• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Gambling

tazz

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
I just recalled that for about 3 years I was focused on analysing sports results, particularly English Premier League soccer. I got hold of 10 years worth of data and built some large spreadsheets with it. I spotted that there had been an unusually long period where the number of 3-0 results had been below the long term average, and convinced myself that this had to correct itself fairly soon. So I started betting on every team to win 3-0. And sure enough, the average picked up again and I beat the odds. I was only betting as a hobby and with money I could afford to lose. But as it turned out I was £600 up at the end of the season.
 
It's nice that it worked out for you, but keep the "Gambler's fallacy" in mind. Just because something happens a lot (or little) over a period, the universe won't necessarily "correct" itself over the ensuing period. It's known that roulette gamblers would often wait till the ball had landed on a red often in a row to gamble on a black because "it's really unlikely it would land on a red five times in a row", but it's still a 50/50 chance each time, so they aren't actually increasing their odds.

If few football games have 3-0 over a long period, it could just as well mean that the tactics or dynamics of the game are changing in a way that is preventing 3-0 scorecards, or making them less likely. It didn't seem to have happened this time, but it's just something to keep in mind.
 
My father penciled for bookies all his life as a second job. He said "Bookies make a living out of it. The trainers and owners aren't paying them, so whose money are they getting?".
 
I gambled with money I borrowed from Mafia loan sharks. That is why I no longer have kneecaps.
 
keep the "Gambler's fallacy" in mind

Yeah I'm aware of the way this works. That's why I wrote "I convinced myself..." I figured that during the period of analysis the game dynamics hadn't really changed, but of course that was just a guess. It was just a bit of fun, and as I say I was only gambling with money I could afford to lose. The following season I tried various things but ended up slightly down. Overall during the few years I was doing it I probably broke even. I lost interest eventually and haven't done it for years. It only came to mind when I read a few other threads on here about people's interest in statistics. I found it very relaxing importing all the data and organizing it, and producing charts.
 
See, I don't ever gamble. Maybe, just for fun, I'll buy one or two scratcher lotto tickets a year. Mostly just for my daughter to have a little fun. But that's all.

I do like card games, like poker, blackjack, etc. Never for gambling really. Maybe just chips on the table at most, but no real money involved. It's just fun to play.
 
Gambling is for our taxpayers...er uh..."tourists". Enjoy. ;)

Though the latest casino that opened, Legends Bay Casino- what a dump! <cough-cough> :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I liked poker, I used to enjoy that. But after playing it for some time it can become boring. 80-90% of that game is waiting. You wait for your turn and you wait for the right odds and right situations. It doesn't take long to do the math and watching peoples behaviour, so you wait. You have seen every hand before, every situation so you reach a point where it's just repetition and waiting. And online poker died when everyone started cheating with software and bots.
 
Last edited:
But after playing it for some time it can become boring.
We all used to play lots of card games when I was growing up. My brother and I were banned from playing Canasta against each other because it always ended in a fight. I thought Poker was perhaps one of the most boring games in the world and found no enjoyment in it.

I did got to a Poker Night at someone's house once, maximum bet of 20 cents and a $100 limit on the size of the pot. Even though they mixed it up and played several different poker games it wasn't really all that much fun.
 
We all used to play lots of card games when I was growing up. My brother and I were banned from playing Canasta against each other because it always ended in a fight. I thought Poker was perhaps one of the most boring games in the world and found no enjoyment in it.

I did got to a Poker Night at someone's house once, maximum bet of 20 cents and a $100 limit on the size of the pot. Even though they mixed it up and played several different poker games it wasn't really all that much fun.

Yeah poker can be fun but it depends on how you play it. If you just follow the math and it's all about the money, it can quickly become a chore. The game itself is not complicated, it's pretty straight forward so you end up waiting a lot. But it can be fun to just have a relaxing poker night and a beer with some buddies, playing for fun, that's different.

A game of canasta ending in a fist fight, that's a little funny. :)
 
A game of canasta ending in a fist fight, that's a little funny. :)
It didn't take much for us to start fighting. Dad reckoned that the best investment he ever made was a solid double brick house because most fights ended with one of us getting our head smashed into the wall. If had been one of those brick veneer jobs we would have demolished it.
 
We all used to play lots of card games when I was growing up. My brother and I were banned from playing Canasta against each other because it always ended in a fight. I thought Poker was perhaps one of the most boring games in the world and found no enjoyment in it.

I did got to a Poker Night at someone's house once, maximum bet of 20 cents and a $100 limit on the size of the pot. Even though they mixed it up and played several different poker games it wasn't really all that much fun.
Canasta! I haven't heard that word in years. I don't remember how to play anymore. But yes, it was a fun one. That and others like Gin, Backgammon, and Acey Deucey. Dominos too. I don't remember how to play those games either, but they were great fun.
 
The only type of gambling I'll engage in is entirely virtual gambling where there's no actual money involved.

Doesn't matter if I 'lose' $5000 on gambling if that $5000 was just money in a video game that doesn't actually exist.
 
I tried arbitrage betting for a little while too. When all the online sports betting exchanges started popping up, you could hunt around and find ways to bet such that whoever won you'd make a profit. Tennis was a good example. But the margins were so fine, in practice it was almost impossible to lock in the odds you wanted quickly enough. On most of these sites when you place a bet there's a few seconds wait between hitting "bet" and the transaction happening. Usually this isn't a problem. But it can screw up the arbitrage if the odds change a little. And because the profits are so small on each transaction, to make it worthwhile you have to put a lot down on each bet - and then if the arbitrage gets messed up you stand to lose quite a lot.

There were some online services specifically set up to find arbitrage situations and allow you to bet on them. But again, I found it wasn't really worthwhile - you'd have to make it a full time job to earn enough money to buy yourself an extra beer at the end of the month.

The online poker tournaments were good for a while. There used to be one tournament where they ran a 6-seat table, everyone sticks £10 or £100 or whatever in the pot, and then the last three players get a share of the pot. If you came third, you'd break even. If you came second or first you'd make a profit. I found that I could just fold almost every hand and wait... most likely three players would make mistakes and drop out so I'd at least get my money back, and then if I got lucky/played well I'd end up first or second and make a profit. I used to fire up 4 or 5 tables and play them like that simultaneously. After a few months they changed the format of the tournaments so it wasn't possible to use this strategy. Again it was only really a hobby, for fun, with money I could afford to lose. But I really liked being in the zone, just going through the repetitive process.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom