To bad you are so new to the site, otherwise I would give you some explosive info as to how to "Beat The Game".SWFL Blackjack said:
(Being as you are running in my area that I have "Marked" rather well).
Let me make a few more posts to get to the 10 mark, that way I will be able to PM.creeping panther said:To bad you are so new to the site, otherwise I would give you some explosive info as to how to "Beat The Game".
CP
CP,creeping panther said:To bad you are so new to the site, otherwise I would give you some explosive info as to how to "Beat The Game".
CP
What's the difference if you take the money from ignorant ploppies directly or indirectly? Where do you think the casinos get their money from? Most of them aren't printing up their own, although I wouldn't put it past a few that may do so.Shoofly said:
There is a huge difference. I am not involved in the extraction of the money from the ploppy. Once the casino has fleeced the ploppy, the money belongs to the casino and the ploppy is no longer involved. Therefore, I am taking the casino's money, not the ploppy's.21gunsalute said:
If that's the case, your situation won't quite illustrate my point. But I'll say it anyway. When I sell a car, I hope to get somewhere around the Kelley Blue Book private party value. But I'll try to get more if I can, and I generally won't settle for the trade in value. I don't feel that I'm taking advantage of anyone, but rather I am offering something for a stated price, and they can accept, reject, or counter. I would not feel that it was any more ethical for me to trade it to a dealer for the trade in value, then have them mark up the price and sell it to someone. Just because the dealership gets more money from the buyer instead of me doesn't change how much the buyer is willing to spend. By my thinking, the same applies in a casino. These people are willing to spend some amount of money for their entertainment for the day. If I can get a piece of that, fantastic. I'll take it. But I'm not cheating them or taking unfair advantage of them. I'm making an offer and if they feel it's a worse deal than they are willing to accept, then they can reject my offer or counter with something else. If they accept, they are making a decision about how to gamble their money, and I don't feel that I've done anything wrong.Shoofly said:
You are not cheating them for the reasons you outlined. But, in my opinion, you are taking unfair advantage of them. That is what casinos do, and I just do not like the practice.Nynefingers said:
We have a difference of opinion on this (and there is nothing wrong with that), but I would say the scavenger (and the casino) are taking advantage of the ploppy, but not unfair advantage. The ploppy comes to the casino to play despite knowing the odds are stacked against him, and he accepts that. As long as the terms are disclosed up front, I believe that if the ploppy deems it fair enough, then it's fair enough.Shoofly said:
No, the casino is simply the middleman. You can put any spin you want on this but there is absolutely no difference between taking the money directly or indirectly. No one is forcing the ploppy to give up the money, they are doing so willingly.Shoofly said:
There absolutely IS a difference, and here is what it is:21gunsalute said:
You still don't get it. The ploppy is willingly giving you his money. Anyone would be a fool not to take it.Shoofly said: