[dizzybint]

The whole concept doesnt appeal to me at all, but then Im not a gambler, a man made city like Vegas is tacky and gaudy, and would be one of the last places I'd ever hope to viist..

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by NLVgal

Vegas has it's own energy (and you know I'm not a Vegas lover, if you've bothered to read my posts), but the demise of this little slice of hell has been predicted before, many times. It never worked out that way.

But these predictions were based on, "OMG! Some other city is offering gambling. The gamblers won't bother to fly out to the desert anymore!"

Not, "OMG! People aren't gambling anymore! We're doomed!"

They're not quite that shrill in the boardrooms. But they are very concerned about it. Sure, they're looking 10 to 20 years down the road. But they don't like the trend. My guess is they're hoping the current clubbers will become players as they get too old for grinding each other in clubs.

The millenials aren't buying cars or houses either. They appear to have a very strong aversion to debt. Good, I say. It shows initiative. But not good for the economy as it currently works. And not at all good for the Las Vegas economy.

Perhaps a new paradigm is around the corner. We'll see.

[jfkIII]

Originally Posted by dizzybint

The whole concept doesnt appeal to me at all, but then Im not a gambler, a man made city like Vegas is tacky and gaudy, and would be one of the last places I'd ever hope to viist..

Your loss...there is so much natural beauty surrounding it that you miss out on.

[Nunnor]

I know plenty of people visiting Las Vegas without gambling. The city offers lots of things to see/do without playing.

[ElleTea]

Originally Posted by dizzybint

The whole concept doesnt appeal to me at all, but then Im not a gambler, a man made city like Vegas is tacky and gaudy, and would be one of the last places I'd ever hope to viist..

So then it makes perfect sense that you would be on a Las Vegas forum!

[dynimagelv]

Originally Posted by dizzybint

The whole concept doesnt appeal to me at all, but then Im not a gambler, a man made city like Vegas is tacky and gaudy, and would be one of the last places I'd ever hope to viist..

ok, thanks for sharing that.

[kimba01]

Originally Posted by dizzybint

The whole concept doesnt appeal to me at all, but then Im not a gambler, a man made city like Vegas is tacky and gaudy, and would be one of the last places I'd ever hope to viist..

Good thing you have choices, then, right? To each their own. BTW, what does your comment have to do with whether tourists come to Las Vegas and not gamble? Maybe it should be deleted as "off topic".

[cowherjaw]

I can already tell that changing your mind is a fruitless endeavour, but I'll address two of your recent posts and combine them around like topics to see what you think and then try to bring it around to topic by conclusion:

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

How? Go back to my first post in this thread -- "If money wasn't involved NOBODY would play these <edit BJ and hold'em I assume> games."

That is because the games are based around monetary gain, and money is the measuring point, not the actual game itself. The object of chess is to checkmate the opponent or have them resign. The object of cribbage is to get to 121 before your opponent. Blackjack and poker are not played that way. The object of those games is to accumulate money (which is what makes it pointless if money or other desired "currency" isn't involved). Every hand of BJ or poker is like a move in a chess game or a hand in a cribbage or bridge game. It is the means to tactically playing the game; it is not the entire game by itself. If you think about it from that perspective, you might see it differently.

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

At least with Blackjack, the player has choices to make -- hit or stand, split pairs, double down. There is some strategy involved. Not much, but some.

Hold'em, the player gets two cards and then does nothing. The game itself is no more complicated than "war." Naturally, the macho card players all have their knickers in a twist about this. They're going to blow me away with statistics about pot odds, how they've memorized the winning percentage of all 1,300 starting hands, ad nauseum.

Face it, they've got TWO cards to worry about. Compare that to bridge, where grand masters know the percentages on a 13-card hand, and have to worry about their partner's 13-card hand as well. The actual play takes finesse. It's not just announcing "all in" and then watching an expressionless dealer flop cards over -- there's a game to be played.

Well at least you are there with BJ, now if you can understand that there are 4 rounds of choices in poker, and it is in those choices that the winner of the game is determined, you will understand where the skill is. Every time it is your turn in (assuming no-limit since you refer to all-in) hold'em, your choices are fold, call or raise (and if raise, how much), and if you are first to act in one of the last 3 rounds, you can check (not bet) or bet (and how much), so there are plenty of decisions to be made that directly affect how much money you go home with that night.

I'll even add that in blackjack, you are playing against the house, which has to play its hand by a pre-determined set of rules. In poker, you are playing up to 9 or 10 other people at a time and that these people play according to whatever strategy they desire. In that aspect playing poker is every bit as much about playing the person as it is about playing the cards. I don't know why you don't recognize and validate this as chess and cribbage and bridge are much the same way.

