My favorite line was Hedy empahatically stating that she knew exactly what the smell on the towel was.
James Thompson
Former HRH casino monitor
CC: vpfree@yahoogroups.com; vpmail2@yahoogroups.com
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 13:43:41 -0500
Subject: [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]
[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/
[vpFREE] 7 star $500 credit
Coachvee is a little off on this. Some other places do just put the $500 credit (from a 7 star trip) directly into your total rewards comp accounts besides New Orleans. Cincinatti and Philadelphia(Chester) did this, perhaps because they don't have a hotel connected to the casino. There may be others who do this too.
__._,_.___
Posted by: Misscraps <misscraps@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
Cogno wrote: "OK, I misunderstood. There are no adverse tax consequences to a
high-variance play the last day of the tax year that does not have the
possibility of moving you into a different tax bracket (or a net loss)."
Right. If a play causes a change in tax rate, such as not getting a credit for a loss, then you have to consider that change and recalculate your true net EV. Your true net EV is the one that counts for the Kelly criterion. Or another way of thinking of it, for Kelly, the money that goes into your gambling bankroll is the money that counts, other diversions are simply leaks.
[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 (28) |
.
__,_._,___
RE: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
Bob wrote: "I'm way ahead this year. I lost last year."
I assume you had an edge in both years, so your loss last year was due to variance. Variance is close to symmetrical, so it's probably expressing itself in a positive way in your results this year, but you will pay a tax on it. Paying tax on variance is a negative EV because there is no legal carry forward of gambling losses. You could have done some planning to avoid that negative EV. Essentially you made a strategy error last year (that error was taking on more variance than you had edge) and that error is expressing itself in addtional tax you will pay this year.
[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 (27) |
.
__,_._,___
RE: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
OK, I misunderstood. There are no adverse tax consequences to a
high-variance play the last day of the tax year that does not have the
possibility of moving you into a different tax bracket (or a net loss).
-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpFREE@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 1:56 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
NOTI wrote: <<You might be tempted to play something that is a likely loss
in the short term if you're well ahead for the current tax year, but this
is dangerous because you could end up paying taxes on noise or variance,
which is negative EV.>>
Cogno asked: "I'm not getting this. Can you give an example?"
It's only an issue if you go into the red for a tax year and that loss was
only due to variance, which presumably would be the cause if you had an
edge. The implication is that next tax year you might get luckier, again due
to variance, but end up having to pay taxes on that luck. Variance is
typically symmetrical or close to it, so if variance causes a loss one tax
year but a gain the next, you are paying taxes on the variance, which is an
additional negative EV. You want to pay taxes on EV, not on the variance,
variance is a false gain, but can be taxable.
Example 1: your gamble for a tax year amounts to an even gamble but with a
deviation of $200. So, for example, you could lose $200 one year and win
$200 the next, but you would pay taxes on a $200 false gain, not your true
gain of 0. You thought you had an even gamble but you don't, instead you are
paying taxes on an illusionary gain.
Example 2: your gamble for a tax year amounts to an edge of +$100 but with a
deviation of $200. So, for example, you could lose $100 one year and win
$300 the next, but you would pay taxes on a $300 false gain, not your true
gain of $200. You are paying taxes on your edge and your variance.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Posted by: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
------------------------------------
vpFREE Links: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1955/20228/V/Links.htm
------------------------------------
Yahoo Groups Links
__._,_.___
Posted by: Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@hotmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (26) |
.
__,_._,___
RE: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
NOTI wrote: <<You might be tempted to play something that is a likely loss in the short
term if you're well ahead for the current tax year, but this is dangerous
because you could end up paying taxes on noise or variance, which is
negative EV.>>
Cogno asked: "I'm not getting this. Can you give an example?"
It's only an issue if you go into the red for a tax year and that loss was only due to variance, which presumably would be the cause if you had an edge. The implication is that next tax year you might get luckier, again due to variance, but end up having to pay taxes on that luck. Variance is typically symmetrical or close to it, so if variance causes a loss one tax year but a gain the next, you are paying taxes on the variance, which is an additional negative EV. You want to pay taxes on EV, not on the variance, variance is a false gain, but can be taxable.
Example 1: your gamble for a tax year amounts to an even gamble but with a deviation of $200. So, for example, you could lose $200 one year and win $200 the next, but you would pay taxes on a $200 false gain, not your true gain of 0. You thought you had an even gamble but you don't, instead you are paying taxes on an illusionary gain.
Example 2: your gamble for a tax year amounts to an edge of +$100 but with a deviation of $200. So, for example, you could lose $100 one year and win $300 the next, but you would pay taxes on a $300 false gain, not your true gain of $200. You are paying taxes on your edge and your variance.
[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 (25) |
.
__,_._,___
RE: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
NOTI wrote about me: That would imply that you don't let tax considerations affect your play,
at least not significantly. And you consider ignoring tax
considerations to be for the most part a "good bet"?
What you said I implied is certainly not what I thought I implied --- and definitely not what I meant to imply
I'm always looking for positive EV plays and for most of the year, the plays I select would be identical if I were behind $50,000 since January 1 or ahead $50,000 since January 1. I assume my gambling score at the end of the year will be positive (it has been for 18 out of the last 20 years. I'm way ahead this year. I lost last year.) I assume I'll have to pay taxes. (I do that more than I like.) But I spend little time during the year worrying about whether I'll be plus or minus at the end of the year. It's more relevant to me whether or not I'll be ahead or behind +$100,000 at the end of the year than +$0. And at that level, tax wins and losses are treated symmetrically.
I know I'll have tons of W2Gs, and the tax ramifications of that have been accepted. When you have a relatively small amount in W2Gs, additional W2Gs can disproportionately cost you tax-wise. But when your W2Gs sum into the millions of dollars, you have already surpassed the threshold where additional W2Gs hurt you.
In terms of when I collect free play or various other cash goodies, I collected all I could last year before December 31 and postponed paying certain creditors (such as Munchkin, for his share of the rather meager radio show income and Liam W. Daily's widow for her share of the Dancer/Daily royalties) until after January 1. This year I'll do the opposite because I'm ahead, so my 2014 tax return will show I paid Munchkin and Daily's widow for two year's worth of services. (Obviously Munchkin and Daily's widow sometimes have tax planning issues of their own and may prefer to receive money in 2015 rather than 2014. I'll talk to them. The amounts are small enough that personal relationships are more important to me than small tax considerations. Some years we'll do it in the way that benefits them and some years we'll do it in the way that benefits me.)
[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 (24) |
.
__,_._,___
RE: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
NOTI wrote:
<<You might be tempted to play something that is a likely loss in the short
term if you're well ahead for the current tax year, but this is dangerous
because you could end up paying taxes on noise or variance, which is
negative EV.>>
I'm not getting this. Can you give an example?
Cogno
__._,_.___
Posted by: Cogno Scienti <cognoscienti@hotmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (23) |
.
__,_._,___
Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
AP wrote: Would Bob Dancer play a $25 single line 9/5 jacks or better game that offered a jackpot for a sequential Royal (left to right only) in spades that brought the game to an E.V. of 101% ? I know I would not play such a game at any denomination. I'd love to hear the justification from anybody that would want to play this game."
That would be a "good play" if your current bankroll was over the Kelly limit (roughly betsize * variance / edge) and you can play several cycles of the one way sequential royal before the end of the current tax year.
Roughly speaking but with more math, a "good play" is when:
A. your current bankoll is over the Kelly limit (approx. variance/edge bets)
AND
B. you can play at least N0 (variance/edge/edge) hands before the end of the current tax year with the caveat of watching out for long cycle problems such as above
You might be tempted to play something that is a likely loss in the short term if you're well ahead for the current tax year, but this is dangerous because you could end up paying taxes on noise or variance, which is negative EV.
[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 (22) |
.
__,_._,___
Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
I don't disagree with what you are saying. I guess I'm not expressing my thoughts well enough.
I think the play that Bob is doing on the ultimate x platform has to be viewed a little like your all or nothing example.
On paper it looks like a good E.V. and a game that one might want to play. When you delve deeper into the game you find that a portion of that E.V. is comprised of hands that occur once every 100 years or so.
As a player, I would want to take that fact into consideration when deciding to play.
It could be that I am completely wrong and the E.V. shouldn't be discounted. Maybe the only concern here should be an astronomical variance rating.
Can somebody come up with a good reason to play this game aside from the excitement of maybe hitting a monster hand.
Heck, I even play it a little, but not for long and not for much.
My main play on these games is harvesting left over multipliers, and I don't go out of my way to do that.
I think this is a subject that deserves some discourse. At what time if ever does volatility override E.V.?
Would Bob Dancer play a $25 single line 9/5 jacks or better game that offered a jackpot for a sequential Royal (left to right only) in spades that brought the game to an E.V. of 101% ? I know I would not play such a game at any denomination.
I'd love to hear the justification from anybody that would want to play this game.
Regards
A.P.
________________________________
From: "greeklandjohnny@aol.com [vpFREE]" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
Albert,
I don't see why not having enough play opportunities to 'complete the cycle' should keep you from a good play. Completing the cycle doesn't guarantee you will make money on the play. It's just that you have more opportunities at a positive play.
At a local casino, there was a promo where you would get $5 in free play ( usually $5 but rarely a larger value) for $150 coin in. The best game is NSUD. You could do this once a day for 3 weeks. So, I would play 120 hands of $0.25 single line NSUD each day. 120 hands is no where near a royal or deuces cycle. Even for the 15 days, it is only 1800 hands. But this is still a 3% play ( admittedly for very low coin in). If I were at this particular casino and this play were available, I would play it every chance I could. Even though I am unlikely to hit a royal or deuces in 120 hands, it's still a good play.
Here's another example. You decide to flip a coin with me and will pay 11:10 if I guess correctly but will only flip the coin once. Would I take the bet? Sure I would. And I would be willing to wager a pretty good chunk on my gambling bankroll on this wager.
There is a tradeoff between EV and variance. If you had a $1 vp machine that paid $1,000,000 for a royal flush and 0 for every other hand, would you play it if you were only allowed to play 100 hands? You have a 216% game with a royal cycle of 23,000 hands but a variance of 108,000. You might not play that one. But I would certainly do the coin flip or the NSUD example above. Just because you aren't expected to win that particular session or play doesn't mean you shouldn't play it. If you play enough 102% situations ( of all different games) you should approach that 102% return, whether it takes a week, a month or even a year ( or several years).
[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 (21) |
.
__,_._,___
[vpFREE] NOLA 7 Stars Cruise Trip Report
Hi Gang:
My trip report on our Seven Stars Signature Event Cruise out of New Orleans
is now available on my web site _www.tomthebombpicks.com_
(http://www.tomthebombpicks.com)
You can use the link below to access it. Enjoy!
Regards,
CoachVee & Hedy
http://tomthebombpicks.com/uploads/NOLA_7_Star_Trip_Report_--_12-18-14.pdf
[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
Right you are greekland and if I was sure that $1 play for $1,000,000 royal was honest I would play it once or more than once if offered. That's annuitizing money you're talking about. My question to you is it worth your time for about $4.60? You're losing about $0.38 on the original coin in and a little less than $0.02 on the free play. There is also the consideration of the time it takes to complete the play. Personally I would rather be watching TV.
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 (20) |
.
__,_._,___
Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
Albert,
I don't see why not having enough play opportunities to 'complete the cycle' should keep you from a good play. Completing the cycle doesn't guarantee you will make money on the play. It's just that you have more opportunities at a positive play.
At a local casino, there was a promo where you would get $5 in free play ( usually $5 but rarely a larger value) for $150 coin in. The best game is NSUD. You could do this once a day for 3 weeks. So, I would play 120 hands of $0.25 single line NSUD each day. 120 hands is no where near a royal or deuces cycle. Even for the 15 days, it is only 1800 hands. But this is still a 3% play ( admittedly for very low coin in). If I were at this particular casino and this play were available, I would play it every chance I could. Even though I am unlikely to hit a royal or deuces in 120 hands, it's still a good play.
Here's another example. You decide to flip a coin with me and will pay 11:10 if I guess correctly but will only flip the coin once. Would I take the bet? Sure I would. And I would be willing to wager a pretty good chunk on my gambling bankroll on this wager.
There is a tradeoff between EV and variance. If you had a $1 vp machine that paid $1,000,000 for a royal flush and 0 for every other hand, would you play it if you were only allowed to play 100 hands? You have a 216% game with a royal cycle of 23,000 hands but a variance of 108,000. You might not play that one. But I would certainly do the coin flip or the NSUD example above. Just because you aren't expected to win that particular session or play doesn't mean you shouldn't play it. If you play enough 102% situations ( of all different games) you should approach that 102% return, whether it takes a week, a month or even a year ( or several years).
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
__._,_.___
Posted by: greeklandjohnny@aol.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (19) |
.
__,_._,___
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.
Bob wrote: "I strongly dislike that definition. It�s actually contrary
to Shack�s original quote."
I think you probably misunderstand what I'm trying to say.
Bob wrote: "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."
I did say, more or less: "it's whether you win or lose in the current tax year." But it doesn't follow that therefore EV doesn't matter. EV does in fact matter, but so does variance, and likely some other considerations, such as days left in the current tax year and current running results for the current tax year.
Bob wrote: "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."
That would imply that you don't let tax considerations affect your play, at least not significantly. And you consider ignoring tax considerations to be for the most part a "good bet"?
[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 (18) |
.
__,_._,___
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
