Manage your finances like a professional gambler

Small Things Add Up

I was eighteen, and a freshman in college. For the past few years I’d been making a few hundred dollars a month selling Palm Pilots on eBay. It was a lot of money for a teenager with no real expenses, but of course I spent it all. My knowledge of personal finance was fuzzy at best. Naturally I squandered any money I made.

Then, through a strange series of events, I became a professional gambler. It happened fast, and soon my “studies” were being neglected for long nights of blackjack, roulette, and video poker. Eventually I dropped out of school to make serious money, and thus began my real financial education.

There are a lot of analogs between gambling and real life finance, which should come as no surprise since gambling is simply the bizarre intersection of fun and finance. I learned more about personal finance, discipline, and math during my six years as a professional gambler than any other period of my life.

My hope is that through this series you’ll receive the same education, without the inconvenience of making piles of money.

When a gambler plays a game, he receives a payout. A 100% payout is what he’d get from a perfectly even game like flipping a coin. No one has an advantage. A 99% payout means that the gambler will lose, on average, 1% of what he bets. A 101% payout means that the gambler will earn 1% on what he bets. This may sound like a slight amount, but when betting tens of millions of dollars a year, that 2% spread between 99% and 101% represents the difference between going broke and living very comfortably.

As a gambler, I would implement changes to my playing habits. Each alteration might only increase my payout by .05%, but each .05% pushed me closer to the promised land of 101%. When I understood this concept, I realized that life is the same way. Either your spending habits are building your wealth or bleeding it — just like gambling.

For example, do you take money out of an ATM every week? If you do, that’s costing you an average of $2.91 per week (according to Bankrate). People don’t feel good emotionally taking out $160 at once instead of $40 a week, but that emotion has nothing to do with the real financial costs associated with the extra ATM fees. This irrational emotion is exactly what fuels casinos.

The profit in switching to a monthly withdrawal schedule is $104.76 ($2.91 * 3 * 12 ) per year. That negative emotion some people have is costing them $104.76 per year.

What about tipping 25% instead of 15%? If you’re an average American, you’re spending an additional $440 per year to feel generous. I’m not saying it’s not worth it — I’m just saying that it’s costing you.

Switching a credit card balance from 25% APR to a newly opened 10% APR card can save $1250 on a $5000 balance.

We ignore these habits and expenses on a daily basis, but as a professional gambler, small improvements in our habits are the difference between making a living and going bust. I learned my lessons fast and was a successful gambler for six years.

In real life, if we pay attention to our small habits and adjust them, they too can make a big difference. I’ve listed three changes that an average person could make. The benefit over ten years? Almost $18k — that’s big.

Know When to Fold ‘Em

Now, I talked about how professional gamblers need to get the payout over 100% in order to profit. One way to get the payout over 100% is to play a progressive video poker machine. Normally Jacks Or Better, the standard variant of video poker, pays out around 99.5%. This is a losing game, with the expectation of losing $5 for every $1000 wagered. To assess the payout value of video poker, multiply the payout of each individual hand by the probability of getting that hand and adding them all up. The payouts for hands vary from $5 for a single pair to a whopping $4000 for the highly unlikely royal flush.

Progressive video poker is different. Its payout varies because the prize for the royal flush varies. It starts off low, sometimes even below the standard $4000, but as more and more people play a machine without hitting the royal flush, the prize increases. Since the overall payout of the machine is based on the payout of all of the hands, as the royal flush becomes more valuable the payout of the machine rises. Somewhere around $4600 it breaks over 100% and becomes worth playing.

Let’s say that we have a gambler named Bob. He sits down at the machine when the progressive royal flush payout is at $4600. Because the payout is so high, he’s making a smart move. He plays and plays and plays, losing $500 in the process. A positive payout is no guarantee of winning in the short term. He takes a quick break to go to the bathroom and when he gets back, someone else has won the jackpot and it has been reset to $4000.

If he’s like most amateur gamblers, he thinks, “I already have so much money in, I may as well keep playing.” This is an incorrect move because the amount of money he has in the machine has no bearing on the payout. When the payout is good, it’s worth playing. When it’s bad, it’s not. The difference between a pro and an amateur is that the pro doesn’t care how much of his money is in the machine — when it’s worth playing he’ll play, and otherwise he won’t.

There are two fantastic examples of how people make this mistake in everyday life.

People love to play the stock market. I’ve played it a bit, but quickly learned that I was an amateur, and that it’s more like gambling than most people give it credit for. Now I let Warren Buffet manage my money for me.

When stocks go up, people are thrilled. When they go down, they make poor choices. Let’s say that Bob decides to invest his money. He invests in a solid company named Acme Widgets, and watches his investment increase. Suddenly there’s a change in management and Acme starts going down the tubes, along with his investment. He invested $1000 in Acme, but now his holdings are only worth $100. He thinks to himself, “I know I should sell, but I’ve got $1000 in, so I may as well see if I make it back.”

What he doesn’t consider is that Acme has no idea how much money he has invested, and that original investment has nothing to do with the prospect of Acme going back up. If he wouldn’t buy Acme with its shares at 10%, then he shouldn’t hold them at 10%. Not selling is the same thing as buying. That isn’t to say that you should sell when stock prices drop, but only that you should sell when it’s no longer a good investment by whatever decision process you use.

