IT Employment

General discussion


The effect of onlie gambling.

By kkchia_83 ·
What is online gambling?
How to eliminate online gambling?
The disadvantages of online gambling.
The effect of online gambling.
Thanks you very much.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

crack for ID-10-Ts of gambling

by wordworker In reply to The effect of onlie gambl ...

Online casino gambling is a joke. There is NO WAY to know that the hosts aren't cheating you on every decision. In this world you must reasonably assume they ARE.

Unless you're betting on horse racing or other sports, where the events on which you wager are public data, how do you know whether the cybercards are being sim-shuffled and sim-dealt properly?

It's easy to write a faux interface that looks like there's a casino game going on, but it's really just a game. And the person who gave the offshore, cybercasinos money is the loser.

People who gamble online are what I call the crackheads of betting of give real gamblers a bad name.

Collapse -

Very well said

by maxwell edison In reply to crack for ID-10-Ts of gam ...

As a "real gambler" myself, I never engage in on-line gambling. It's the bright lights of the strip and the click of the chips that appeals to me, and, of course, the excitement and challenge of going one-on-one with the person on the other side of the table. (Never do slots, just blackjack and Texas Holdem'.)

Collapse -

A stupidity tax

by DC_GUY In reply to Very well said

State lotteries, race tracks, and legitimate casinos that channel at least some of their profit into the government treasury have been praised as "a tax on the stupid." The theory being that anyone who doesn't understand probability theory and expected value, but gambles anyway, deserves to have their money taken away used to educate the nation's children.

Online casinos have no such claim to legitimacy. All they do is take advantage of the stupid and keep the money for themselves.

Given how much reliable and easily understood information is available explaining why it's stupid to bet against the house, especially an unregulated offshore rip-off house, it's difficult to criticize people for making their own stupid decisions and throwing their money away.

Still, I would be more sanguine about this if the profits would at least stay within the boundaries of our national economy. The last thing we need is one more offshore cash drain.

Collapse -

Should I agree - or say Ouch

by maxwell edison In reply to A stupidity tax

I agree with the "stupidity tax" sentiment as it relates to state lotteries. And I agree with your on-line gambling sentiments as well.

However (you knew there had to be a however), not all gamblers are making, as you suggested, "stupid decisions and throwing their money away". (Although this is true for many.)

Personally speaking, I might consider myself a few rungs under a "professional gambler". There are indeed people who make their living with such skills, and it is indeed possible to beat the house. This is especially true with blackjack. (It is never true with slots or roulette or many other games of chance.) Implementing certain playing and money management strategies, a person can tilt the odds away from the house to a 50-50 proposition; and with some advanced strategies, the odds can even be tilted to the player's favor. That's not to say that a person can win ALL the time, because that's just not possible. But a person can win more than he loses. I've studied and played the game for years, have implemented such strategies, and while I don't win all the time, I do win more than I lose. Why don't I do it for a living, one might ask? It's not because I need a bigger bank-roll, but maybe bigger onions.

Collapse -

by DC_GUY In reply to Should I agree - or say O ...

Of course we all know that professional gamblers exist, but we're not likely to run into them in the venues under discussion here. If you have the skills to remember which cards have not yet been dealt, to calculate probabilities quickly, and to avoid giving off non-verbal "tells," then you might be able to win a game which rewards skill as well as luck and in which most of the jackpot is provided by other, less expert players rather than by the house. Poker, in other words, or some of the increasingly popular Asian games. But as for blackjack, over the years the casinos have made it increasingly more unlikely to ever see a hand in which the odds have slipped in favor of the patron. They use multiple decks, which levels the odds in the first place, and the dealers are just as adept as you are at counting cards and knowing when the odds have turned. You may win one hand by counting cards, but the dealer knows what's left in the deck just as accurately as you do so she re-shuffles before you get to play the next hand. The casinos are also looking for you -- perhaps literally. If you're as good as you say you are your photo may already be posted next to the security camera monitor. If you establish a winning record at blackjack -- simply by being an honest champion of the game -- you'll be quickly blackballed throughout Las Vegas, then Reno, then Atlantic City, and you'll rather quickly run out of places where you can practice your skill. My advice is: stick to poker!

Collapse -

Re: Blackjack

by maxwell edison In reply to

You're right, the Las Vegas casinos have indeed implemented multiple decks, more frequent shuffling and the like to increase their odds. And you're right about some people being black-balled from play in many, if not most, casinos; and they're using face recognition software to identify such players. However, even though I consider myself a savvy player, I'm nowhere near that level. But it's because of the amount of money I play with, not because I lack the skills to play with similar strategies. (That's what I meant by lacking "onions")

I go to Vegas 5-6 times a year, and I have my favorite casinos that still play single deck blackjack. They're mostly downtown; I usually avoid the strip. (The Horseshoe used to be my favorite, but the IRS closed it down for lack of payment. But Harrah's bought the property and the name from Becky Binion, and it will soon re-open.....I hope.) Double deck is not too bad, and it can be found as well. But I avoid the multi-deck games. Out of 6 trips, I may, on average win 4, lose 2. But I limit my losses by limiting my bankroll. Most generally, I'll buy into a game with $500 - $700. If I lose it, I go home. But it's enough to ride the downs (at a $25 table) and turn it into a $1,000 - $2,000 win, but not much more. Play at that level will hardly raise eyebrows in Vegas, other than get me a comp room and a free meal. These stories of people turning a few hundred dollars into really big-bucks are just that - stories. That just doesn't happen. Now if I added a couple of zeros to my bankroll, that might be a different story. I believe I cold play at that level, but I don't have the "onions" to risk losing that much, so I don't. (I have often wondered, however, what I could do if I risked, say, $50,000, divided over a 5 trip period, limited to $10,000 each.)

If a person can win at blackjack, one might ask, why do the casinos still offer it? The answer is that, even though some people do win on a regular basis, the majority of players do not. I might estimate it at 5% who do, 95% who don't (maybe 10% - 90%). The casinos can easily absorb that small loss on one hand in order to realize a huge gain on the other. Besides, it's good business for the casinos to "show" people winning.

It's been said that if you want to excel at something, at anything, emulate what the successful ones do, and avoid what they do not do. And in keeping with the subject of this thread, the professional - the successful - gamblers never visit on-line gambling sites just like they never split tens. The idiots will play on-line games of chance, just like the idiots would split tens.

Related Discussions

Related Forums