I've played cards for small change - dimes and nickels, dropped LESS than $100 into slot machines over the course of my entire life, and maybe 3 or 4 times that on other types of casino gambling. Its something to do, but I could think of hundreds of things I'd rather do.

I wonder what kind of enjoyment someone gets from spending thousands upon thousands on things like slot machines? Pro poker I get - that is something you can get good at, and arguably profit from. To a lesser extent, the same could be said of sports betting. But stuff like slot machines where you play against the house? Or lottery tickets?

I've seen people (almost always women) buy $10 worth of scratch off tickets, and maybe hit a $15 win. Then they take the winnings and exchange it for $15 worth more scratch off tickets. They repeat this until they have nothing. They've spent $15 for fifteen minutes of scratching goo off cardboard.

Slot machines are basically the same thing. From what I've seen, the moderate wins always go directly back inside the slot machines. With technology what it is, playing a slot machine is a process of charging up a plastic swipe card, passing it through a slot on a machine, then pushing buttons until the balance is zero.

Can someone explain where the fun is in this?

The concept of enjoyment comes into it through the 'thrill' of winning (temporarily or not) and the thrill or fun of maybe winning along the way.

I've played a lot of slots in my time, but I approach it with a system that has me well in net profit overall (not that I feel it is reliable enough to risk big money on that I can't afford to lose). Basically, there are two things to avoid - both of which you include in your description, and are indeed typical of most slots players.

1. Do not sit at the same machine until your money is gone
2. Do not keep re-feeding your winnings back in to the machines (i.e. know when to stop)

(supplement that with)
3. Never play with more than you can afford to lose.

Machines here I believe are programmed to take around a 30% profit for the house. But, my system works on the concept that there is considerable rise and fall to this, even on each machine individually (in other words, each machine goes through periods of net winning and periods of net losses, with an overall average of net loss). Combine it to a pool of a larger number of machines and there is something to manipulate in your favour (using the above rules). Typically I would pick a starting machine, play for a while, always with an eye on whether the machine seems to be going through a positive phase or not. If it seems to be going badly, move to another machine. If it goes well, great, but don't push it and keep playing it till it turns around into a period of net losing and takes back all your gains (and more) - judge when is a good time to move to another machine. At the same time, it is worth keeping a quiet eye on the other machines and players around you - if you notice someone going through an extended loss period, and then moving when all their cash is gone - you can consider it as a good machine to possibly move to, because the other player has cashed it up so to speak, through at least part of a loss period, meaning a higher chance of a winning period coming up.

Overall, of course gambling is more practical when you can more reliably control the outcome in your favour through some form of skill. Counting cards in blackjack is the ultimate - so much so that is heavily frowned upon as a form of cheating - when in fact it is no such thing - any more than knowing the form of horses is cheating, or reading your opponents faces in poker is cheating. Such claims always come from sore losers.

If I had the head for counting cards in blackjack, I'd probably do it for a living.

I see a bit of dissonance there. If YOU are playing a machine that continually loses, you say it is a good idea to move. But if you see someone else continually losing to a machine that gives up on it (as you've suggested one should), you suggest moving to that one.

I'm sure you'll have a good explanation...or at least an entertaining one.

You're not getting it (or being deliberately argumentative? Probably the former this time). All machines go through peaks and troughs of paying out wins. They don't evenly distribute the wins over time. Comprehending that is the whole key. So by seeing someone else has sat through at least part of a trough period, you have allowed them to feed that machine the money required to do so. By taking advantage of that, you increase your chances of making a *net* profit on that particular machine at that particular time. You aren't guaranteed to instantly start winning by moving to it of course, as sometimes there can by incredibly long trough periods. You still need to be willing to move from it if it doesn't go well for some time.

Effectively you are taking advantage of that player's investment towards your average. There's never any guarantee of course - on given occasions I have still had a net loss. Hence the point 3 - only play with what you can afford to lose. But the net losses have added up to less than the net gains over time I believe (I haven't kept statistics so can't say by how much). Really it is not a wise way to try to make an income - but that is not the point of it. Generally it is a pastime, that I personally enjoy playing as a game of 'skill' (of sorts).

Unfortunately (for them) most people play them in exactly the way you described - they just feed a machine till all their money is gone, then quite often go get more money and feed it some more. That approach is not very engaging to me, but the is still an element of fun on any individual spin for the player - the 'will I win' factor.

If you've played a machine through some or all of its trough, why not stick with it? Its about to go through a peak right?

Wrong. The peaks of any one given machine will be smaller than its troughs (that's the house taking its preprogrammed percentage). Sometimes you might pull off a gain by sitting it out, but you are stacking the odds higher against yourself that way.

Then why would you switch to a machine someone else has been losing at? If you wouldn't stick with the machine you've been losing at?

If you really haven't grasped the concept yet (and are not just being deliberately obstinate), I suggest you try reading again. Post #4 - paragraph 1 was quite specific about this.