april stay at paris

Yes, because I'm a skilled player, I consider only theoretical wins/losses, not actual results. To me, as it should be to all gamblers, if you stuff $10,000 into a slot machine, you've immediately lost $1,000, regardless of what the slot ticket says when you cash out. If you slap down a hundy on the roulette wheel, you've lost a bit over $5 before the wheel stops spinning.

I generally don't articulate this concept much any more, as it confuses people. You seem to understand; the OP seems not to. So allow me to amend my statement: "Your expected losses from your play must have been approximately five times the comps you received, or in this case, enough to pay for twenty-five room nights." Again, in the long run, actual results approach theo, so expert gamblers don't make a distinctiin between the two. Bob Dancer, the Wizard, or Anthony will tell you that winning doesn't mean you made a good bet, nor does losing mean you made a bad bet. EV is all that matters.

This is yet another example of something I often experience: when I use the short version of an explanation, it confuses people. I should have tried to explain theo and EV to the poster, as my point was that you don't get comps, especially from Strip casinos, unless you're expected to lose far more than the comped amount. Gamblers say "woo hoo, I got a comp" to justify playing against a crushing house edge. They also point to their short-term results: "Hey, I won! I'm a smart gambler!!!" No one can play any game in the Paris casino without eventually losing. Comps and short-term positive results don't change that.

But I must ask: given that you do comprehend this concept, why are you being a jerkass? Is it just in your nature?

Yeah, had you said something like "your expected losses must have been 5 times the comp"  I would have understood what you meant. 

The way you said it I thought you meant actual losses. I thought you were basically alleging that his win-loss statement for 2025 must have shown that much loss. 

I totally get what you mean by it in the long run being the same thing because eventually EV will catch up with you. However I think when you say "your loss must have been X" most people are goong to think you mean actual loss. 

Well, the meaninglessness of short-term results in terms of the advisability of a given play is such an elementary concept to me, I sometimes forget that it's baffling to others. If I have one weakness in teaching (anything), it's that I have trouble lowering my POV down to the absolute, absolute elementary basics. I assume "He should know this, at least" when that isn't true. 

I referred to this before, but there are people who I simply cannot get to understand that you lose $5 the moment you bet $100 on a roulette wheel. Likewise, there are slot players who think it's relevant that they hit a jackpot and won today--or this year. Or lost all their money, for that matter.

So yes, I do consider a loss to be the theo/-EV the player gives up, not the results in a given time frame. I guess I've gotten kind of tired of when a friend or relative plays Golden Goobers and hits a jackpot after I explain to them just what a horrible idea playing slots really is, and they say, "SEE! I WON!", which is utterly beside the point.

I do have one success under my belt. A bunch of friends and I drove to Vegas for a bridge tournament. It was at the Hilton. One guy got his ass handed to him on slots and was bitterly complaining. I told him (not exactly diplomatically) that playing slots and complaining about losing was like dropping an egg onto a sidewalk and complaining when it breaks. He demanded to know what he should do instead, so I taught him Basic Strategy for BJ and how to play craps with a less than 1% house edge. He recouped all his losses and then some.

Thanks for education.When I was in Nursing school.My instructor said you have to teach in elementary level.

does  reisling go with a  bowl of  froot loops ?

It has to be Frootenloopen Reisling, from the town of Cerealstadt.