GB wrote:
>>> I'm intrigued by that. Can I ask two questions, purely for my
>>> personal research, please:
>>> 1. Roughly how much do you spend on lottery tickets on average per
>>> week or year?
>> 4 per week.
> That's presumably easily affordable and comes out of your
> entertainment budget.
>>> 2. How much would you pay for a 1 in a billion billion chance of
>>> winning a billion pounds?
>> Probably about 0.1% or so of my monthly disposable income.
> That despite your having a mathematical expectation of a return of
> only one-billionth of your stake?
> That seems absurd to me, particularly as the chance of winning is so
> low. If you imagine that everyone in the UK bought one ticket every
> week - say 70m people every week. There would on average be a winner
> every 274,725,275 years.
> Are you sure that you read the question?
Are you sure you appreciate the difference between an investment and a gamble?
> > I have only ever been to a casino once and was astonished how
> > people would waste circa £100 a time on a turn of a roulette wheel. My
> > impression was a lot of them were shop keepers with their night
> > winnings.
> > I bid safely on red/black and increased my bet whenever i lost so that
> > i would
> > recoup my losses it was the same method a friend of mine employed and
> > is fine
> > if you want to play the long game etc. He once encountered 10 blacks
> > in a row but
> > did not have the funds to keep the method up.
> Martingale method (fallacy?) - the casinos put a limit on the table, so
> even if you have the funds you can't keep doubling up.
I have no idea what limit there was, i was only there for an hour. No
doubt
had i been longer etc they would have said something. They do give
out complementary sandwiches etc.
In Vegas etc card counting is illegal which i dont think is fair. How
they
are able to determine whether someone is employing such a method is
questionable too.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:48:46 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>>> Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those
>>> odds, I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the
>>> chance of losing is very high.
>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else. I
>> am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to spend
>> on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I gamble
>> small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the whole
>> evening.
>How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely >enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment >comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to lose >on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
Only if your sole purpose is to gamble a certain amount of money.
But it would hardly amount to an evening's entertainment. It would be
like reading most of the plot sysopsis of a play, then popping into
the theatre to watch the last 5 minutes to see how it ends.
A casino would indeed be a rather boring place to spend *every*
evening, but if you visit only once in a Blue Moon as I do, the
experience is novel enough to make it entertaining for several hours.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:52:26 -0800 (PST), Richard McKenzie
<richardmckenzi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Martingale method (fallacy?) - the casinos put a limit on the table, so
>> even if you have the funds you can't keep doubling up.
>I have no idea what limit there was, i was only there for an hour. No
>doubt
>had i been longer etc they would have said something. They do give
>out complementary sandwiches etc.
IIRC the last casino I went to had a limit of 50 on any of the
"evens" bets (red/black odd/even high/low)
You can do a similar thing by betting on 2/3rds of the table per bet,
where the table limit is less likely to be reached due to an adverse
run.
Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:48:46 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>>>> Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those
>>>> odds, I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the
>>>> chance of losing is very high.
>>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else.
>>> I am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to
>>> spend on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I
>>> gamble small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the
>>> whole evening.
>> How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely
>> enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment
>> comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to
>> lose on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
> Only if your sole purpose is to gamble a certain amount of money.
Well, that's effectively what you said.
> But it would hardly amount to an evening's entertainment. It would be
> like reading most of the plot sysopsis of a play, then popping into
> the theatre to watch the last 5 minutes to see how it ends.
A very efficient use of time indeed.
> A casino would indeed be a rather boring place to spend *every*
> evening, but if you visit only once in a Blue Moon as I do, the
> experience is novel enough to make it entertaining for several hours.
What on earth is ever 'entertaining' about trying to decide 'red' or 'black' in advance when anyone with any sense knows it's entirely random? And what exactly do you find interesting when you're only staking small amounts you can easily afford to lose?
