1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What is considered too excessive betting/gambling?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Bassmansam, Mar 30, 2017.

  1. stuman

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 27, 2003

    Posts: 1,497

    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.
     
  2. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 40,343

    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.
     
  3. Deus Ex

    Hitman

    Joined: Aug 22, 2013

    Posts: 928

    Location: North East

    I'm glad I made some cash.
     
  4. stuman

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 27, 2003

    Posts: 1,497

    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.
     
  5. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 40,343

    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: Apr 7, 2017
  6. Psycho Sonny

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 21, 2006

    Posts: 30,368

    lolwut?

    please explain this ridiculous concept

    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.
     
  7. stuman

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 27, 2003

    Posts: 1,497

    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, 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.
     
  8. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 40,343

    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..

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

    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
     
  9. Bassmansam

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 22, 2007

    Posts: 2,379

    Well my mortgage was approved on Thursday and i won 600 from two accas last weekend, happy days!
     
  10. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 40,343

    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).

    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.
     
  11. The_Abyss

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 15, 2007

    Posts: 11,536

    Location: Ipswich / Bodham

    That could sum up a lot of your posts on here :D
     
  12. LabR@t

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Nov 30, 2005

    Posts: 8,492

    £1, betting is for mugs
     
  13. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 40,343

    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  14. lnoton

    Mobster

    Joined: Apr 14, 2009

    Posts: 2,966

    Location: Global

    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.