What is considered too excessive betting/gambling?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Associate
Joined
27 Aug 2003
Posts
2,230
Your first graph shows he is a "winner" for 600 spins. At 80spins an hour, 13 hours. Or around 5 months On a monthly visit base.

Plenty long enough to call themselves a winner.

The problem is that if you weren't challenged on it, people would read it, and, due to you being reasonably smart believe you. I would say, try trading stocks. You'll find it more geared to accepting, even encouraging to people turning profit.

And dodging business rules etc. Stops being a focus.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
Again I've already explained, several times, what I mean by a winner and I don't mean someone placing -ev bets who (temporarily) ends up in profit for a while. Those people are still net losers, in the long run, as already demonstrated.

Trading stocks, though similar in some respects, isn't really relevant to winners being banned and is more comparable to Betfair.

You've not really challenged me on it - you've made some dodgy claims about card counting being cheating and handicapping in sports betting being dodgy neither of which are true. I'm not talking about 'dodging business rules' or cheating etc.. if you're going to simply make things up like that then cite the relevant rules.

My statement again was: "Winners get often get banned when detected"

I've defined what I mean by a winner, several times, I really don't see the issue.
 
Associate
Joined
27 Aug 2003
Posts
2,230
Again I've already explained, several times, what I mean by a winner and I don't mean someone placing -ev bets who (temporarily) ends up in profit for a while. Those people are still net losers, in the long run, as already demonstrated.

I've defined what I mean by a winner, several times, I really don't see the issue.

The definition of winner is just about having won at that time. Not someone who can run at +Ev.

So even if someone places a single bet and wins makes them a winner. If you then have to go and explain that what you actually mean is someone who has a net advantage, and given enough time / bets will end up ahead then, your definition is skewed. Not wrong, as they are also winners.

Yes, I was off the mark saying that counting was cheating, it's not, not in law. But it then raises the question, why are devices that aid your counting not allowed? But that's for a different day.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
Electronic devices are banned in general, there is more than just card counting at risk there, roulette timers for example - the world's first wearable computer was invented in 1961 for the specific purpose of beating roulette*. A group took the Ritz in London for over a million using a cheating device on a roulette table a few years ago IIRC.

Again I was clear about what I meant by winner and I've already explained that any number of games is essentially just one continuous game therefore someone who has lost a few grand over their lifetime and happens to be up a bit over one session is not a 'winner'.

What I mean by winner is someone who has won money from gambling, overall... their winnings exceed their losses

What you seem to mean is someone who happens to be up for a short, arbitrary period of time regardless of what they've won/lost in the past - in reality, as far as -ev games are concerned, they're either net losers or they're not gamblers/haven't played much.

sure someone who makes a bet and wins and never makes a bet ever in their life can be said to have won - but they no longer play so are rather irrelevant re: a statement of casinos/bookies banning people

*guy who built it was the same person who discovered card counting in blackjack and set up one of the world's first stat arb hedge funds. He also figured out the Black–Scholes formula before black and Scholes.. though he's a mathematician and they're economists... and they got a Nobel prize for it.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
OP, what sort of gambling do you do?

If it's something like fruit machines, poker or bingo, then that's not too bad. It's roulette that you have to stay away from. They regard the Devil Wheel as being the crack cocaine of gambling!

lolwut?

please explain this ridiculous concept

I regret losing a £5 bet on the grand national. Thankfully it's one thing that steers me completely away from gambling. I suspect most people rarely break even, so the thought of losing money just by chance puts me off. Granted one day you might have a bit of luck and make a considerable win.

But it's at what point you stop, they say lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place, so chances of winning again are going to be slim.

again wtf?

in the grand national any horse can win and there is like 40 horses to choose from. it's much like the lottery with better odds. why would anyone feel regret on a fiver on a lottery?

the only lottery that is throwing money away is scratch cards. they are pretty much a clever scam.
 
Associate
Joined
27 Aug 2003
Posts
2,230
Electronic devices are banned in general, there is more than just card counting at risk there, roulette timers for example - the world's first wearable computer was invented in 1961 for the specific purpose of beating roulette*. A group took the Ritz in London for over a million using a cheating device on a roulette table a few years ago IIRC.

