Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock lost a “significant amount of wealth” in the past two years, which may have been part of what motivated him to carry out the deadliest mass-shooting in modern U.S. history, according to a local law-enforcement official, reports The Wall Street Journal.
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Sheriff Joseph Lombardo said
in an interview with local television station KLAS-TV this week that Paddock’s financial losses “might have been a determining factor on what he determined to do.”
“He was pretty prolific, but he was going in the wrong direction, so I don’t know if that if had any effect on what he decided to do,” Sheriff Lombardo said.
This comes as no surprise to me. SEE: Did Stephen Paddock Make Money as a Professional Gambler?
I wrote last month:
The top machines at Mandalay Bay, where Paddock often played, pay out-RW
99.17 percent, or $99.17 for every $100 wagered.
You aren't living off your gamblings with that kind of losing payout.
Paddock's brother, Eric, seems to think it was worth it for his brother to play because of the comps.
"He was a math guy. He could tell you off the top of his head what the odds were down to a tenth of a percent on whatever machine he was playing. He studied it like it was a Ph.D. thing. It was not silly gambling. It was work” said the brother, “It’s not just the machine. It’s the comps, it’s the room. It’s the 50-year-old port that costs $500 a glass. You add all that stuff together and his net is better than 100 percent.”
Yeah right. The casinos can not afford to build the fancy buildings they have by paying out more in comps then a player loses.
Paddock was not winning, even with comps calculated in, at a game that pays out 99.17%.