Of all the games mentioned, I am the worst at bridge but only because I never bothered to learn more than the most basic of bidding strategy, but AT LEAST 80% of the hands (and I believe more) are straightforward once the first card is played. I say that because it is a game of complete information. Once the first card comes down the 3 remaining card players all know exactly where 50% of the cards are and approximately how the rest lay out (from the bidding) enough to play or defend the hand to contract. The expert players will beat the novice players almost all of the time, but that is true of poker also. There is more luck in a cribbage game than a poker game by a large amount. Discarding and pegging skills aside, the cards you are dealt and the cut card determine most of the games played. You can't discount the poker players skill concerning pot odds and starting hands and not make a similar claim as to which cards the cribbage player discards as being similarly analytical from standard probabilities.

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

There's a reason poker is offered as a casino game and not bridge or cribbage -- the latter two games are skill games. The better card player will win. Compare that to hold'em -- the better gambler will earn more money. But there is no "play" to master. Casinos do not want any games where a sharp player has an advantage. They want games of simple chance, where even a WSOP champion can get killed by a bad beat once in awhile.

I don't totally understand your definitions of the underlined terms, but I can't argue too much except to say that in bridge, bidding skill is very important and is linked closely to card playing skill. Since cribbage is all cards then yes, card playing is the only skill that applies. In BJ and poker, the biggest factor of game success is determining how much to risk/bet and when. If that's how you define gambling, then we just have a different definition of gambling. All of the games except chess have elements of both chance and skill involved. It is pointless to argue the degrees of each game for this discussion. I Just submit to you that your previous posts suggest that you might be missing how the element of skill plays in a poker game. The comparisons are tough in that the games are entirely different in their makeup.

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

Since younger generations don't enjoy gambling the way their parents and grandparents did (in fact, most think it's a pointless waste of time), that should be a big source of concern for places like Las Vegas. Maybe they'll become more interested in gaming as they get older. But I wouldn't count on it. Perhaps one reason for the youthful ambivalence is because the games themselves aren't fun in and of themselves.

I agree with the premise but not necessarily the conclusion. While they're not gambling as much they also aren't playing xhess, cribbage nor bridge as much either. In fact this generation is more likely to get into gambling via mobile device when it becomes legal. They are less social and have worse attention spans that generations past and they can't sit still long enough to play chess and bridge unless they are doing it on the computer and they have 10 other windows open to keep their mind occupied while it's their opponent's turn or when they are dummy. Even if Vegas has to shift away from gambling to other pursuits, what better town to do it?

[ScoopLV]

A very long response that neglects a central premise -- the actual card play of Texas Hold'em requires no thought whatsoever. And while I'll grant you that "knowing then to hold'em and knowing when to fold'em" is a skill. Actually playing the game requires no skill at all.

Compare that to cribbage, where the player must decide what two cards to send into the third hand (posession of which alternates every other round), and then the actual play of the cards before counting points. There is the randomness of the hand dealt. But that averages out over time. And the cut card effects both players equally. The player's card-playing ability will determine who wins more often and by how much.

Card-playing ability. Not the wearing of goofy sunglasses, hoodies, and generally acting like a *******. The same with bridge -- the experts will beat the novices every time. This is a game that can be learned and perfected like a musical instrument. What little I've seen of hold'em always boils down to two ******** going all in and then watching as random chance decides the winner. They may as well cut and see who has high card. No skill at all.

In a cribbage game, the better player will almost ALWAYS prevail in a series of five games. I would just say "always" but there is a very slight chance that the inferior player has a lucky streak of epic proportions and wins. But that would be a very rare event, indeed. An expert cribbage player can sit down at a money game and KNOW that he or she is going to leave a winner. Can the expert poker player say the same thing?

And THAT is why casinos like Hold'em. There is the idea that any schlub can have a hot night and "take" someone's money. People are willing to play against superior players because there's always the chance of being dealt pocket aces and getting a good flop. And that's why casino's DON'T like games of skill. That "any given day" angle is negated.

[demoknite]

Originally Posted by dizzybint

The whole concept doesnt appeal to me at all, but then Im not a gambler, a man made city like Vegas is tacky and gaudy, and would be one of the last places I'd ever hope to viist..

All cities on the planet are made by man. That beautiful Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, Christ the Redeemer, The Pyramids...all man made. A thousand years from now, someone will look at Las Vegas and marvel at how we had a thriving city with grand architecture in one of the harshest environments on Planet Earth. Seriously.