So my issue here is that you could in theory have a piece of paper, and hand write the count on blackjack and still be within the realms of the law, and a multiplication card to do your deck depth*count arithmetic. But as soon as you enter the numbers into a phone etc that, is when it becomes illegal. Seems crazy to me that the punishment comes from the tool used not the act in itself. Like murder, as long as you strangle someone with your bare hands, it's fine, but as soon as you use a gun....odd law, and at some point I'm sure a case will go through the courts and set new president. Or, hand shoes will just be no more.

Again I was clear about what I meant by winner and I've already explained that any number of games is essentially just one continuous game therefore someone who has lost a few grand over their lifetime and happens to be up a bit over one session is not a 'winner'.

Again, the problem here is if you just hunted life to date winners, you preclude gamblers who lost for years and have recently started using an edge. So what you will find is that it is more targeted on a few visits then triggers investigation. Which, will then lead to a banning if they are cheating/ advantage playing. Your graphs have shown us,this can and does happen. Now to think that people would be banned for simply being up, for casinos, would be bad business.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
So my issue here is that you could in theory have a piece of paper, and hand write the count on blackjack and still be within the realms of the law, and a multiplication card to do your deck depth*count arithmetic. But as soon as you enter the numbers into a phone etc that, is when it becomes illegal. Seems crazy to me that the punishment comes from the tool used not the act in itself. Like murder, as long as you strangle someone with your bare hands, it's fine, but as soon as you use a gun....odd law, and at some point I'm sure a case will go through the courts and set new president. Or, hand shoes will just be no more.

But surely you understand why the law is so general? The law isn't going to specify specific electronic devices used to aid in gambling as new ideas could arise etc.. Also the principle is fine IMO - you could, as a human, try to predict roulette mentally too... you'd not get too far though. With blackjack the different 'counts' hi-lo etc.. are approximations - an electronic aid can improve your ev as it is going to take into account all the face values. There are plenty of reasons to ban electronic devices in general tbh..

Again, the problem here is if you just hunted life to date winners, you preclude gamblers who lost for years and have recently started using an edge.

that makes no difference to my statement - stating that winners are often banned when detected doesn't imply that others aren't

So what you will find is that it is more targeted on a few visits then triggers investigation. Which, will then lead to a banning if they are cheating/ advantage playing. Your graphs have shown us,this can and does happen. Now to think that people would be banned for simply being up, for casinos, would be bad business.

Again I'm not interested in nor talking about cheating - I'd not consider cheating to be legitimately winning and so conflating the two is silly - of course cheats will win money and of course they'll get banned, that has little to do with the point being made yet you repeatedly bring it up.

I didn't say people would be banned for being 'up' on a particular visit - again, I'm talking about net winners - I thought I'd made that pretty clear. Of course someone who is a net loser but has an up day isn't going to be banned and of course someone who's not even played enough to have the long term effects come to fruition isn't going to be banned for temporarily being up...

It is people who can win against the house/bookies who are often banned when detected

not people who have temporarily gotten lucky for a bit
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
LOL why was this thread bumped?

Can't believe I got drawn into writing a scrappy bit of Matlab code and producing a bunch of graphs in order to illustrate to someone how winners (as in overall winner not people who might be up for a particular session) in gambling almost always require a edge (save for a few outliers who've perhaps won the lottery or some big accumulator/jackpot bet and isn't going to live long enough to gamble it all back or indeed someone who has gotten lucky then never gambles again).

Anyone play roulette?

I think there are a couple of posters on here who do - IIRC there has been a thread in the past where people have come out with the usual gamblers fallacies and purported to have a roulette system etc.. And indeed people who are adamant that they must play on a real roulette table rather than online because RNGs are rigged etc...

Might be better to start a new thread even if you want more people to look at it as this one was originally about a mortgage application then about casinos/bookies banning winners.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
That could sum up a lot of your posts on here :D

Sometimes, yeah... though generally when stuff I've written has been misrepresented or the replies I get are just flat out wrong... in this case it was a bit of both - I like gambling so I'm more than happy to chat about the subject when it arises.

WCOyDDu.png
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Apr 2009
Posts
4,811
Location
Cheshire
I have quite an additive streak.

Thankfully I mentally train myself that £10 on the grand national is all I need to bet each year. It's a real buzz for me. So I know not to do anything more. Ever.

So sad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom