How I Turned $1,000 into a Million Dollars in Real Estate ...

> Ok, I will agree that odds do change in
> casino games. However, it still remains that
> overall the odds are against you, and things
> you can do to change this (using computers,
> card counting, etc) are banned in casinos.

Hi Thomas
Thanks for your response.
I don't want to be too pedantic here,
but just want to clarify that counting is not illegal. It happens in your head and is hard to prove.

Casino's can harrass you, raise the table minimum and vary the conditions of play if they suspect counting, eventually asking you not to play. But it is not a crime. You can be asked not to play using the Trespass Act.

But obviously, barring a player using skill is bad publicity, so it would be a last resort from the casino. (ie they are losing too much money)

Carrying hidden computers IS a crime, but determining a bias in a roulette wheel and playing that is legal.

> It is true that payout and odds are both
> important, and thus odds can be in your
> favour from time to time (like with slot
> payouts), but I think it's fair that over
> time people lose money at casinos.

I would say that MOST people lose, but that there ARE professional syndicates that do win consistantly at SOME games when they determine they have an edge.

Carrying this further, I think most people never achieve or acquire much in life anyway, and that walking the path of the average person is a sure path to mediocrity

> Yes, I'd say describing the market as
> semi-efficient (pricing in public
> information but not private) is fairly
> accurate. However I think it's a mistake to
> say that markets are *always* efficiently
> priced and more correct to say they are
> *mostly* efficiently priced, with occasional
> changes from the efficient price.

I agree with you.
I'm glad you posted this with your background as an analyst. I think what you say is the key--

>...we strive for an absolute return
> by focusing on the 10% or so of the market
> where valuations are out of line with
> reality, and thus don't have strong views or
> positions on the majority of the market.

This would fall in line with what you say about being "mostly" efficient, but not totally.

Thanks for your comments from the "Coal-Face".

Cheers,
Tom B.