The same principle applies to real life purchases, and is commonly exhibited when people buy cars.

Bob makes a stupid move and buys a brand new truck for $25,000 from the dealer. A year later its value has declined to only $15,000 and he’s is in bad need of money. He looks into selling the truck, but people are only willing to pay $15,000 for it now. Disgruntled, he refuses to sell and thinks “I paid a lot more for it. I may as well keep it.” Again, the market doesn’t care what he paid for his truck. Whether he paid $5,000 or $50,000, it’s still only worth $15,000.

If he was to shop for a car today, on his limited budget, he would probably buy a car that cost only $10,000. By that metric, he should sell his depreciated car for the fair market value of $15,000 and buy a cheaper one for $10,000.

In fact, purchases should be sold if you wouldn’t buy them today for their current value. I bought a monitor for $800 a year ago that is now only worth $600. I still like the monitor a lot, but I use my laptop most of the time now so the monitor isn’t as valuable to me. Even though it was a good purchase a year ago, if didn’t have the monitor today I wouldn’t buy it. Thus, it gets sold.

The only other factor is my time expenditure to sell the item. If I have a computer mouse that I don’t use anymore, but it’s only worth $5, it’s probably not worth my time to sell it.

I think this is terrific advice. Too many people “let it ride”, or worse, throw good money after bad. Based on Tynan’s advice, I have several items I should be auctioning on eBay. And you know what? I think I might.

More about...Planning

Become A Money Boss And Join 15,000 Others

Subscribe to the GRS Insider (FREE) and we’ll give you a copy of the Money Boss Manifesto (also FREE)

Yes! Sign up and get your free gift
Become A Money Boss And Join 15,000 Others

There are 63 comments to "Manage your finances like a professional gambler".

  1. Bryan C. Fleming says 04 January 2007 at 06:21

    I’d also add…….

    Just pay yourself first. Then everything else will take care of itself!

    BTW – I never knew you could get a 101% payout in gambling. Interesting.

    – Bryan
    http://www.BryanCFleming.com

  2. DeuceDeuce says 04 January 2007 at 06:34

    Pro gambling? Interesting. Look forward to more from Tynan.

  3. Andy says 04 January 2007 at 06:58

    This entry was a bit light on content, but I look forward to future entries by Tyran. It sounds like he might have an interesting take on some personal finance subjects. And by comparing personal finance topics to gambling topics, he might make something set in that otherwise we would have ignored.

  4. brad says 04 January 2007 at 07:04

    Taking out a month’s worth of cash might not be cost-effective for everyone. Knowing that I have cash on hand would probably make me spend more simply because it’s there and readily available. It’s a psychological thing. My friends in France get paid only once a month, and they’re always complaining about how hard it is to budget so that they don’t spend it all before the next paycheck. They’re jealous that I get paid every two weeks, which they feel would help them spend more responsibly. I think the same reasoning applies to ATMs.

  5. Russ says 04 January 2007 at 08:20

    “BTW – I never knew you could get a 101% payout in gambling. Interesting.”

    As someone who has dabbled in sports betting (always use a betting exchange, never a normal bookmaker), I know this is possible, and as Tynan says it’s absolutely a key point. What you need to do is find opportunities where the odds are too generous for the real probability of an event occurring. To use the coin toss example, if it was a fair coin but somebody offered you odds of 2/1 on heads, you could statistically guarantee a profit by backing heads every time, since you’d have roughly the same number of wins and losses, but each win would pay out twice the amount of each loss. The gambling terminology for this is ‘value’, and value is just as important in finance as in gambling (i.e. if someone offered you Berkshire Hathaway stock at $1 a share, you’d jump at it). On Betfair, there are regular occurrences of horses being backed at 1000/1 during the race when they look out of it, only to have a strong finish and win.

    Having said all that, you will not find value in a casino, since the odds for any outcome are a question of mathematical certainty, not judgment – and it’s poor judgment on the opposing side of a bet that lets you find value.

  6. alejandra says 04 January 2007 at 08:54

    Dude, what you say about tipping is just silly. We don’t tip 20-25% simply to “feel generous” but rather because hardworking people who are serving us food (and who have to tip out to the unseen servers who wash our dishes and clean our table, etc.) depend upon this money. Would you tell our bosses to skimp us to save their own money? Please, grow a conscience.

  7. DC Portland says 04 January 2007 at 09:09

    My mother told me, “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all”. But taking financial advice from a “professional” gambler is utterly ridiculous. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of odds theory knows gambling is for losers. Gamblers personify a “get rich quick” mentality, which is the opposite of what this site is all about. Just from the comments above (“interesting”), you can see the evil “how can I make a fast buck?” oozing out of some of your readers. Gambling is the most certain way to end being psychologically scarred and financially broke. A better understanding of how the odds are stacked against us by the house is worth obtaining. But the implied challenge that the house can be beat results in desperate attempts that get us nowhere.

  8. GG says 04 January 2007 at 09:27

    It seems even more cost effective to switch to a bank or credit union without ATM fees and finding an ATM that is free for your new account.

    On tipping, if you are really trying to save money, eating out less is going to save a ton more than reducing your tips to the minimum.

  9. Schizohedron says 04 January 2007 at 09:30

    Curious as to your methods. Card counting at blackjack and careful slot machine payout choice I can see, but how did you play roulette as a +EV game? Are you counting the value of comps received as part of your win? I tend to lump all three as pricey forms of entertainment that I just pass by on the way to the casino’s (nonvideo) poker room.

  10. J.D. says 04 January 2007 at 09:35

    Taking financial advice from a “professional” gambler is utterly ridiculous.

    While I can certainly understand this point of view, I’ve learned that I can get valuable insight from unlikely sources. Even if I don’t agree with a person’s viewpoints, I can often derive something from his methods. For example, I think Steve Pavlina‘s “psychic energy” stuff is hogwash, yet I find the principles he outlines to be fascinating and effective. Or, as I tell many people, Dave Ramsey’s personal finance philosophy is founded on Christianity, but most of his techniques are valuable for everyone, Muslim, Christian, or atheist alike.

    I’m never going to promote gambling as anything other than entertainment (and costly entertainment at that), but I, for one, am eager to see what Tynan has to say in the future!

  11. brad says 04 January 2007 at 09:56

    Not to mention that the differences between “gambling” and “investing in stocks” boil down essentially to issues of legality. If Tynan had made his living as a speculative investor you’d probably hear no objections!

  12. Boris says 04 January 2007 at 10:08

    Taking financial advice from a gambler is far from ridiculous. If he’s been doing it for a while, it’s obvious he’s been succesful. I assume he’s moved to a game that plays against others rather than the house b/c all of those have negative expected values. This means that his income is completely dependent on a strong understanding of statistics and long-term benefits.
    That sounds like someone who can give solid financial advice.

  13. RS Hizzle says 04 January 2007 at 11:00

    I have to agree, that tipping %15 instead of %20-%25 is a really shady move. As a former server, I know very well that those nickels and dimes add up. It’s a crappy system, but if you don’t want to play in it, don’t eat out. Jerk.

  14. Jacob says 04 January 2007 at 11:01

    This reminds me of lessons I took from being addicted to a MMORPG, specifically the PvP of Dark Age of Camelot. The top players pour a massive amount time into building ‘uber suits’ which to casual players seem tedious and unproductive. But an extra 10 strength here, +4% to spell duraction there and so on adds up and keeps the power-gamers pwning noobs!

    But honestly, I did learn something from playing, small things add up and they’re the best/easiest/first place to start. Most refuse to do even the simple stuff (like buying purple ROG gear for their bg toons) and end up losing more than winning, much like personal finance. Often it’s not your gameplay/job, it’s all the other factors =)

  15. Tynan says 04 January 2007 at 11:31

    Hey guys – thanks for reading my article and taking the time to comment on it. A few points that have been raised that I should have made more clear.

    1 – Why has tipping been inflated? 15% used to be the standard, and now it’s 20-25%. The thing is, restaurant prices have gone up with inflation, so keeping a steady 15% tip should be pacing inflation. If a waiter does an excellent job, I tip more, but raising the standard tip from 15% to 20% has no economic basis.

    2 – People who discredit professional gambling are simply naive. I would argue that having such a closed view on making money is in direct opposition to the spirit of entrepreneurship. The fact is that on roads less traveled by, there is a lot more money to be made because there’s less competition. During my six years as a professional gambler I made hundreds of thousands of dollars every year, and worked an average of 15 hours a week.

    If you’d like to read more about how I became a professional gambler, check out the article on my blog.

    Tynan

  16. Gwyn says 04 January 2007 at 12:18

    I always take out cash on a monthly basis. Based on my budget I know what out of pocket expenses I will have (mainly just bus fares and the very occasional meal) plus my budgeted entertainment expenses. That cash is in my pocket from the day after I get paid and that is all I ever spend in cash that month.

  17. Wesley says 04 January 2007 at 12:49

    I think this guy’s full of it…heck, just take a look at his site! While I agree w/ JD in thinking that perhaps some of his concepts are decent, someone who drops out of school to become a gambler, then a rapper is definitely not someone I’d think to take advice from. His articles seem ficticious (or sponsored as in the link he provides above for his gambling venture).

    I’m interested to see the next article, but only because it’s a part of this site.

  18. Leesa says 04 January 2007 at 12:51

    I really enjoyed this article.

    I have been cleaning up finances for an estate, and I noticed lots of nickle and dime expenses that would have accumulated well over 40 years.

    And for tipping, the gambler just wants us to make an educated purchase of their services. I tip 20% because I want to, but I pull out $300 at a time from the ATM because of the fees. It is a smarter thing to do if you will spend the same amount of money.

  19. Tynan says 04 January 2007 at 13:06

    Wesley – All of my stories are completely real. I don’t ever exaggerate, so I resent the assumption.

    The Casino On Net link is a sponsored link which I chose because it is by far the most reputable casino. You’d think that on a financial blog readers would be particularly supportive of people earning money from their hobbies (and I think most readers probably are…)

    I hope you enjoy the next article.

    Tynan

  20. Schizohedron says 04 January 2007 at 13:08

    Just read the post Tynan cited above. Sorry, but I can’t lend any credence to a gambler who considers any form of a to be mathematically rational.

  21. Jason S. says 04 January 2007 at 13:13

    This was a good article, but I think I missed something regarding the ATM figures.

    The ATM fees for taking out $40 a week add up to $151.32 ($2.91 * 52-weeks). Changing to a monthly withdrawal system drops that number down to $34.92 ($2.91 * 12-months). This results in a “profit” of $116.40, not $104.76.

    Did I miss something? Why did Tynan use the formula “$2.91 * 3 * 12” to determine this profit margin? All that formula says to me is that you spent $104.76 on ATM fees over three years.

    Please help me understand.

    And I agree with what GG said: switching to a local credit union is a great option because they have fee-free ATMs. As an added bonus, since many credit unions “network” with each other, finding an ATM is hardly an issue and you never have to worry about fees.

  22. Schizohedron says 04 January 2007 at 13:40

    Oops — the words “Martingale system” got trimmed out of my post before the Wikipedia link.

  23. Tynan says 04 January 2007 at 13:53

    Jason, you’re right. 2.91 x 3 x 12 means ATM FEE x Difference in times per month (4-1) x 12 months.

    I was approximating 4 weeks per month, but your method is, of course, more accurate.

    Tynan

  24. GG says 04 January 2007 at 14:00

    Sorry, he sounds kind of dogey. The “Martingale System” system is crap (if it wasn’t obvious.)

    The point that the little expenses add up to a lot is very important though.

  25. Tynan says 04 January 2007 at 14:40

    Sigh… if you read the article you’d find that I tried the martingale system before I knew about gambling, and quickly realized that it was a disaster. Its only significance to me is that it was my introduction to gambling. I would never recommend that anyone use the martingale system.

  26. Jason S. says 04 January 2007 at 15:00

    @Tyan

    Thanks!

    Cheers!

  27. Schizohedron says 04 January 2007 at 18:01

    T: The only part of the explanatory article on your blog in which you go into any specifics is the part in which you use a Martingale strategy. Insofar as we then fast-forward to your dropping out of college and then spend six years gambling with this self-designed but undescribed method, there is no strong impression that you broke with the Martingale method, only perhaps that you came up with a new application of it. At least one other reader came to that assumption (see above).

    To counter this impression, would you consider fleshing out these 6 years in the level of detail you use in describing the first few days of your gambling career? This might better distinguish the change in method to which you allude briefly.

  28. Seth says 04 January 2007 at 18:10

    “Professional Gamblers” don’t play roulette or video poker. The only way to get a true, lasting, mathematical advantage over a casino is to count cards in blackjack. Period. End of discussion. Without card counting, you can expect a 100% payoff from an odds bet on the craps table, but that needs to be paired with a regular bet with a negative expected value. The mathematics behind it all have been done to death. There is a .00000000001% chance that you thought you had a system and somehow lucked your way through it for a few years without going broke, or a 99%+ chance that you’re telling stories.

  29. Seth says 04 January 2007 at 18:35

    From your website – “There’s a lot of debate over whether or not the Double Martingale System has a flaw or not.”

    There is absolutely zero debate. Any Martingale system, requires an infinite bankroll, infinite time, and most importantly … wait for it … a table without limits. This final condition can never be met. This is the very reason that casinos have table maximums. Why else would they restrict your gaming?

    I’m also confused on how you talk about buying cars and planes on your website, and mention in the next paragraph that your world collapsed when you lost $5,000.

    If you’re a professional gambler, I’m a professional pilot. I flew a plane, twice actually, with my friend who is a flight instructor. Would you take advice from me about aeronautics?

  30. Dusitn says 04 January 2007 at 18:37

    I think I am not risky enough in poker to make an money in personal finance. I think I am more aggresive in my investments (oddly).

  31. D says 05 January 2007 at 06:12

    Kinda rude to bring up “overtipping” someone who depends on those tips to live without mentioning eating at home as an option.

    Really… why not just not tip at all?

    “I’m just saying that it’s costing you.”

    Rude.

    Judging tips by % is for rich stingy old people. Tip by service.

  32. Rachel says 05 January 2007 at 06:23

    Seconding the commenters above who suggested the bold move of picking a bank with convenient ATMs so you don’t *have* to pay fees.
    Aside from vacations, I haven’t paid an ATM fee in the entire time I’ve had a bank account- and my main account isn’t even at a credit union.

  33. Nick says 05 January 2007 at 07:14

    Regarding Ty’s system, I can verify for certain that it did indeed work. I worked with him for about a year on it and also made my living from working with him.

    I’d always had some doubt about the legality of it all, but it was in no way the Martingale system mentioned above.

    I made a promise when we started that I would never disclose details of the system, so you’ll have to ask him yourself if you want specifics.

  34. Prince of Thrift says 05 January 2007 at 07:27

    I agree with D and alejandra, it does seem rude, and tipping a larger amount to the waiter/ess that is being paid below minimum wage is the proper thing to do. If you are going to eat out, that tip better be in your budget to. If you can’t afford to tip, then don’t eat out.

  35. Michael Langford says 05 January 2007 at 09:13

    It sounds like he’s playing poker from the phone call from his mother. Is that right Tynan?

    It’s not an easy life, but its very possible to learn to get a middle class salary if you chase good games all the time in poker. There is an entire group of people who do it both on online poker rooms and in person in Vegas (during trade shows) and elsewhere around the country.

    I’m not talking tournament poker, although many people do that too. I’m talking about “ring game” poker, which is 10 guys sitting around a table, with a dealer raking the pot. If you play at a reasonable limit, and manage your money well, you can survive, and even live decently like this.

    The issues with the lifestyle:
    1. You have to play when the game is. With the online people, that’s most of the day. With the Real Lifers, its odd hours from the rest of society
    2. If you’re not playing, you’re not making money. Like many businesses that require direct application of your skills, gambling only pays when you’re doing it.
    3. It takes years before your expenses are tax deductable. This is huge. You have to pay all your expenses with pretax money for the first 3 years you’re in business. For people barely not making it, this really hurts.
    4. In many places (but not all), you are playing against at least one person who should not be gambling with the money they are. (This alone has really curtailed my willingness to play cards many places).

    –Michael

  36. whining waiter says 05 January 2007 at 11:03

    Every waitperson I’ve ever met feels entitled to generous tips. My response is always, “Get a better job.” I won’t even tip 15% unless the service is sensational. It’s not my problem you work a crummy job.

  37. Jamasiel says 05 January 2007 at 11:10

    Re: tipping – what’s wrong with you people?
    He’s giving tips about saving money, not saying to bilk service people out of tips they deserve. You’re the ones being rude here – the expectation for tips is 15-20% for standard service, therefore if you follow his pointers and pay that instead of more unless you get exceptional service, you’re not shorting a waiter…it’s what they expect, and what you should expect to budget to eat out.

    I know lots of you are just anxious to be rude online, but find a better target.

  38. CW says 05 January 2007 at 14:54

    It never stops to amaze me how much the average American DOES NOT know about money. The few tips Tyran gave is something every adult should know… something every parent should teach their kids with when they receive their first piggy bank.

    Note that I said “know”, not “follow”. As long as you are fully aware of what tipping another 10% means to your wallet–and you still choose to do it–it’s fine.

    On ATM: my bank has no monthly fee and doesn’t charge me any transaction fee for using one of their ATMs. Hence, as long as I’m not using other bank’s ATM, I’m actually better off drawing money weekly instead of monthly. The benefits are twofold: I earn some interest on the money I left in the account, since interest is calculated daily. Secondly, by not drawing the money in lump sum, I have a lower risk of losing the money to theft/lost wallet/feeling like a big spender. Personally, having a large stash of cash in my wallet makes me less conscious about my spending. YMMV.

    On credit card: the rule of thumb for credit card usage is pay off the balance every month before it’s due, period. As long as you pay it off, it doesn’t matter if it’s 5% APR or 35% APR, because the credit card company won’t see a cent of the interest they’re so eager to charge. Also, find a card with cash-back, or with rewards you’ll use regularly. Preferably a no-fee card, unless the extra reward you’ll earn on the for-fee card will exceed the annual fee–which depends on how much you put on your credit card.

  39. Ted says 05 January 2007 at 19:40

    I’m a semi-professional gambler with a very strong understanding of the math behind what I do.

    I play poker, that’s where the money is. I also started out clearing casino bonuses.

    One thing I must say though is that TYNAN WAS NEVER A PROFESSIONAL GAMBLER. He was (and is) foolish, thinking that he could turn a -EV wager into a +EV wager through changing is bet sizes. This is not possible. It is possible to run well for a long period of time and still be up money, but a guy saying he quit school to play internet roulette… well he’s not a mathemetician, let’s just say that.

    Money can be made through bonus clearing though for sure, but he doesn’t talk much about that, instead acting like it’s a betting “system.”

    -EV is -EV. I’ll bet you guys $1k straight up that whatever betting system you came up with is -EV. Easy, free money.

    I think you’re probably just telling stories though.

  40. TheInsider says 06 January 2007 at 07:19

    Not unless you find a hole in the Internet gambling casino site (and get better odds)…

  41. Jacqueline says 07 January 2007 at 00:08

    He obviously was bonus-whoring. Duh.

  42. Ryan says 07 January 2007 at 03:07

    Interesting take on things, I’m looking forward to reading more in the future.

  43. Ted says 07 January 2007 at 10:36

    He was not obviously bonus whoring. Read his entries about gambling, he mentions some secret system and whatever else. Not bonus whoring.

    A secret system that can make -EV +EV, incredible!

  44. Kolloid says 08 January 2007 at 09:32

    I have been reading Tynan’s blog for a little while now, so there is a couple things that I think you should know about him:

    – First is that he seems to dedicate himself completely to whatever it is he decides to do. That explains why he dropped out of college to become a professional gambler. Although he may have initially started gambling with dreams of getting rich quick, he took the time to learn the games and to become a master. I believe that some games are set up to have a house advantage against a basic strategy. If you take the time to learn a complex strategy (which very few people do), then it is possible to gain the advantage.

    – The second thing that you should know about Tynan is that he is not going to give you his secret. There seems to be some provoking to make him prove himself, but he’s been asked before and he’s not going to tell.

    – On a side note, I did some calculations over the Summer on the expected return from the Martingale strategy. Your overall expected return from the stategy remains the same, but it postpones your losses. Although you will win more often, when you lose, you will lose big. That is why that strategy does not work.

  45. Matt_In_Tx says 16 January 2007 at 16:03

    Don’t make the blanket assumption that paying a credit card balance off every month results in no fees. I have read rumors that some affiliation credit cards have recently zeroed their “grace periods” – presumably meaning you would start paying finance charges immediately upon purchase.

    Obviously, one should check their statements for fees they don’t understand. If any of my credit card companies were to make such a change, I would cancel the account immediately.

  46. larry thompson says 01 February 2007 at 20:25

    Hi,

    Tynan, simply ignore the jealous ones! The world is full of them!
    Professional gambling is an honorable profession……however, it is NOT an easy one! Professional gambling requires every “disipline” known to man! Practice every known “disipline” and you can become expert at anything!

  47. Patrick says 05 February 2007 at 06:19

    Good article! The article triggers a lot of responses.

    If you want to be rich, you have to have a certain attitude and discipline. The reachest people are in certain cases very cheap. Like it or not, their first question in mind: what is MY (potential) return on investment.

    For me a reason to pay only 15% tip in a restaurant (Don’t blame me that your boss is paying you so poorly).

    I rather spend money to charity than spending more on tips because this will give me a tax reduction and a win win situation.

    People like alejandra, who published a comment, will never be rich because his/her emotions make the decisions.

    Taking money out of the ATM and paying a fee is just giving money away. Plan ahead and get your cash in the grocery store when you do your groceries. There are several ways to get you cash without paying fees.

  48. Adam says 05 February 2007 at 07:16

    I have a friend who purchased a manufactured home new many years ago. They moved out of it when they stilled owed more than the market was willing to pay.

    Between the loan and lot rent I expect they spent over $20,000 just to let it sit there. And they still owe more than it’s worth.

    I would have instead taken a personal loan out for the $20k and sold it quickly – that loan would be largely paid off by now.

    Instead, they are pretty much in the same position that they were in when they moved, and perhaps in two more years they’ll have sunk another $20k into it.

  49. DC Portland says 05 February 2007 at 08:44

    I was critical of your posting of Tynan’s advice last time. I still think it is risky business glamorizing the avarice of gambling. Even so, we are all? adults here.

    I do appreciate Tynan’s words regarding the “gamblers fallacy” – thinking that a machine or game is primed for a big payout because of all of the prior play without one. The fact in, each roll of the dice or push of a button is a “start over”. How many compulsive gamblers have gotten themselves into a heap of trouble following this simple fallacy? Shedding light on this is a good thing. I think.

  50. brad says 05 February 2007 at 09:02

    Playing Devil’s advocate here:

    Tynan wrote:

    He invests in a solid company named Acme Widgets, and watches his investment increase. Suddenly there’s a change in management and Acme starts going down the tubes, along with his investment.

    This makes me think of one real-world company that followed this trajectory: Apple Computer. When Steve Jobs was forced out of the company by John Scully way back when, Apple started going down the tubes. A lot of people predicted the company would go out of business and its stock was pretty much worthless. But if I had owned a big chunk of Apple stock back then and had held it instead of selling, I’d be a very rich man today. There’s no way to predict what the future will hold.

    Also, I think the advice that “purchases should be sold if you wouldn’t buy them today for their current value” needs some qualification: doesn’t Tynan mean “purchases that you no longer use or need?” And really, if you no longer use it or need it you might as well sell it anyway. If I bought a monitor and wasn’t using it anymore because I was using my laptop exclusively, I’d sell the monitor regardless of whether it had gone down in value…if I don’t need something anymore I sell or donate it.

    Furthermore, if you were to take the “sell if you wouldn’t buy it today for its current value” literally, you’d be constantly buying fast-depreciating items like computers, cars, etc. to replace your old ones, which doesn’t make sense. If your computer or car works fine now and you don’t need to sell it for financial reasons, I’d say hang onto it until you really need a newer one.

  51. wha says 05 February 2007 at 09:47

    I would like to repeat that taking Tynan’s advice of ‘selling if you wouldn’t buy it today for its current value’ as he wrote it would be a horrible disaster for anyone. This advice (1) undermines the time-tested buy-and-hold strategy and, if really followed literally, (2) puts one on the track of continually losing money.

    If someone is thinking of selling a vehicle that depreciated more quickly than what they are confortable with, what would really be wrong with them resigning to hang on to the vehicle for a little while, if it’s not necessary for some reason to purchase a new one? If the person has the ability to continue using the current vehicle, they might as well get the equivalent usage out of the vehicle for its deprication (since new vehicle deprication levels off after the initial drop).

    There is certainly something to be said for not hoarding useless things, for being able to recognize when something has finally lost all value and letting go of it (difficult as the Apple example above illustrates), and for the wisdom in cutting your losses when appropriate, but this advice goes too far overboard.