>Cynic wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:37:19 +0000, GB <NOTsome...@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Yes I know that, I said that. Would you bet it suddenly they offered
>>>> 70:1 payout because no-one had won for a week?
>>> Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those
>>> odds, I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the
>>> chance of losing is very high.
>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else. I
>> am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to spend
>> on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I gamble
>> small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the whole
>> evening.
>How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely >enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment >comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to lose >on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
Different people find different things enjoyable.
*You* don't find the actual activities in a casino enjoyable (and many
others also wouldn't).
But some people do. You can't decide what is enjoyable for Cynic. -- Alex Heney, Global Villager
The road to success is always under construction.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
Owain wrote:
> On Nov 14, 3:51 pm, "Norman Wells" wrote:
>> Are you sure you appreciate the difference between an investment and
>> a gamble?
> I do, but if you explain it I'll pass it on to my former bank for the
> attention of the unit trust fund managers.
The difference is well-known, as evidenced by the term 'casino banking' to cover the sector that is purely and simply gambling. If you want a guide to what that is, it's anything Mr Mainwaring wouldn't have sanctioned.
Alex Heney wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:48:46 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>> Cynic wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:37:19 +0000, GB <NOTsome...@microsoft.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Yes I know that, I said that. Would you bet it suddenly they
>>>>> offered 70:1 payout because no-one had won for a week?
>>>> Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those
>>>> odds, I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the
>>>> chance of losing is very high.
>>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else.
>>> I am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to
>>> spend on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I
>>> gamble small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the
>>> whole evening.
>> How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely
>> enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment
>> comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to
>> lose on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
> Different people find different things enjoyable.
> *You* don't find the actual activities in a casino enjoyable (and many
> others also wouldn't).
> But some people do. You can't decide what is enjoyable for Cynic.
No, but I can perhaps judge his intellect if what he enjoys doing is tossing a coin and endlessly predicting heads or tails, which is really all that happens in any casino.
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:48:46 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:37:19 +0000, GB <NOTsome...@microsoft.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Yes I know that, I said that. Would you bet it suddenly they
>>>>>> offered 70:1 payout because no-one had won for a week?
>>>>> Yes, obviously I would. If it is limited to a single bet at those
>>>>> odds, I would only bet an amount I could afford to lose, as the
>>>>> chance of losing is very high.
>>>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else.
>>>> I am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to
>>>> spend on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I
>>>> gamble small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the
>>>> whole evening.
>>> How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely
>>> enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment
>>> comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to
>>> lose on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
>> Different people find different things enjoyable.
>> *You* don't find the actual activities in a casino enjoyable (and many
>> others also wouldn't).
>> But some people do. You can't decide what is enjoyable for Cynic.
>No, but I can perhaps judge his intellect if what he enjoys doing is >tossing a coin and endlessly predicting heads or tails, which is really >all that happens in any casino.
No, you can't judge somebody's intellect from the fact they enjoy one
particular leisure pursuit that doesn't require much intelligence.
-- Alex Heney, Global Villager
If it walks out of your refrigerator, LET IT GO !!
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
>>No, but I can perhaps judge his intellect if what he enjoys doing is
>> tossing a coin and endlessly predicting heads or tails, which is really
>> all that happens in any casino.
> No, you can't judge somebody's intellect from the fact they enjoy one
> particular leisure pursuit that doesn't require much intelligence.
Well, he can, and I don't see how you can stop him. OTOH, you can judge Norman's intellect from the fact he wants to......
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:52:26 -0800 (PST), Richard McKenzie
> <richardmckenzi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Martingale method (fallacy?) - the casinos put a limit on the table, so
>>> even if you have the funds you can't keep doubling up.
>> I have no idea what limit there was, i was only there for an hour. No
>> doubt
>> had i been longer etc they would have said something. They do give
>> out complementary sandwiches etc.
> IIRC the last casino I went to had a limit of 50 on any of the
> "evens" bets (red/black odd/even high/low)
> You can do a similar thing by betting on 2/3rds of the table per bet,
> where the table limit is less likely to be reached due to an adverse
> run.
Martingale increases your chances of winning on a particular visit to the casino, but it does not improve the odds in your favour overall. What happens with Martingale is that, when you win, you win small amounts. OTOH, when you lose, you lose very large amounts. You don't have to lose very often to come out a loser overall.
Stick to gambling as an entertaining use of pocket money and you can't go far wrong.
GB wrote:
> On 14/11/2012 20:06, Cynic wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:52:26 -0800 (PST), Richard McKenzie
>> <richardmckenzi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> Martingale method (fallacy?) - the casinos put a limit on the
>>>> table, so even if you have the funds you can't keep doubling up.
>>> I have no idea what limit there was, i was only there for an hour.
>>> No doubt
>>> had i been longer etc they would have said something. They do give
>>> out complementary sandwiches etc.
>> IIRC the last casino I went to had a limit of 50 on any of the
>> "evens" bets (red/black odd/even high/low)
>> You can do a similar thing by betting on 2/3rds of the table per bet,
>> where the table limit is less likely to be reached due to an adverse
>> run.
> Martingale increases your chances of winning on a particular visit to
> the casino, but it does not improve the odds in your favour overall.
> What happens with Martingale is that, when you win, you win small
> amounts. OTOH, when you lose, you lose very large amounts. You don't
> have to lose very often to come out a loser overall.
> Stick to gambling as an entertaining use of pocket money and you can't
> go far wrong.
Do you find betting on heads or tails 'entertaining' or, as I do, interminably dull?
Sure, it's entertaining if you're pitting your wits against other players, or using some skill to outwit a bookmaker, but not where the subject of the gamble is a totally random event surely.
> Anyone know how does this work? I'm curious because Wikipedia seems to say
> that it depends on how many tickets are sold and is 1 in 9,200,000 on Friday
> and 1 in 3,500,000
> Odds wise, the number is of the format ABC123456 so thats 26^3 x 10^6 or
> 17,576,000,000 combinations.
> Just wondering how close I was to winning, because I had the alphabetic part
> match on Friday, but the numbers did not.
> According to Wiki odds, would there be about 9 tickets on Fridays with the
> same first three letters, or is it something else?
I'm one of those puritan people who never buys lottery tickets and who arrogantly claims that the national lottery is an "idiot's tax".
Sorry, nothing personal. I am re-reading Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four, written in 1948 when it would have been considered ludicrous to have such a thing as a national lottery.
"The Lottery, with its weekly pay-out of enormous prizes, was the one public event to which the proles paid serious attention. It was probable that there were millions of proles for whom the Lottery was the principal if not the only reason for remaining alive. It was their delight, their folly, their anodyne, their intellectual stimulant. Where the Lottery was concerned, even people who could barely read and write seemed capable of intricate calculations and staggering feats of memory".
>GB wrote:
>> On 14/11/2012 20:06, Cynic wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:52:26 -0800 (PST), Richard McKenzie
>>> <richardmckenzi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Martingale method (fallacy?) - the casinos put a limit on the
>>>>> table, so even if you have the funds you can't keep doubling up.
>>>> I have no idea what limit there was, i was only there for an hour.
>>>> No doubt
>>>> had i been longer etc they would have said something. They do give
>>>> out complementary sandwiches etc.
>>> IIRC the last casino I went to had a limit of 50 on any of the
>>> "evens" bets (red/black odd/even high/low)
>>> You can do a similar thing by betting on 2/3rds of the table per bet,
>>> where the table limit is less likely to be reached due to an adverse
>>> run.
>> Martingale increases your chances of winning on a particular visit to
>> the casino, but it does not improve the odds in your favour overall.
>> What happens with Martingale is that, when you win, you win small
>> amounts. OTOH, when you lose, you lose very large amounts. You don't
>> have to lose very often to come out a loser overall.
