Jul 16
AndrewBlog Vegas
My latest trip to Vegas was the first stop of a three-stop vacation. Being the only city where I wasn’t scheduled to see family, the purpose of my stop in Vegas was wholly single-minded and selfish: I went to gamble.
And gamble I did for almost three days straight, with little enough time to sleep, eat and shit, I wandered the southern end of the Strip looking for the hot table, the sharpest dealers and the richest companions with which to spend my time. It’s indulgent (an overused, if otherwise totally appropriate term) to decide to that you’re going to gamble, and then gamble some more and never let up to visit a night club, take in a lounge act, or even shop. I was having none of it. If the thought makes you sick to your stomach, turn away now.
I had one ulterior motive to the trip. I wanted to test out my philosophy of blackjack.
Blackjack is my game. Always has been. I even wrote a book about it (the sales page is here: http://philosophyofbj.com/). After having scribed a book how to think like a winner; I wanted to test it out. Could I put the system into practice and fly out of Las Vegas with winnings in my pocket?
The short answer is yes. Here are the facts:
I primarily started with a base bet of $50.
I tried to play at tables with $25 or $50 minimums.
I logged in about 30 hours of game play over three days, about 1/10 of that was on slot machines or at the bar playing machine-keno.
My stake was a maximum of $3000, some of which never left the bank account.
My hotel room was free. My flight was partially paid for with a voucher.
By Vegas standards, a 3000-dollar vacation isn’t extravagant nor particularly bothersome to the casinos (even though I won) which make the bulk of their money from ancillary services (food, shows, drinks) anyway. But for some people, it’s a fortune, and more the point, I (truthfully) wasn’t interested in losing all of it. Some of it inevitably went to pay for the vacation itself -- the food and booze and cab rides -- but the bulk was set aside for the sole purpose of proving that my philosophy of gambling works.
So I claimed it does, and over Blog Vegas VII, I’ll detail how it played out, pitfalls, successes and all. Tomorrow, part II, is all about how to pick the right casino.
If you like what you read over the next few days, I suggest you check out the full title. You can order On 21: The Philosophy of Blackjack from amazon.com and other retailers.
Want to talk to me directly? Contact me via facebook or twitter.
Tomorrow Blog Vegas VII Part II: Vegas a go-go
Jul 12
AndrewBusiness, Music
A few weeks ago, I bought what I declared to be my last compact disc ever! It felt like a pivotal moment for me as a music consumer because I finally declared myself free of the physical and embraced the digital wholly.
I am a voracious music consumer; live shows, compact discs, digital tracks, even the occasional tour t-shirt. Philosophically, I’ve never balked at paying for music, but I still look for the value in what I’m buying. The value of the music is itself inherent but the music industry has long tried to convince consumers to value the packaging at least as much. Compact discs used to be works of art (as were music videos at one time) when cds were valued as an enhancement of the music experience.
Digital sales wiped out the presentation aspect of cds (even if downloads do come with the album artwork) in exchange for a cheaper price point. It created a new model for music distribution that eroded the artistic value of the compact disc and at the same time, provided an easier mode for sharing the music without paying for it (remember the days of mixtapes?) The net effect? The value of music is being judged solely on how good it is.
In way, it’s a great thing, and I think the artists themselves would agree. The problem though is that the music industry on a whole hasn’t figured how to continue to be profitable and still embrace the new era of change. And ironically, though compact disc sales are slumping, digital sales, despite modest growth, still only represent 5% of music sales annually. So how are consumers getting their music?
It’s a question that the record companies have been grappling unsuccessfully with for at least half a decade. Remember when the RIAA -- Recording Industry Association of America -- was suing consumers for piracy? A the time, the move sounded like a bad joke; and it stank of a desperation tactic. Worse, the lawsuits had zero impact on music piracy and did little more than confirm what everyone had already agreed upon in the first place: the record companies (and in some cases, the musicians) owned the music. The consumers had no problem owning up to it; they just weren’t paying for it anymore.
More recently, pile on the overpricing of concert tours, and it’s worth asking: how are consumers getting their music fix?
There are some obvious answers. Pandora is still free, as is radio (both internet and more traditional airwaves). Music file sharing is still happening. Artists are more cognizant of how giving away free music can be a useful promotional tool (not for nothing, but the record company has been slow to figure it out). But does it have to be free to get people to listen?