  52. Angela says 05 February 2007 at 10:00

    I think that with the qualification of ‘stuff you don’t need or want’ this is a good way of thinking of things. How much you paid for something is irrelevant to what its worth, both in terms of money and its value to you.

  53. Mark says 05 February 2007 at 10:09

    I’m not sure everyone is understanding the advice to sell something if you wouldn’t buy it today for its current value. Think of it this way: You have an object that provides some utility to you. You can sell the object for X dollars. If you can buy something that can provide the same utility for *less* than X dollars, it is pretty reasonable to sell the object, buy the cheaper thing that provides you with the same utility, and pocket the difference.

    So with regards to the truck, the thought is that the truck isn’t worth $15,000 to the guy, and he would get the same utility out of a $10,000 vehicle.

    This advice will not lead to constantly buying fast-depreciating items. The point isn’t that the truck depreciated, so he should sell it. The point is that he should sell it *even though* it depreciated. Whether or not it was originally worth $25,000 or even $15,000 to him is irrelevant, because *now* the truck is only worth $10,000 to him.

    When you have something worth $X to you (i.e., that you could replace for $X) and that you can sell for $Y, if Y is greater than X, sell it.

    It’s simple advice, and I believe the main point is that you should keep it in mind to override any curveballs your psyche throws at you like “Oh, but I spent so much on it, it would be a waste to sell it now!”

  54. rich says 05 February 2007 at 12:18

    You have an object that provides some utility to you. You can sell the object for X dollars. If you can buy something that can provide the same utility for *less* than X dollars, it is pretty reasonable to sell the object, buy the cheaper thing that provides you with the same utility, and pocket the difference.

    This sounds a lot like that “value your possessions by how long you’ve owned them” idea from a week or two ago, except that this time there’s no indication about how to value your possessions. When it comes down to it, most people simply can’t decide that something they own is worth $X to them.

    Let’s say you have had a car for a few years. To decide whether to keep that car, you first have to figure out what it is worth to someone else, keeping in mind that someone else has an interest in fooling you into thinking that value is lower than it is. Then you have to decide what it is worth to you — not only do you get to convert its utility to you into a monetary value, but you also get to figure in the costs of the transaction and the opportunity costs of making the sale (which include things like the value of the additional risk of buying a cheaper car which might be reliable but might also be a lemon). Finally you have to decide whether the difference between those two figures is enough to make the transaction worthwhile.

    Most people simply cannot do that effectively, and there’s nothing here to suggest how to do it, only that it should be done.

    On top of that, you need to figure out for which things you own it’s worth even starting the process. You can’t do that evaluation for everything you own against everything you could possibly own, so you have to know which things are worth the time to concentrate on, and to do that you have to know a lot about the market that you could possibly sell those things on. Again, most people don’t have that ability, and there’s no advice here on how to generate it (for reasons I find obvious — it’s hard.)

    Tylan probably spends a lot of time thinking about finance. That has the potential to generate a lot of financial strategies that have gambling analogies, but that’s only the minimum requirement. With clearly no experience actually dealing with other people’s financial situations, his advice doesn’t help anyone to improve their situation at all, only to wonder why it all sounds so easy on paper.

    “Oh, but I spent so much on it, it would be a waste to sell it now!”

    This is just sunk costs again. But Tylan isn’t saying “account for sunk costs”, he’s proposing an impossible process of assigning cash value to utility, just like the earlier guest post about calculating value based on time owned did. Yes, when you throw out all of the recommended methods you can end up with “account for sunk costs”, but the extra baggage doesn’t make the point any clearer or readers any richer.

    JD, I know this guest post had been lined up for a while, but any proposal that involves calculating the cash value of something one already owns really needs to send up a red flag and invite the questions, “Is that calculation even possible, and is its result meaningful?”

  55. rich says 05 February 2007 at 12:19

    Argh, sorry! I managed to write that whole comment with “Tyler” and then went back to correct myself, but got that wrong too! Apologies, Tynan.

  56. Roger says 05 February 2007 at 19:40

    There are two places this has real value: When you want to sell an object that has carrying costs, and when you want to sell an object that will depreciate over time.

    Real estate is an excellent example of the first, as the first comment pointed out. Just to use some numbers, let’s say you have a house that you have a mortgage of $300,000 on. The carrying cost of that mortgage is roughly $2000 per month, more or less, let’s say.

    You get a job offer out of town, need to sell, and looking at comps you price your house at $350,000. A month later you get your sole offer to date, for $330,000. The market is softening, there’s lots of competition–not a good time to be selling.

    You could decide to stick it out, and hope for a better offer…but for each month that passes without a sale you’re lowering your take from the sale by $2000–plus the opportunity cost of that money and the inconvenience of keeping your plans on hold, perhaps paying two mortgages at once, etc.

    If you get a full price offer a month later, you look like a genius. But if you still have the house a few months later, you’re now a stale listing AND you’re no better off than if you had accepted the original offer. Indeed, you might have been able to counter and get a bit more.

    The other time to do this sort of analysis is when you might part with something that has a rapid depreciation curve–computer hardware or software, electronics, or the like. If you have a flat-panel monitor you’re not using that’s still in the “acceptable” size range, sell now, rather than wait for the day that people simply laugh and wonder how you ever worked on something as dinky. Or if you’re done with a new game, sell while it’s still a current title and not when it’s been superseded by the latest version.