>> Stick to gambling as an entertaining use of pocket money and you can't
>> go far wrong.
>Do you find betting on heads or tails 'entertaining' or, as I do, >interminably dull?
Some people find watching football or people running round a running
track entertaining. I find it boring
>Sure, it's entertaining if you're pitting your wits against other >players, or using some skill to outwit a bookmaker, but not where the >subject of the gamble is a totally random event surely.
>On 11/11/12 19:53, Jake wrote:
>> Anyone know how does this work? I'm curious because Wikipedia seems to say
>> that it depends on how many tickets are sold and is 1 in 9,200,000 on Friday
>> and 1 in 3,500,000
>> Odds wise, the number is of the format ABC123456 so thats 26^3 x 10^6 or
>> 17,576,000,000 combinations.
>> Just wondering how close I was to winning, because I had the alphabetic part
>> match on Friday, but the numbers did not.
>> According to Wiki odds, would there be about 9 tickets on Fridays with the
>> same first three letters, or is it something else?
>I'm one of those puritan people who never buys lottery tickets and who >arrogantly claims that the national lottery is an "idiot's tax".
>Sorry, nothing personal. I am re-reading Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four, >written in 1948 when it would have been considered ludicrous to have >such a thing as a national lottery.
>"The Lottery, with its weekly pay-out of enormous prizes, was the one >public event to which the proles paid serious attention. It was probable >that there were millions of proles for whom the Lottery was the >principal if not the only reason for remaining alive. It was their >delight, their folly, their anodyne, their intellectual stimulant. Where >the Lottery was concerned, even people who could barely read and write >seemed capable of intricate calculations and staggering feats of memory".
I know someone who has difficulty reading the instructions on opening
a cornflake packet yet can calculate the winnings on a complicated bet
with all the skill of a master mathematician.
> On 11/11/12 19:53, Jake wrote:
>> Anyone know how does this work? I'm curious because Wikipedia seems to
>> say
>> that it depends on how many tickets are sold and is 1 in 9,200,000 on
>> Friday
>> and 1 in 3,500,000
>> Odds wise, the number is of the format ABC123456 so thats 26^3 x 10^6 or
>> 17,576,000,000 combinations.
>> Just wondering how close I was to winning, because I had the
>> alphabetic part
>> match on Friday, but the numbers did not.
>> According to Wiki odds, would there be about 9 tickets on Fridays with
>> the
>> same first three letters, or is it something else?
> I'm one of those puritan people who never buys lottery tickets and who
> arrogantly claims that the national lottery is an "idiot's tax".
No. It is a voluntary tax on the innumerate.
My wife belongs to a team syndicate at work as insurance since if their team ever won a major jackpot she would be left with no skilled workers. They do get a £10 win every now and then.
> Sorry, nothing personal. I am re-reading Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four,
> written in 1948 when it would have been considered ludicrous to have
> such a thing as a national lottery.
> "The Lottery, with its weekly pay-out of enormous prizes, was the one
> public event to which the proles paid serious attention. It was probable
> that there were millions of proles for whom the Lottery was the
> principal if not the only reason for remaining alive. It was their
> delight, their folly, their anodyne, their intellectual stimulant. Where
> the Lottery was concerned, even people who could barely read and write
> seemed capable of intricate calculations and staggering feats of memory".
The only thing he missed was that the lottery would become biweekly.
We were about to embark at Dover, when |||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk
(Martin Brown) came up to me and whispered:
> My wife belongs to a team syndicate at work as insurance since > if their team ever won a major jackpot she would be left with > no skilled workers. They do get a £10 win every now and then.
I was part of one of them - we also had a "bonus Ball" pool.
I won it three weeks in a row and was asked to "step down".
-- Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
> GB wrote:
>> On 14/11/2012 20:06, Cynic wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:52:26 -0800 (PST), Richard McKenzie
>>> <richardmckenzi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Martingale method (fallacy?) - the casinos put a limit on the
>>>>> table, so even if you have the funds you can't keep doubling up.
>>>> I have no idea what limit there was, i was only there for an hour.
>>>> No doubt
>>>> had i been longer etc they would have said something. They do give
>>>> out complementary sandwiches etc.
>>> IIRC the last casino I went to had a limit of 50 on any of the
>>> "evens" bets (red/black odd/even high/low)
>>> You can do a similar thing by betting on 2/3rds of the table per bet,
>>> where the table limit is less likely to be reached due to an adverse
>>> run.
>> Martingale increases your chances of winning on a particular visit to
>> the casino, but it does not improve the odds in your favour overall.
>> What happens with Martingale is that, when you win, you win small
>> amounts. OTOH, when you lose, you lose very large amounts. You don't
>> have to lose very often to come out a loser overall.
>> Stick to gambling as an entertaining use of pocket money and you can't
>> go far wrong.
> Do you find betting on heads or tails 'entertaining' or, as I do,
> interminably dull?
> Sure, it's entertaining if you're pitting your wits against other
> players, or using some skill to outwit a bookmaker, but not where the
> subject of the gamble is a totally random event surely.
> Sure, it's entertaining if you're pitting your wits against other
> players, or using some skill to outwit a bookmaker, but not where the
> subject of the gamble is a totally random event surely.
> We were about to embark at Dover, when |||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk
> (Martin Brown) came up to me and whispered:
>> My wife belongs to a team syndicate at work as insurance since
>> if their team ever won a major jackpot she would be left with
>> no skilled workers. They do get a 10 win every now and then.
> I was part of one of them - we also had a "bonus Ball" pool.
> I won it three weeks in a row and was asked to "step down".
Did they think you were cheating, or that you had inside information?
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:35:53 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>>>> I treat a casino as if it is a night's entertainment anywhere else.
>>>> I am willing to part with only as much money as I would expect to
>>>> spend on a night out to, say, a club, show or good restaurant. I
>>>> gamble small amounts at a time in order to make the money last the
>>>> whole evening.
>>> How very dull, mindless and repetitive. There's nothing remotely
>>> enjoyable about the actual activities in a casino; the only enjoyment
>>> comes out of taking a risk. You should put all you're prepared to
>>> lose on 26, and leave after one bet, win or lose.
>> Only if your sole purpose is to gamble a certain amount of money.
>Well, that's effectively what you said.
You have a poor grasp of English if you believe that what I said
(quoted in the first para) meant *anything* like that.
>> But it would hardly amount to an evening's entertainment. It would be
>> like reading most of the plot sysopsis of a play, then popping into
>> the theatre to watch the last 5 minutes to see how it ends.
>A very efficient use of time indeed.
Recreation is not about making the most efficient use of time. in
fact it is usually quite the opposite.
>> A casino would indeed be a rather boring place to spend *every*
>> evening, but if you visit only once in a Blue Moon as I do, the
>> experience is novel enough to make it entertaining for several hours.
>What on earth is ever 'entertaining' about trying to decide 'red' or >'black' in advance when anyone with any sense knows it's entirely >random? And what exactly do you find interesting when you're only >staking small amounts you can easily afford to lose?
There is the atmosphere of the place and the social aspect as well.
One could ask the same about watching men kicking a ball about or
playing a game of cards or dancing.
The short answer is that if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.
Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:35:53 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>> What on earth is ever 'entertaining' about trying to decide 'red' or
>> 'black' in advance when anyone with any sense knows it's entirely
>> random? And what exactly do you find interesting when you're only
>> staking small amounts you can easily afford to lose?
> There is the atmosphere of the place and the social aspect as well.
Do you dress up in dinner jacket and bow tie, and pretend to be James Bond?
> One could ask the same about watching men kicking a ball about or
> playing a game of cards or dancing.