I’m no more sure of the answer than the record companies, so I can only look at my own experience as a music consumer. I will only buy a compact disc for an album that I’ve already heard. If I know I like the music, I’m more than willing to pay for the disc itself (and that has been true for years, not just recently). I actually rarely buy complete digital albums (occasionally if I deem the “bonus tracks” worth buying the whole album, I’ll go for it) so most of my music consumption is individual digital tracks. So in fact, my consumption habits fairly accurately reflect the overall consumer trends of the music industry. My digital purchases: maybe 10% of my overall purchases. My compact disc purchases: down (way down) from 10 years ago. And the rest of my music consumption are tracks I come across in the course of my day to day, either shared from friends or heard on the radio or offered free directly from the artist.
Despite my intention to stop buying cds, the truth is, my habits haven’t changed. If I know the music, buying the compact disc is worth it to me. Otherwise, I am perfectly comfortable seeking out individual digital tracks, either free or purchased as the opportunity presents itself.
I recognize that the music industry is facing a lot of pressure from consumers like me because not that long ago, I was the type of person supporting the existing business model. But that model is busted and I just don’t see what is going to replace it. The truth is, despite a few music purchases here and there, I’m just not buying it anymore. And from what I can tell, neither is anyone else.
--
Andrew Marx is the author of Thank You is Implied: The Annotated Smart ReMarx, a collection of essays from his 17-year writing career, annotated with new commentary, anecdotes and the occasional apology.
Jul 09
AndrewHumor
Like any good computer, humans need to come with a shut down switch, a safe mode, a restart function and, what the hell, a F4 key! Computers have been adapted to function under any number of normal and aberrant situations, and in theory, so have humans. And yet humans are fraught with free-will and facing the identical situation, may choose to do things differently the second time around. It’s a flaw (a decidedly human flaw) that we have already found a way to minimize in our computer counterparts. Why shouldn’t we make our own lives a little easier and encourage those same behavioral consistencies within ourselves?
Wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Boot up in safe mode! When you’re feeling blue, Page Up. Too hyper? Page down. Need a break: shut down, log off or just go into sleep mode! The map to our collective repair shop, the pattern for our success, we already have it at our fingertips.
Humans derail on persistence, context and free will. Of course, factor in greed, neediness, jealousy, love, vanity, lust, despair, devotion, hunger, desperation, addiction, admiration, and anger and you have yourself a stew that needs a lot of stirring. How have we managed to create the (almost-) perfect creature in a computer that lacks all of these flaws and yet can’t eradicate them within ourselves? Sure, computer’s occasionally become corrupted and overwhelmed but they have built in coping mechanisms to deal with the problems as they come along and machines can be wiped.
What we humans need is a system: a measured way of dealing and coping with life as it merrily rolls along. If we were all designed like robots, it would remove the variable wackiness of our day to day lives. Sure, we might lose some individuality in the process but what we gain is so much more: consistency, harmony and peace. The solution has been in front of us for half a century, and yet we have never fully taken advantage of this revolutionary model for living. Ladies and gentlemen, we are long past due to embrace this paradigm within ourselves and within our society. Let the situation decide the response and not the other way around! It’s time we leave behind the willy-nilly of compulsion and leave ourselves in perfect CTRL.
Who’s with me!
Jul 06
AndrewLife in Digital, Music
The artist known as Prince made a statement to the The Daily Mirror, a print newspaper in the United Kingdom which the artist has contracted with to release his next disc, that the internet is over. Prince is planning on giving away copies of 20Ten in the U.K. and in select European countries rather than attempting to sell it. The musician has shut down his website’s online store, and as yet, a U.S. distribution deal is only a rumor. With regards to digital sales, iTunes and other distributors are out of luck because according to the pop artist, there’s no reason to engage with them at all. If you believe the buzz, he has unabashedly called the internet a fad, and he’s so over it.
In some respects, I’m intrigued by his attitude, even if I disagree with it. The internet is the perfect example of something that’s great except when it’s not. It’s great when you can look up a minute piece of information from almost anywhere in the world. It sucks when you’re looking for something that’s probably there but for using the right search terms. It’s great that you can insta-message just about anyone plugged into the digital age, but it sucks because, phone or laptop, people expect insta-replies and know you got the message no matter that you might claim otherwise. It’s great because it greatly expands your reach as an artist, writer or other creative soul. It sucks when people steal your works and share them freely without your permission.
