Gambling – Regular Guy

Hollywood Casino York

brian — Sun, 22 Aug 2021 13:37:08 +0000

I went to the new Hollywood Casino in York on Saturday night. They put this in recently and what used to be a Sears. What follows are just some general first impressions.

The casino is in the back of the mall so it’s not plainly obvious from the road. The Galleria is always a confusing place anyway so this just continues that trend.

There was a pretty good crowd which I was not surprised by considering it was Saturday night. I stayed masked almost the entire time except when I was drinking my beer. They were masks scattered throughout.

The line for their players club card was crazy when I arrived around 9 pm. Only one person was working so I didn’t get one.

The sportsbook area looks nice. I didn’t spend any time there partially because I didn’t feel like making sports bets and partially because I hate Barstool Sports, which is their partner for sports betting. I may go there eventually and just deal with knowing that I am supporting that toxic organization, but I can also always bet sports for my phone.

They had three places for food and drink. There was a grab and go place. There was a casual sit-down place. And then the sportsbook bar. I don’t know if they had any food there though. Otherwise it seems like decent options for the size of the place.

Table game limits range from $10 to $25. I watched a little bit and they were pretty full. They also have sit-down table game spots where you play those video versions of blackjack or roulette. Those were full, but I would be very likely to play those in the future. There is no poker room at this location.

They have an OK variety of slots. None of the themed ones like based on a TV show or movie or anything like that. They hardly have any video poker. Some of the best slots are in the area where they do allow smoking, which could really sucked. Otherwise they’re just your typical video slots. They all seemed to let you choose the betting denomination.

I had a good time. I lost a little bit of money but did okay in a few slot sessions. The crowd was not threatening. I saw one person I knew. I will definitely go back. I may even sit at the bar attached to the sit-down eating area and get something to eat in a beer and watch an event. It’s about 45 minute drive for me so I won’t go all the time but I definitely will do it once in awhile.

Bragging About Nothing

brian — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:04:29 +0000

I have to admit, I used to do this. I still might do it on occasion, but I try to avoid this particular annoyance as much as possible these days. Partially because I realize it doesn’t matter, but mostly because I have realized how stupid it sounds.

People have to stop bragging about not doing things.

I’m not talking about the not doing things that I admire, like spending a whole day on your couch in sweats watching TV for no good reason. That is admirable and should be shared with the world. I’m talking about the kind of not doing things that annoying sports business writer Darren Rovell tweeted about over the weekend.

Realize it’s not what majority want to do, but it’s my 8th year of not filling out a bracket. Don’t think I will ever go back.

— Darren Rovell (@darrenrovell) March 15, 2015

This one got me for a couple of reasons. First of all, I love March Madness and fill out brackets like they are going out of style. I have done this forever so the fact that not filling out a bracket is some sort of badge of honor just makes me roll my eyes. Second, it was from Rovell, who is a twit.

But this isn’t just about March Madness brackets. We see it with any cultural phenomenon. People like to brag that they don’t care about the Super Bowl or Super Bowl commercials or the Oscars (I have been guilty of that) or pretty much any sports or pop culture event that brings people together.

I like some of those things and don’t like others, but why should I or anyone else feel compelled to puff our chest out when we aren’t interested in something a lot of other people like? Twitter and Facebook, that’s why.

I love social networks like those, but that’s pretty much the whole reason for this. People who love these events talk about them a lot, and those who are not included feel like they need to join the conversation if only to say they don’t want to join the conversation. It’s the ultimate “look at me move.”

Which is why the ultimate “look at me” guy Darren Rovell was the one that kind of set me over the edge. As I said, I am sure I have done this, usually with the Oscars and Grammys. I think I have learned my lesson. If you want credit for not doing something, you’re probably the kind of guy people don’t want joining them while they enjoy their favorite things. So just shut up.

Online Poker Showdown

brian — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 18:36:43 +0000

I have a confession to make. I am a criminal. Well, I am not right now, but I have been in the past.

OK, I’m not a criminal, but I have played online poker for money. According to the government, that’s a big no-no as evidenced by the shutdown of three major online poker sites a few weeks ago. Thankfully, the opposition is starting to get mobilized.

I currently don’t have any money in an account anywhere. My typical online poker experience involves putting $25 or so in an account, playing really low-limit games and eventually running out of money because I really only like to play for a diversion.

I’m not a big gambler, but have fun. The money is an entertainment expense as far as I am concerned, especially since I don’t make it a habit. I don’t think I have played for money online in three months or so.

Even though the recent new doesn’t really affect me, it still stinks. The continued efforts to portray online poker as some sort of horrible criminal enterprise is silly. I don’t subscribe to the “why are they doing this instead of stopping real criminals” theory since I believe government can pursue multiple kinds of criminals at the same time, but it does raise a lot of questions.

Poker in person is legal. What is so bad about the government blessing some form of the game online in the U.S., collecting taxes from the operators and potentially taxing the winnings of players? A lot of people want to play. These aren’t underground card games. This is big business. Why chase it away?

Gambling is here to stay, people. Let us enjoy it responsibly.

Gettysburg Rolls Craps

brian — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:41:11 +0000

The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board decided today to not give the final available casino license to a group from Gettysburg, which wanted to build a facility about 20 minutes from my house. Nemacolin Resort, out in the western part of the state, won the vote.

I have mixed feelings about this news. I like to gamble a little, but not enough to regularly make the hour-long drive (each way) to the nearest casino, so I had hoped to have a more convenient option. But another part of me thinks the state made the best decision by passing on Gettysburg.

Actually, I don’t think they went far enough. I don’t think anyone deserved the license. It’s not a personal problem I have with any of the applicants, and it’s definitely not some moral high ground that some Gettysburg opponents have tried to claim. It’s just that I think the idea of a Category 3 casino in a Pennsylvania resort is just bad business.

Category 3 casinos must be located at a resort hotel, allow for up to 600 slot machines and up to 50 table games, and limit access to hotel guests or people who patronize the site’s amenities. In other words, a small casino with admission requirements quite possibly off the beaten path.

The whole idea is silly, especially if they chose Gettysburg. And I hate saying that since I know the guy who ran the PR campaign for the effort and respect the plan the investors laid out. I would have loved to have a place near here, but the concept made little sense.

Casinos make money off volume. If they have lower numbers of machines and tables, that means they won’t be able to offer too many low-cost options. If you don’t offer low-cost options, you probably cut out a good portion of your local audience as regular, casual customers. Add some sort of admission requirement, and they’re giving people more than one reason to not come on a regular basis.

At least that’s how I feel. Maybe others would have had a different experience. But I also think the possibility that they would have theoretical higher limits would have chased off tourists in Gettysburg. People who come there – in my opinion – aren’t looking for an extravagent vacation. So if the family is staying at a hotel a few miles away to cut down on costs, is Dad really likely to sneak out and play $25 a hand blackjack after the kids go to sleep?

Maybe I’m completely off base, but the Gettysburg proposal seemed to have no steam from the start regardless of how well they planned. I had much more confidence in the potential success of the first plan a few years ago, which was for a much bigger casino. I think a Gettysburg casino could work, just not this one.

Nemacolin might attract people who are willing to pay those higher minimums in the casino, but will enough people come out to the sticks of western PA? Like I said, the problem is not the proposals from the potential investors. It’s what the state is asking them to buy.

Clenched

brian — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 13:02:00 +0000

I participate in a pair of football “survivor” pools. If you are not aware, the premise is to pick one game per week. If your pick wins, you move to the next week. If not, you are out. The trick is that you cannot pick the same team twice so each win means you have fewer and fewer good teams to choose from.

One of my pools is a small one at work. A dozen people started, and I have made it to the final two. That will be a nice little payout if I can win. I will also have bragging rights over a co-worker, which might be even better.

But my second pool has a much different flavor. I got into it through a friend. The entry fee wasn’t big – only $15 – but the field included 98 players. You can do the math to see the winner-take-all prize. I have lasted this long with 21 other people. It’s getting a little exciting.

This past week, I had the Kansas City Chiefs. They were, after all, playing the hapless Buffalo Bills in Kansas City, one of the toughest stadiums in the league for a visiting team. The week before, the same philosophy to pick the Baltimore Ravens, my team, at home over Buffalo. The Ravens needed an overtime field goal to win. The Bills couldn’t come close to beating another home favorite, I told myself.

Wrong. So, so, so wrong.

Sometime close to 5 p.m. on Sunday, I found myself bent at the waist, staring intently at my television as the Chiefs tried to drive down the field in overtime for the winning field goal. Each team had missed on field goal in the extra period. The Bills actually made one, but the Chiefs called timeout just before the kick. I usually hate that move, but it could be a very lucrative turn of events for me since the Bills’ kicker shanked his second try.

I often tell my friends who do not follow sports that I envy them for being able to go through life without having to expend energy worrying about who wins and who loses. That goes triple – or maybe more – for people who don’t participate in some sort of gambling. Then again, it makes for a lot of fun when things work out.

This is exactly why I don’t gamble a lot, however. I could not take that feeling I had late in the game all the time. Now I just need to figure out which team will put me through the ringer this weekend. I might actually have to root for Eli Manning. Money makes you do strange things.

Delaware Gets It

brian — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:37:52 +0000

Delaware may have dashed my sports betting dreams, but they are finally stepping up with table games.

If all goes as planned, casino patrons in Delaware could be playing poker in April and have a full assortment of games two months later. This would put Delaware ahead of Pennsylvania, which is also racing to allow table games at casinos.

This means table games should be up and running by the time I hit the beach this summer. There’s no guarantee that I take the time away from all of our family activities to go play cards – the closest casino is about 90 minutes from where we stay – but I will have that option.

That’s all I want. I just want the opportunity to go play cards if I feel like it. Pennsylvania figured that out recently. I’m glad Delaware could join the party.

Shuffle Up and Deal

brian — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:28:01 +0000

A wonderful thing happened last week. Magical, almost. The Pennsylvania General Assembly passed a law which will allow casinos in the state to offer table games such as craps, roulette, blackjack and poker. Six months from now, I will have the opportunity to drive an hour or so from my house and play cards. I can only describe my reaction one way.

Now this whole plan was a long time in the making and really should have been wrapped up months ago except for lots of political fighting between Republicans (who hate fun) and Democrats (who love it). At least that’s how I define them in this context.

They still need to prepare a lot of things before opening the tables, but the law is passed. The closest casino to me is up in Harrisburg. I have played slots there a couple of times and will definitely head up for some poker when the action starts and maybe a few other games.

Of course I say that now. I bragged how I would patronize Delaware’s casinos once they added sports betting, but that never happened this fall. Sure, the watered-down version they offered made it less enticing, but I could have made the trip to bet at least once. Sometimes with gambling, I talk pretty good game without backing it up.

I’m just glad I have the option to go play now. Sure, the bill opens the door for a casino closer to me in Gettysburg, but I really don’t care about that. It would be more convenient, but it would be a smaller place that might require you to spend other money at the location in order to enter the casino, and that doesn’t appeal to me since they would probably have less variety with fewer games allowed by law. Plus, even if it did get approved, they would take a while to get up and running.

I’m happy biding my time over the next few months and saving up to go to Harrisburg. Or just sitting here and running my mouth about going.

All Talk

brian — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:29:03 +0000

When I posted something on Facebook last week about the new sports betting law in Delaware, one friend replied, “regulardegenerategambler.com.” The post cracked me up for a couple of reasons.

First off, I knew I had kind of belabored the point on the topic. Secondly, nothing could be further from the truth despite my constant posting about legal gambling.

