The Gambler's Fallacy...

[Tedlark]

If a casino patron doesn't walk into a casino with the thought of coming out with more money (a profit) than they walked in with, what is the sense of them even walking in? I know some will say entertainment value but come on, everyone who plays wants to make a profit.

I buy Shania Twain tickets for $300.00. I go see her show and walk out excited after just seeing a great show.

I walk into a casino and lose the same $300.00 in a machine and walk out. Trust me; I'm not excited.   

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=TedLark]I walk into a casino and lose the same $300.00 in a machine and walk out. Trust me; I'm not excited. [/quote]Here's what excites me.  I get up early in the morning, drive an hour and forty five minutes to the Tampa Hard Rock.  I listen to 50s and 60s music in my car on the way.  I smile as I drive along because I'm not bored to death sitting in the house all day.  I get to the Hard Rock about 9 AM.  Play VP for 4-6 hours, lose some money, win some money, walk out with the same money I came with and drive home happy.  When I get home my wife asks me "How did you do?" and I say "I played all day for free!"  If it took a big win the make me happy or get me excited, I would switch to something where that happened more often. 

[OTABILL]

I agree with Ted that when we walk into a casino we hope to come out with a profit. This is a no brainer. However, at this point in our lives, if we wind up even or spend funds less than budgeted after a few hours play we are content. Can’t get upset paying for entertainment and a way to get out and relieve stress. There are folks on this forum, probably the majority, who have a different view of what constitutes an enjoyable session of VP. I have no problem with someone who disagrees with our perspective and expresses their point of view respectfully and without rancor. However, some folks here believe such thinking is blasphemes, dumb or contemptuous, and respond with ridicule, insult and belittlement. This kind of response is unwarranted.

[FAA]

I buy Shania Twain tickets for $300. I go see her show and walk out excited after just seeing a great show.
I walk into a casino and lose the same $300 in a machine and walk out. Trust me; I'm not excited.   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"That don't impress me much." Come in with the background vocals, Ted!

[Tedlark]

Trust me FAA, you don't want to hear me sing.....

[FAA]

Can’t get upset paying for entertainment and a way to get out and relieve stress.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------When stress relief costs $70/hour, that exacerbates stress. Film is $7/hour. An offer we can't refuse!

[FAA]

Trust me FAA, you don't want to hear me sing.-------------------------------------------------------------------She couldn't even hear herself since 2004 due to severe vocal injury. Ironically enough, her big 2012 comeback was at the Colosseum at Caesars Palace! She had a nation of gamblers to thank for the payday. World, to be exact.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=FAA]When stress relief costs $70/hour, that exacerbates stress. Film is $7/hour. An offer we can't refuse.[/quote]This is exactly what I have been saying on this forum all along.  If your goal in VP is to play as long as possible and come home even, then there is no need to pay $70 an hour or more for the experience.  There are strategies that allow you to play this game for the cost of a movie ticket.  You will never win big money doing this, but you won't lose much either.   I understand much of the thrill in gambling is the possibility of winning big.  I've played VP long enough to know that if I win big the casino will eventually get their money back plus some.  I'm over winning big.  As far as I'm concerned it's a fantasy that I'm not willing to pay for.   If you feel differently, all I can say is we disagree and I wish you luck.I play the lottery twice a week too.  I buy one ticket each time.  Some people buy hundreds.  Are the odds of them winning the lottery that much more than me?  Of course not, but they believe investing more money in gambling produces more profit.   Mull that over in your mind and you may get what I'm talking about.Video poker is a great game.  You can play it for nickels or hundreds of dollars a hand.   If someone chooses to play as cheap as possible, it's nobody's business except the player.   If I offer to tell players on this forum how I do it, does that make me some kind of heretic that should be burned at the stake?   Bob Dancer claims to make a living playing video poker his way.  He says playing his way works for him.  It doesn't work for me for many reasons that have nothing to do with strategy.At the present time I play mostly 99% games with max coin quarters.  This balances my  goals with my desire to earn enough comps to offset some of my losses.  A free room at the Hard Rock is worth about $200 to me.  One day a month my free play is $200.  This makes playing max coins worth the extra cost, so that's what I do.All I ever said was players play video poker for different reasons and with different goals.  If your reasons and goals are different, your strategies are also.

[billryan]

All I can say is it is a shame you can't see how pathetic you sound.
I don't believe most people spend hours traveling to casinos simply because they otherwise would be bored to death.
What I don't understand is you saying you have abandoned your cheap strategy since you realize it doesn't work, but somehow keep trying to advocate it as a real alternative to math based strategy.

[FloridaPhil]

[quote=billryan]All I can say is it is a shame you can't see how pathetic you sound.
[/quote]I am curious as to why telling players how to save money when playing negative VP games infuriates you so much?  You keep saying you want a strategy based on math.  Math clearly shows playing single coin on a negative VP game is cheaper in the long run compared to playing max coins.  Even your mentor Bob Dancer agrees with that.Refusing to play any negative video poker game sounds good when you say it.  In real life what do you think would happen if every VP player in the world immediately adopted this strategy?  VP machines all over the country would sit idle and it wouldn't be long until they were taken out and sold for scrap.  If you are going to play negative VP and/or make errors, you are going to lose long term.  If the size of your losses becomes a problem, betting bigger will not fix it.  Betting smaller will make it less painful.I am not going to be drawn into another long drawn out war of words.  Math clearly shows I am right on this issue.   When playing negative video poker games, playing smaller limits long term loses.   This may not be what you want to hear, but it's an undeniable fact.  If you want to disagree with the math, that's your option.I never said I abandoned playing single coin because it didn't work for some reason.  I said I made the decision to play max coins on VP games with odds over 98% because I wanted more comps and the losses were acceptable.    If I found myself on a cruise ship or anywhere else where I had to play less than 98% games for an extended period of time, I would switch back to playing single coin as small as possible to limit my losses.