In theory, this is Prince’s real beef. The internet makes it too easy for his music to find itself in the hands of the wrong person. In practice, Prince has always made it clear that he expects to be paid for his creative output, nevermind the quality of his music, the relationships with his fans, or the state of the music business in 20Ten. It’s not up to you to decide whether you pay for his music, it’s only up to him. So he gives it away freely on compact disc, but cries foul at the abuse of digital media, some tracks that are purchased legitimately, some “borrowed” via nefarious internet file-sharing. The wrong person, then, is anyone on the planet who didn’t ask Prince for permission first to listen to his music.
It’s an antagonistic tactic for an artist to take, and in that light, it doesn’t really signal the death knell of the internet quite the way Prince is predicting. It may, indeed, have lost some of its novelty in recent years, but it is not in any way clear that the internet has also lost its utility. The very thing condemned by the Prince is the ability to share far and wide one’s creative output. Most artists embrace that. Prince seems determined to go the other way.
Ironically, it’s Prince’s fame (and no doubt, the sum of his royalty payments too) that he can afford to take such a strict stance on music distribution. Thank God that Prince was enslaved by Warner Bros. for all the years of his record contract because otherwise he might still be struggling to become the renowned artist that he is. He can afford to give away his works and limit their distribution and slap the hands of anyone who wants to share his music, all in the name of artistry for artistry’s sake. That fact that he still insists on bringing up the cash value of his works is as contradictory as it is unsubtle a message. It’s not about income so much as it is about control. Prince will cede the one as long as he isn’t expected to surrender the other.
For most other creative individuals, the internet is an asset, one that works because of the ease with which creative output can be shared, not because of it. For Prince, it’s just another fad.
--
Andrew Marx is the author of the upcoming Smart ReMarx collection Thank You is Implied, available August 10.
Jul 02
AndrewPolitics and Nation
Paving the way for casinos in the State of Massachusetts, the state Senate voted yesterday 25-15 in favor of approving a bill to license three resort-style casinos in the state. The state House of Representatives had previously voted in favor of casino development back in April.
The U.S. Department of the Interior, which reviews applications for American Indians to develop gaming on tribal lands, was reportedly set to approve the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe for Class II gaming, electronic bingo machines. The state, wary of losing out on potential tax revenue from gaming, needed to move forward with a plan to license casinos in order to maintain state control over gaming development. In some states, tax on casino revenue is as high as 60%, providing a significant budget boost. The casino could also spur construction work and job creation, and give Massachusetts additional appeal as a tourist destination. The downside are potential social costs associated with drinking and gambling addiction, although those kind of intangible arguments are rarely persuasive when it comes to casino development which is a big ticket operation. With dollar signs in their eyes, approval was almost a guarantee in the Senate, particularly after the House had already passed its own legislation.
Jun 22
AndrewBusiness
In order to compete with other e-readers, Amazon has dropped the price of the Kindle Wireless Reading Device
to $189.00. The move is designed to keep Amazon’s product competitive with other devices, in particular Barnes and Noble’s e-reader Nook and the iPad (which is able to read any pdf).
Amazon in particular faces an uphill battle for its product because of the proprietary file format required to view books on the Kindle. The Kindle file format is built into any digital book purchase directly from Amazon, but requires conversion if you purchase the e-book from any other source. (For what it’s worth, Kindle-formatted digital books can be read straight from your desktop without paying for the device, which at least offers some flexibility for the buyer.
The new Apple iPad includes the ability to read pdfs directly from the screen as well as using the Goodreader application (which right now only costs $.99 to purchase) making it the most economical choice if you already are an iPad owner. Plus, assuming you were intending to pay for the book anyway, most smartphones can read pdfs, making it a cross-compatible format from most e-readers.
The fact that the Nook and the Kindle both now sell for lower base prices is a significant concession by the companies that the competition for e-readers is heating up. If you prefer one company (or e-reader) over another, or want to try out the digital book market, now might be the time to jump onboard.
Older Entries Newer Entries
RSS
