embarrassment I'm guessing, they threw up their hands in ANNOYANCE and said "fk it, let's yank them, they're a pain in the ass anyway."
And Mickey, lest you get the wrong impression from me, I was a huge supporter of the idea and I am very grateful to Frank for his effort. I hope he will not get discouraged.
No I did not play it. And none of my partners played it either. Well outside our BR requirement for normal fair.
~FK
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, lasvegaspilgrim@... wrote:
>
>
>
> Well I know there has been all talk about about the M's machines and the above topic, but the big question is still unanswered (and unasked, I believe, until now):
>
> Were Frank and/or Bob in on Huck's action, or were they playing it themselves (presuming there was more than one machine available) and just got unlucky???
>
> Inquiring minds want to know, since the progressive was apparently positive (Frank's specialty), and therefore theoretically a good play (Bob's specialty, considering the stakes)...
>