I haven’t played cards for money in almost a year. I have only played slots twice this calendar year. I haven’t bet on sports – in a casino – in almost two years. I have played in March Madness pools, some football pools and fantasy leagues, but I don’t bet with a bookie or anything like that.

In short, I talk a hell of a lot more about gambling than I actually do it. But I’m talking about it partially because I want to support situations that will allow me to do more than I talk. I’m not saying I will become a degenerate, but I do want to have the opportunity to go play cards and bet on sports closer to home.

Delaware had an OK start to its parlay NFL betting over the weekend. And while fans were placing those bets, Pennsylvania announced that table games will likely be part of the new budget. If all goes well, poker, blackjack and craps will all be just a little more than an hour away from my house.

I have visited that casino a couple of times to play slots and would love the opportunity to go up there with a buddy or two and play some cards on a free weekend night. That’s why I support the expansion of gambling. Sure, there will be people who fall prey to the games. That sucks, but everything has its negatives. The bulk of people sitting down for a game will keep gambling in proper perspective and just have a good time within their means.

That’s what I plan to do. You can bet on that.

Sucker Bet

brian — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:33:53 +0000

That noise you heard yesterday was the anticipation of sports betting in Delaware being sucked out of everyone who intended on visiting the first state to gamble on the NFL or March Madness.

The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals formally announced their decision to deny the state’s original plan yesterday. Delaware can only offer parlay betting on the NFL with bettors needing to choose at least three games on one bet.

That sucks.

About the only good thing that came out of the opinion was that the three-judge panel didn’t say anything about “the integrity of the game.” That line of reasoning from the leagues which sued Delaware totally fell short, which is a small consolation.

The court instead found that the federal law which allows Delaware to even offer sports betting can only be interpreted narrowly, meaning the state has to stick to what it offered back in 1976. Those games all involved parlays of between three and 12 teams. The court went with the lowest amount and wouldn’t allow the state to add any other sports.

Picking the winners of three NFL games, even with a point spread, is hard. There are too many factors that can screw you up. I guess that’s what the court intends because Delaware’s law says any betting must be consistent with a lottery, meaning luck must be more important than skill. But I think skill plays more of a role than the judges intend because you need to really know your stuff to even get the three games to the point where you need good luck to help you out.

I will probably make at least one trip to Delaware to bet, if only to support the project. But the thought of going on a bunch of Sundays and placing a few bets has pretty much disappeared in my head.

That sucks.

A Most Important Day

brian — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:22:15 +0000

Three people in Philadelphia will decide the fate of the free world today. Or they will decide whether Delaware can accept single-game bets on professional and college sports. To me, the situations are equal.

A panel from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals will rule on a request by the major pro sports leagues and the NCAA for an injunction which will halt Delaware’s sports gambling plan until a trial can proceed. The leagues insist that fair play as we know it will end if Delaware accept single-game bets, something which already happens in Nevada and through illegal betting operations all the time.

The leagues are cool with the First State taking parlay bets on the NFL, meaning a gambler would have to pick at least two games correctly on one betting slip in order to win. Those games don’t interest as many betters because it’s harder to succeed.

One of the main pieces of the debate is what kind of bets require skill and what ones boil down to just plain luck. In my eyes, a parlay bet involves a lot of luck because you have more factors to consider. But the NFL can’t stop that kind of betting since Delaware offered it previously.

So they go with the argument that picking one game involves more skill than luck. As someone who has watched a lot of sports, I disagree. Betting, especially with a point spread or picking the over under – a bet where you gamble whether the teams will combine for a number of points higher or lower than the betting line – involves so much luck. Leagues strive for parity and have so many teams that the talent pool is more unpredictable. You just never know what will happen.

We don’t know when the judges will hand down their ruling. Today is just for arguments, but the three racetrack casinos in Delaware intend on accepting bets in eight days (Sept. 1) so a decision will have to come pretty soon. Anyone want to bet on the outcome?