Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Whatnot who wrote (128757)	5/7/2003 7:42:41 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I completely agree with you that Bill Bennet or anyone else for that matter can waste as much money as they want in Vegas or anywhere else. As long as they don't spend the rest of their time lecturing us about our lifestyles. I suppose you have a point there. And if you believe for one second that anyone can beat the odds on Las Vegas for any extended period of time No, I don't believe anyone can beat Las Vegas for an extended time. But I was just speculating out loud that Bill Bennet might understand Las Vegas games and odds better than many individual investors understand the stock market game and odds. Anyway, as you say, the man should probably be held to a higher standard of behavior than the average person by virtue of having written the book. Regards, Huey

To: Whatnot who wrote (128757)	5/7/2003 9:46:33 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

And if you believe for one second that anyone can beat the odds on Las Vegas for any extended period of time supposedly he played video poker. and unlike slots which have payouts of 90-95% and thus virtually guarantee a loss to the customer if played long enough, supposedly some video poker machines have a theoretical payout greater than 100%. this means that it is possible to actually make money, or at least break even, on these machines, theoretically. what that means is that you must play a perfect hand, each and every hand. since this is highly unlikely (and if you could do this, you would perhaps do better against human opponents who are prone to error), the effective payout is reduced to 95-98%. still a bit better than slots but a losing proposition over the long run. didn't he also say he'd stop gambling in the wake of all this hooplah? that pretty much shows he knew it was highly hypocritical. which means that in addition to being a hypocrit, he was pretty cynical.

To: Whatnot who wrote (128757)	5/8/2003 2:36:26 AM
From: mozek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Whatnot, I think you're missing something... I'm sure that with his extreme virtue, Bill Bennet remained pure and untouched in the high-rolling moral cesspool of sin-city for years. We all know that Las Vegas can be a city of temptation, where any high-stakes gambler is treated, gratis, to sins that less virtuous folks would only dream about and likely even succumb to. Of course, since we're talking about a man so self-professedly virtuous that he feels justified in setting the standard for all who look for guidance, just the fact that he chooses to spend such significant time in the company of gamblers and other professionals in the high stakes Vegas scene yet surely remains pure in all ways should set him apart from us weak, sinful mortals. Personally, I also have no problem with how others choose to spend their time/money, but I have little patience for those who preach loudly while knowingly practicing blatant hypocrisy. Sorry for the OT, it just felt like a good time to offer my perspective. Thanks, Mike