    Cars are the same way. Yeah, you made the stupid decision to buy new. Yeah, you need to sell because finances are tight. Yeah, you lost a bunch of money. However, don’t forget to factor in the carrying costs when deciding to tough it out: is there a payment that will go away or be greatly reduced if you sell? Does your potential new car require less gas, cheaper (liability only?) insurance, and perhaps can be parked on the street instead of in a rented spot? make sure you look at the entire picture rather than just how much money you’ve lost.

  57. majeest says 06 February 2007 at 07:12

    wha says:

    I would like to repeat that taking Tynan’s advice of “selling if you wouldn’t buy it today for its current value” as he wrote it would be a horrible disaster for anyone. This advice (1) undermines the time-tested buy-and-hold strategy and, if really followed literally, (2) puts one on the track of continually losing money.

    I disagree. In fact, I’m pretty sure Tynan’s advice is cribbed from Warren Buffett (although I can’t seem to track down the source).

    If you’re holding Stock A, and are thinking about buying Stock B, you need to look at which one is currently selling at a greater discount to intrinsic value. If it’s A, you should just buy more of Stock A. If it’s B, you should sell A and use the proceeds to buy B. (Thus the rule: if you wouldn’t buy A today, you should sell it.)

    Logically, this makes sense, in that you should only hold those stocks that are going to give you the greatest return from their present levels (not the price at which you bought it; a stock doesn’t care how much you paid for it).

    Of course, the rule relies on a number of major assumptions, mostly related to one’s tolerance for risk and level of ability in security analysis, but the reasoning is sound.

  58. Carter Adler says 07 February 2007 at 13:29

    “Not selling is the same as buying.”

    This is just not true, because it ignores transaction costs (commission, sales tax, etc.).

  59. rich says 07 February 2007 at 13:46

    majeest: Tynan credits Warren Buffet in this post, silly. But he then goes on to say that it applies to everyday purchases that aren’t investments, and that’s where things break.

  60. Charles E Hampshire says 11 July 2007 at 12:05

    I an not surprised by all the variety of opinions here. They are of course exactly that…opinions! and reflect the writers past experiences and knowledge or lack of it.
    Perhaps you could all expand your real knowledge by reading a free (nothing for sale) website by a genuine professional gambler. Go: WIN3MILLION.COM
    You will learn something of the real world.

  61. Justin Dearing says 31 July 2007 at 15:19

    # whining waiter Said:

    “Every waitperson I’ve ever met feels entitled to generous tips.”

    And they tend to tip just as generously.

    I’ve never waited tables except for 2 days at a kosher catering hall that I will not speak of again. I’ve spent some time bartending, both in a private party setting and at a real bar. I enjoy bar tending on tips alone far more than working in an open bar setting where I get a paid for the night and a tip from the host. Its a good system that keeps the waitstaff loyal to the customers before the owners. You hire spotters and keep a manager on the floor to prevent the waitstaff from stealing and everyone is happy.

    If you don’t like it, don’t eat out.

  62. Larry Thompson says 07 October 2007 at 20:40

    What I think Mr Tynan is trying to convey, is this: DISIPLINE! He is simply conveying the fact, that “costs” always cost something….and “saving” always saves something! Lets take the subject of tipping: He is precisely correct when he says, “tipping to feel generous”….the price of an item is already on your MENU…your server is already being PAID….tipping is simply another way for the business to avoid paying a decent wage!
    If a person is NOT going to provide you with a 100% effort while on the job, that person should not be there to begin with!

    A very, very wealthy businessman, (who was simply a dealer in scrap & junk), once taught me a valuable lesson: He said to me, “son, watch your pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves”!

    I have a hunch Mr Tynan is saying the same thing! WATCH YOUR PENNIES, THE DOLLARS WILL TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES!

  63. Math_God says 26 February 2009 at 00:05

    I guess I wouldn’t be described as a “professional” gambler, since I am a financial analyst by profession. However, I am a very successful online gambler. I have an extremely keen understanding of certain sports and have made nearly $150,000 in the last two years. There are gamblers that can be very successful over a long period of time. Don’t expect these people to reveal all of their secrets though.

    I use an online-gambling site that has a very easy and hassle-free withdrawal process. I keep $2200 in my player’s account and withdraw my winnings every week to make it go back to $2200 ($2200 is a very important limit on one of the bets I use). I end each week with a positive profit margin nearly 80% of the time. If not, I deposit up to $2200. I’m extremely organized and have kept all weekly transactions in a spreadsheet for tax reasons. One of my keys is to find those “fat” lines that are based on people (fans of teams) that tend to bet on emotion. I’ve become extremely adept at using the “masses” irrational emotions against them among other things. It definitely takes the utmost discipline to be successful for a long period of time. I’m honestly not sure if this type of discipline can be learned either. That’s why I’m not sure if professional gambling techniques can be “truly” used to help your finances if you are not already extremely disciplined in the first place. I think this innate discipline (or lack-there-of), spills into almost everything concerning the art of making money.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*