Quote
.......
Of course there's always the chance that his write up of this event will scare off others from participating in such future contests based on his huge loss. Then again, maybe others like forkie and RoadTrip will take a look at the math and the 1.6% player advantage and hop on the contest bandwagon...oh wait a minute...that changes everything.
You're a real piece of work.
I said that I understood his taking the risk, and that I do believe his strategy, and logic was sound, and that his analysis was reasonable, based only on his testimony, the information he presented in his articles.
Along come others with information not presented as "evidence", speculative conclusions and "facts" based on fantasy scenarios, to prove that his choice was not a good one.
I could not sit on a jury and judge someone based on anything but the evidence presented in the trial and properly admitted as evidence.
The only witnesses, thus the only FACTS that should be considered are the column's he wrote pertaining to this contest. That is the only information I had to base my opinions on.
And that is what I did.
You may not agree. Perhaps I would also say negative or derogatory things about this contest and his play if I had the opportunity to question him, gather missing information, speak to the "M", and more.
But based only on the information from the columns he penned, and giving the benefit of reasonable doubt, I am forced to accept his statements whether or not they may be truthful or accurate.
There is no "evidence" to repudiate his testimony. (columns)
ONLY the fictitious characters and scenarios created for that purpose by others.
As for my jumping on the bandwagon of a similar promotion, I am not that type of an advantage player. It would not meet my personal Risk vs Reward requirements for my liking.
Yet I would not chastise someone else for making the play if their analysis were reasonably correct, as his appears to be based on the information presented to us in his articles.
I believe that after he made his decision and began play, that his strategy and decision process was good. He won the contest. He only played for as long as he "had" to play. He did what he had to do to win the trophy.
The fact that he lost $80K along the way was always a possibility. His advantage was small, his risk of ruin high, and the deviation and volatility of those games cost him quite a bit of money. The loss was unfortunate and part of the cost of doing business, of trying to "be the casino" for the short term that this promotion ran.
He could have lost much more, or perhaps gotten a little luckier and hit a jackpot to turn a profit late in the contest. Again, so what.
He made a choice. I can not and will not find fault in his participation after that choice to participate was made. He met one of his goals. He won the car. But his other goal, only losing $1380 along the way to winning the car was not met. Not even close. :::shrug:::
But he had no control over his losses. He believed the contest was worth his participation and went for it.
And so I will not find fault in that.
Someone can always come along and find fault by altering the facts presented. I choose to base my opinion on facts presented, not conjecture.
