Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014

 

There's a relatively narrow band of annual play results, near-breakeven, where a player incurs tax liability on winnings, but has no expectation of a tax benefit from losses. (From a simplified standpoint, above this band, wins and losses have equivalent tax implications, assuming you itemize ... below this band, both are without consequence)

This merely suggests an appropriate discount to your EV when in the band ... not hanging up your hat until next year. Some play may become inadvisable, given a greater tax liability. However, it's entirely possible that other strong play is still viable.


---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <Nordo123@...> wrote :

speaking of taxes I have an old years (2014) resolution for some of you to make. If for 2014 you are "close to even" gambling your resolution should be I will quit gambling for the rest of the year. The logic is infallible: if you win closing out the year you have a partner - The IRS. If you lose your "partner" abandons you. With friends like these you don't need enemies. You may begin gambling on Jan. 1, 2015 when hopefully your swings will be much larger.

Sent from my iPhone





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: harry.porter@verizon.net
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (17)

.

__,_._,___

RE: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014

 

Appreciate the feedback, Bob. You grasp that my comment was prompted by the posted notion that one never reaches the "long term". I'm hardly suggesting that my "guidelines" are the only viable play approach -- there's no question that there are worthy and attractive higher variance plays that fall outside those guidelines.

What I find most notable is that a sentiment of long-term results being unattainable potentially can tempt a player into some unwise play strategies. Mistaking variance for unattainability might suggest inappropriately discounting improbable hits even though such hits, when considered in aggregate over a lifetime of play, are statistically significant and very tangible.

In my experience, players who largely run a play profit year after year, seldom sweat whether they'll ever hit a rare jackpot. They simply focus on those factors that keep their play expectations strong, with reasonable reliability. (Repeatedly pressing a significant advantage is key.) So it is, for those with such concerns, I identify those factors that tend to make play more reliably profitable ... assuming opportunities at hand that fit the bill.


---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <bobdancervp@...> wrote :

Harry wrote: Under that definition, I and most other knowledgeable players can
reasonably look to "reach the long run" in a very managable length of
time. All this requires is the discipline to restrict gaming to plays
having a reasonable edge (0.5-1.0% min), keep play variance moderate,
and not excessively stretch one's bankroll.





I have no problem with that explanation in general. The half-percent-at-least edge goal is sometimes elusive if you want to play $50 a hand or more. The "keep play variance moderate" part is a bit tougher when you're talking Ultimate X. That was the whole point of the article. Put in other words, if you can afford to play dollar Ten Play, then playing the Ultimate X version of the same game should be limited to quarter Five Play or less. IF you can find a good pay schedule at that level (good luck!)

Whether I'm going to receive the dealt straight or better followed by a dealt biggie hand or not is not part of what I worry about --- or what I dream about. It's nice to hit a big jackpot --- but the sizes possible on this game are hardly life changing.

Bob


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: harry.porter@verizon.net
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (16)

.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Scot Krause's LVA Players Club Bonus Points Update - 17 DEC 2014

 

Scot Krause's LVA Players Club Bonus Points Update - 17 DEC 2014

http://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/greatdeals-slotpromotions.cfm

*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

__._,_.___
Posted by: vpFREE3355 <vpfree3355@gmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014

 

speaking of taxes I have an old years (2014) resolution for some of you to make. If for 2014 you are "close to even" gambling your resolution should be I will quit gambling for the rest of the year. The logic is infallible: if you win closing out the year you have a partner - The IRS. If you lose your "partner" abandons you. With friends like these you don't need enemies. You may begin gambling on Jan. 1, 2015 when hopefully your swings will be much larger.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 18, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Bob Dancer bobdancervp@hotmail.com [vpFREE] <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> NOTI wrote: I would propose that good bets are ones that end with a net win in the
> tax year. Under that definition, it's not whether or not a particular
> bet wins or loses, but the net of bets for the tax year has to be a win.
> If it's a loss, there's a tax penalty (gambling losses can not legally
> be carried forward) that has to be accounted for.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I strongly dislike that definition. It's actually contrary
> to Shack's original quote.
>
>
>
> Shack was referring to a good bet being one with positive
> EV. NOTI is saying it doesn't matter whether it has positive EV or not, it's
> whether you win or lose. And in particular, it's whether you win or lose in the
> current tax year.
>
>
>
> Let's say somebody is ahead $150,000 for the year right now.
> Under NOTI's definition, EVERY "reasonably small" bet is a good bet. It doesn't
> matter whether you go down to $1 ahead for the year in the next two weeks. The
> only thing that matters is that you're ahead. An uncoordinated person could
> play HORSE with LeBron James for $10,000 a pop. This is a good gamble so long
> as he quits after 14 of these games? Hardly.
>
>
>
> I do not think most people believe that being $1 ahead for
> the year is as good as being ahead $100,000.
>
>
>
> Tax year considerations are important. And it certainly
> makes for an interesting discussion about how your gambling strategy should
> change near year end because of the asymmetric tax laws regarding wins and
> losses. But most of what I consider to be a "good bet" has little to do with my
> annual score.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>

__._,_.___
Posted by: nordo123@aol.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (15)

.