Well, no you couldn't actually. Doing something skillful or watching others do something skillful particularly well is inherently interesting and entertaining. But there's precious little of that in a casino, particularly in games of random chance like roulette.
> The short answer is that if you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.
I don't understand, I've said as much. I was hoping you might therefore give an answer to the question I asked, which was what exactly _you_ find interesting when you're only staking small amounts you can easily afford to lose. Why do you stake anything at all if you're only there for the atmosphere and the social aspect?
On Nov 15, 2:11 pm, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
[...l]
> Doing something skillful or watching
> others do something skillful particularly well is inherently interesting
> and entertaining. But there's precious little of that in a casino,
> particularly in games of random chance like roulette.
'random chance', isn't that redundancy, a bit like saying ''random
randomness'?
Some scientists and philosophers hold that nothing happens by chance.
For sale for £1,000: gadget that means you'll never lose at roulette
again
· Using hidden device 'does not count as cheating'
· System can give 100% advantage over casino
Saturday 16 September 2006
---------------
The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and
clarifications column, Monday October 2 2006,
The above headline was a misinterpretation of the text. The relevant
part of the text said "a gambler with the equipment can gain an edge
of between 20% and 100% over the casino, overturning the casino's
normal 2.7% edge over customers". It did not intend to suggest that it
would always confer an advantage.
---------------
Professional gamblers are rushing to buy £1,000 devices that they
believe will enable them to win millions of pounds in casinos when the
gambling industry is deregulated next year.
Hundreds of the roulette-cheating machines - which consist of a small
digital time recorder, a concealed computer and a hidden earpiece -
were tested at a government laboratory in 2004 after a gang suspected
of using them won £1.3m at the Ritz casino in London.
After the research, which was never made public but has been seen by
the Guardian, the government's gambling watchdog admitted to industry
insiders that the technology can offer punters an edge when playing
roulette in a casino, and the advantage can be "considerable".
[...]
How it works
Clicker Used to record the speed of the rotor and ball, the data
acquisition clicker can be concealed in a pen, a watchstrap, a shoe or
even clipped to a molar tooth. The device is clicked as the two
entities pass reference points to gauge the deceleration speeds. The
data is sent to a remote computer
Computer Uses the timings to calculate which number the ball will
strike based on an algorithm from data gathered and transmits the
information to the earpiece. It is small enough to be hidden in a
mobile phone, MP3 player, handbag or cigarette lighter.
Earpiece Placed inside the ear canal, where it cannot be detected, the
earpiece relays instructions to the player about where to place bets.
It can be worn by many players to place simultaneous bets or one can
be swapped between them to confuse casino management
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:11:29 -0000, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>>> What on earth is ever 'entertaining' about trying to decide 'red' or
>>> 'black' in advance when anyone with any sense knows it's entirely
>>> random? And what exactly do you find interesting when you're only
>>> staking small amounts you can easily afford to lose?
>> There is the atmosphere of the place and the social aspect as well.
>Do you dress up in dinner jacket and bow tie, and pretend to be James >Bond?
The decor of the room and the dress of the clients is part of the
atmosphere, just as it is in a good restaurant or dance hall or
theatre, and certainly the clothing is part of the entertainment in a
fancy-dress party. I cannot recall ever thinking of James Bond.
Perhaps that is your fantasy whenever you "dress posh"?
>> One could ask the same about watching men kicking a ball about or
>> playing a game of cards or dancing.
>Well, no you couldn't actually. Doing something skillful or watching >others do something skillful particularly well is inherently interesting >and entertaining.
For *you* perhaps. I personally find nothing that is remotely
entertaining in watching a game of football. Which makes me neither
better nor worse - just different. Do you also find it entertaining
to watch a skilled plumber fixing some pipes, or a skilled programmer
writing code?
Card games don't necessarily involve significant skill. Winning is
predominately due to the random order of the cards. You might also
think of popular board games such as "Monopoly" where the outcome is
due almost entirely to the chance fall of the die.
