/siberia/ - Off-topic

We would be so blinded by our riches that we would forget all about the "revolution" part.
That is, if we aren't just constantly losing money.

>>526052
Genius idea OP! Why didin't Marx think of that? If we go broke we got nothing to lose. /s

>>526052
The expected value of participating in a gamble or bet is always negative. The casinos and bookies wouldn't make a profit otherwise. Think about it. Neither you nor the bookie perform any labor and produce any value, so any money getting made just comes from the bookie or one of the people who make bets. Nothing is produced, it's just moved around. On aggregate, gamblers are just people who pay money to casinos. Zooming into the individual level and being fooled into thinking that it's a profitable endeavor is a failure of analysis.

>>526052
That's a very dangeras cock

You're doing it wrong, fool.

WOW I THOUGHT YOU WERE SERIOUS UNTIL YOU POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS JUST A JOKE WHEN YOUBSAID WE SHOULD GO BROKE ANDARK SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT. YOURE A GENIUS1

Gambling is rigged against the player in favor of the house, always. Even if you get really "good" at what is fundamentally a chance based scam (i.e. counting cards, cheating, etc.) you're more likely to just be taken in the back and have your fingers broken by mafiosi than rewarded for your efforts.

>>526107
The casinos aren't run by the mob anymore, they would just kick you out and ban you

>>526114
>The casinos aren't run by the mob anymore
how the mighty have fallen

>>526092
Yeah, there's even a term for it: the juice.

If you're betting on coins against a friend, for example, with a $1 bet each, the winner getting 2x their original stake. However, if the house offers lines about this exact same event of coin-flipping, they would not be with 2x multipliers, but 1.6~1.8x multipliers for the winner. This means that (obviously, the loser IS straight up fucked), but even the winner is robbed 0.2-0.4% of his. That theft IS the guaranteed profit for the house.