Everything Bob wrote below makes sense to me. If you're taking the income from gambling seriously, then you have to jump on the good opportunities when they occur. There are simply too few of them to afford passing them up for occasions that can be celebrated as well or almost as well on other dates.
Barry Glazer wrote very well about maintaining a balance. IMO, Bob has clearly done that by having certain events that are inviolable, for which his wife can count on his presence.
A.P. offered advice from someone who's "been married to the same woman for over 40 years"...
My own wife has always understood what being married to a professional gambler entails, and always accepted it good-naturedly. We'll be celebrating our 29th anniversary this summer. Probably on our actual anniversary date.
--Dunbar
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <bobdancervp@...> wrote :
Lisa wrote: Well, unfortunately tomorrow is NOT guaranteed for any of us, but I bet
that big ole casino will definitely STILL be there tomorrow. At least
that's what I factor into my thought process when weighing out doing
something to please my significant other or spending time with my
family, but that's just my two cents.
Yes it will --- but tomorrow will not offer double points! Most of the people who are choosing to trash me over this do not depend on casino winnings for their living / future. I do. And it's tough to come out ahead even taking advantage of point multipliers. I would be a lot tougher without. Many people here are not successful at gambling. I'm sharing one of the "secrets" that help me come out ahead. If you reject it as being too far out of the box for you --- fine. Maybe if you had a $500 EV for playing a particular day, you would think and act differently. It might be a little different if you're a minor player and giving up $5 in EV --- or are still the underdog in the casino even with the point multiplier..
My whole point was that Bonnie and I can celebrate Valentine's day a few days early or a few days later and still have a meaningful relationship. Several responders have concluded that Bonnie was totally ignored because of my wild desire to gamble. She saw the article before any of you did and felt it correctly showed one area in which in we compromise in our marriage --- which we both view as successful. She accepts that $500 in EV means good things for her. She knows I never gamble "just for fun," and whenever I choose to gamble, there's a reason that will probably benefit her. She doesn't understand all the reasons, but she accepts that I'm knowledgeable enough and disciplined enough that I probably have a good one. Most of the time she doesn't feel ignored. And "most of the time" is as good as it gets, for me at least. It's okay with us if some of you don't compromise in the same way.
Several people have emailed me saying they can't get the article. when they try, they get the February 17 article instead. My web people have been told and I suspect that the problem will be fixed soon.
Whenever there is an article about Bonnie, Rob Singer (who definitely lurks here under some other name and still nurses a hatred for all things Dancer), chooses one person who has disagreed with me on the article (in this case AP), and sends this person an email eviscerating me --- while kindly sending me a copy of the evisceration. While this time it was directed to AP, a number of you have gotten such emails from him in the past. Welcome to my world!
Bob
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: h_dunbar@hotmail.com
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (11) |
