Fundamental concept

I've allowed myself to be dragged into a tedious and pointless argument over what constitutes a good or a bad bet. The person arguing with me is either dumb as a box of friggin' rocks--which I don't believe--or he's just pursuing a personal vendetta, because I dispute many of his political claims. The pointless argument obscures the question, which is important enough to reiterate the answer to.

Whenever you gamble, whoever you make a bet, you (presumably) don't know the outcome. The decision to bet or not bet should be based on expected value. A bet with positive EV is a good bet. A bet with negative EV is a bad bet.

Note that this is exclusive of the eventual result, because logically, one cannot factor the result into the decision. It isn't known when you make that decision.

You see this in all sorts of situations. The worst thing you can do is tell yourself that a bad bet was a good one because you happened to win. Equally bad is telling yourself that you made a bad bet because you happened to lose.

Think rationally and logically!

   View the response from Anthony Curtis in the video Las Vegas update, #69, @ the 7 minute mark til the 9:50 mark, in which he explains the intelligence behind the bets Mack made. In this video he expresses the "moronic" (his word) reactions from those who discredited  the bet and their incorrect evaluations of Mack's said bets. His synopsis is both rational and logical. Anyone disputing the logic, value and results of the bets does not understand why the bets were actually genius, which is something Anthony aludes to as being "brilliant. There is no argument here - just a presentation of facts. 

Making a bet with a 20% house edge is the exact opposite of genius.

         The brillance of Mack's bets apparently is to difficult for some to accept. I guess that is part of the reason Mack is worth $300 million while others are settling for grinding out $7 an hour playing video poker - but these grinders have the odds in their favor - which makes them "smarter". Yeah, OK...

It's difficult for some people to accept reality. David DELIBERATELY, KNOWINGLY plays an inferior video poker strategy, which causes him to lose on what should be winning machines. I make $7 playing VP for fun. I used to make much more, playing for a living. I'm not doing that now, so David's comparison is idiotic.

Mack may be a good businessman, but he's a terrible gambler. He wouldn't be the first such person, to own and run a successful business and hand a big chunk of the profits to the casinos.

   Bet $10 million - win$75 million.

Oh, and everyone please keep in mind that David's just arguing for the sake of arguing and pursuing his little revenge fetish, to "punish" me for disputing his claim that Trump won the election. He's appointed himself to be my Stalker.

  What does this dose of nonsense have to do with Mack winning $75 million dollars?

Nothing. I was referring to your stalking me, and the nonsense you've been babbling just to start an argument.

I doubt that you even believe what you're saying, actually.

And this discussion has nothing to do with winning or losing. It's about making good decisions.

   Betting $10 million to win $75 million is/was a good decision - refer to Anthony Curtis You Tube Weekly Update video # 69 .