__,_._,___

RE: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014

NOTI wrote: I would propose that good bets are ones that end with a net win in the
tax year. Under that definition, it's not whether or not a particular
bet wins or loses, but the net of bets for the tax year has to be a win.
If it's a loss, there's a tax penalty (gambling losses can not legally
be carried forward) that has to be accounted for.








I strongly dislike that definition. It's actually contrary
to Shack's original quote.



Shack was referring to a good bet being one with positive
EV. NOTI is saying it doesn't matter whether it has positive EV or not, it's
whether you win or lose. And in particular, it's whether you win or lose in the
current tax year.



Let's say somebody is ahead $150,000 for the year right now.
Under NOTI's definition, EVERY "reasonably small" bet is a good bet. It doesn't
matter whether you go down to $1 ahead for the year in the next two weeks. The
only thing that matters is that you're ahead. An uncoordinated person could
play HORSE with LeBron James for $10,000 a pop. This is a good gamble so long
as he quits after 14 of these games? Hardly.



I do not think most people believe that being $1 ahead for
the year is as good as being ahead $100,000.



Tax year considerations are important. And it certainly
makes for an interesting discussion about how your gambling strategy should
change near year end because of the asymmetric tax laws regarding wins and
losses. But most of what I consider to be a "good bet" has little to do with my
annual score.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

------------------------------------

vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
vpFREE-digest@yahoogroups.com
vpFREE-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

RE: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014

 

Harry wrote: Under that definition, I and most other knowledgeable players can
reasonably look to "reach the long run" in a very managable length of
time. All this requires is the discipline to restrict gaming to plays
having a reasonable edge (0.5-1.0% min), keep play variance moderate,
and not excessively stretch one's bankroll.

I have no problem with that explanation in general. The half-percent-at-least edge goal is sometimes elusive if you want to play $50 a hand or more. The "keep play variance moderate" part is a bit tougher when you're talking Ultimate X. That was the whole point of the article. Put in other words, if you can afford to play dollar Ten Play, then playing the Ultimate X version of the same game should be limited to quarter Five Play or less. IF you can find a good pay schedule at that level (good luck!)

Whether I'm going to receive the dealt straight or better followed by a dealt biggie hand or not is not part of what I worry about --- or what I dream about. It's nice to hit a big jackpot --- but the sizes possible on this game are hardly life changing.

Bob


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: Bob Dancer <bobdancervp@hotmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (13)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014

 

bornloser wrote: "<smile> I like Dunbar's adage (or is it Shackleford's?). It seems a good explanation to Dancer's play.

It is not whether you win or lose, it is whether it is a good bet."


But what makes a bet a good bet?

I would propose that good bets are ones that end with a net win in the tax year. Under that definition, it's not whether or not a particular bet wins or loses, but the net of bets for the tax year has to be a win. If it's a loss, there's a tax penalty (gambling losses can not legally be carried forward) that has to be accounted for.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (12)

.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Re: Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 17 DEC 2014

 

And they missed a payment, starting the 30 day clock to bankruptcy:

Caesars misses $225 million interest payment http://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/dec/15/caesars-misses-225-million-interest-payment/

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/dec/15/caesars-misses-225-million-interest-payment/

Caesars misses $225 million interest payment http://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/dec/15/caesars-misses-225-million-interest-payment/ Caesars Entertainment Corp. officials say they won't make a $225 million interest payment due Monday on some of its debt as the company keeps ne...



View on lasvegass... http://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/dec/15/caesars-misses-225-million-interest-payment/
Preview by Yahoo




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (2)

.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 17 DEC 2014

 

Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas LVA BLOG - 17 DEC 2014

News from Caesars Properties

http://jscott.lvablog.com/?p=3737

*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

__._,_.___
Posted by: vpFREE3355 <vpfree3355@gmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014

 

I'll disagree strongly with the notion that the "long run" is never "reached". That depends on one's notion of "long run".

For my play, I define it as the play length required to be reasonably confident of a positive play result (incl cash play incentives). (This definition obviously reflects the concept of "N0", introduced here by NOTI)

Under that definition, I and most other knowledgeable players can reasonably look to "reach the long run" in a very managable length of time. All this requires is the discipline to restrict gaming to plays having a reasonable edge (0.5-1.0% min), keep play variance moderate, and not excessively stretch one's bankroll.



---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <007@...> wrote :

>I agree that there isn't a bankroll concern, but when a play is considered to be good over a well defined long run as it was here, and when that long run will not be reached, again as well defined here, then why play it ?
>
>It seems to me that if you aren't likely to complete enough cycles to get the average return, and the edge isn't large to begin with why play it.
>We were given lots of good reasons not to play it, but I saw no good reasons to play it. I just want to know the logic behind the decision.
>
>A.P.

The "long run" is never "reached." The expected result, in percentage
terms, is generally more closely approached as the number of trials
increases.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: harry.porter@verizon.net
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (11)

.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Seven Stars NOLA Cruise Correction

 

Hi Gang:
In my previous post I referred to a "chaotic Seven Stars Signature Event
Cruise" we took out of New York on the Breakaway in November. That Seven
Stars cruise was actually on the Gem in September to Canada and New England.
Sorry for the confusion but Hedy and I did eight NCL cruises this year and
they tend to blur together after awhile.
Regards,
CoachVee & Hedy

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: coachvee@aol.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

[vpFREE] Seven Stars NOLA cruise

 

Hi Gang:
Hedy and I returned from the Seven Stars Signature Event cruise on the NCL
Dawn out of New Orleans Sunday. It certainly was a lot more organized and
professionally run than the chaotic one we took out of New York on the
Breakaway out of New York in November.
I'll be posting a detailed trip report on my website in a day or two.
But, first a few tidbits about Harrah's NOLA.
1) As Jean Scott mentioned recently there are no more discretionary comps
being issued in NOLA. None.
Our host told us that rewards credits must be exhausted first before any
comps are offered. This is obviously a big change in a place that was very
liberal with discretionary comps in the past. And all restaurants (except
Besh, The Buffet and Manning's) are now 2-for-1 when using comps.
2) The VP downgrades continue. The one Quick Quads machine with 8/5 bonus
poker (third from the left on the wall near the Besh Steakhouse) no longer
has this game. BP has been downgraded to 7/5, matching the other machines in
the row.
Although we never played them, a friend also told us that the machines with
8/6 Bonus Poker Deluxe have been downgraded as well. He said they were in
place when we left on the cruise but were downgraded when we came back a
week later.
3) The $500 Seven Stars Trip folio remains the same. It is downloaded into
your account prior to your arrival and remains there. It does not have to
be used on the trip. To my knowledge, NOLA is still the only Caesars
property in the country where this is true. At the other properties you must use
the $500 on that particular trip or you lose it.
Regards,
CoachVee & Hedy



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: coachvee@aol.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014

 

According to Nordo123's post it would take 150 years to do a full cycle on the game. The E.V. takes into account a full cycle. If you don't complete a full cycle then the E.V. should be adjusted to account for that.

I am questioning whether the game is a good bet. I suggest that the E.V. he is using is not accurate because it takes into account hands that are extremely rare. It's not like a regular royal which you know you will hit numerous times. Here we are looking for Royals with big multipliers, and dealt royals that were preceded by dealt flushes, full houses and straights. to get the mega payoffs, and I would guess that hitting any one of the mega payouts would cause the game to disappear, and you'd probably never get a chance to hit another one.

When I am playing games that have big bonuses for dealt royals or sequential royals, I give no value to those bonuses, because it is so unlikely to hit for me, that I believe it would be an unwise move to
add that into the E.V. to determine if the game is a good play.

So for the math whizzes out there. Here is the problem. What would the E.V. be on the game if you totally discounted dealt royals that were preceded by a dealt straight, flush or full house ?

A.P.

________________________________

From: "bornloser1537@yahoo.com [vpFREE]" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014

<smile> I like Dunbar's adage (or is it Shackleford's?). It seems a good explanation to Dancer's play.

It is not whether you win or lose, it is whether it is a good bet.

..... bl

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

__._,_.___
Posted by: Albert Pearson <ehpee@rogers.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (10)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014

 

You guys want to know the long run - here it is. Bob Dancer dreams of being dealt a royal on Ultimate X with all lines being 12X for $480,000. The easiest way of achieving this (and realistically the only way) is to be dealt a full house followed by a dealt royal flush. You are dealt a full house every 694 1/6 hands. You are dealt a royal flush every 649,740 hands. It would therefore take you 451,027,850 original (predraw) hands on average to be dealt a royal flush with every line 12X. At $100 per original hand that's $45,102,785,000 of action. Assuming Bob Dancer (or anybody) plays 3 million original hands per year it would take him over 150 years (on average) to achieve that feat. Now that's the long run!!

Sent from my iPhone

__._,_.___
Posted by: nordo123@aol.com
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (9)

.

__,_._,___
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)