Setting Win Limitations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob, there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of promotions. Given a trip to a casino on a non promotion day, and a day when I get extra points, or gift cards, or free play, Im going to go on the days where I get the benefits.

Getting the benefits does not alter how I play, it just alters the days that I go.

And I still don't understand how your strategy is supposed to help treat/stop/cure/deter/limit addiction but I am certainly interested in finding out what the experts say.

I think some of your special plays make a lot of sense, and we have discussed these. And I think everyone should realize that you do follow "the math" 95% of the time, and the "special plays" only are made rarely.

---

Alan: I oppose doing anything that allows the casinos to control the player, and by allowing the casino to make you come in when they want you to because of this or that is them controlling you. Once you fall into that type of behavior, the pattern of them controlling you continues while players remain oblivious to it and its pitfalls. Over the years, the only times I've ever responded to all the offers is when I go on a trip for the specific reason of taking all the freebies without playing one dime of my own money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Frank, Im afraid I wasn't clear with my questions:

Originally I wrote:

Frank, a question: does an addicted gambler who has the restraint/discipline to limit his gambling to one bet still an addict?

Another question: does an addicted gambler who has the restraint/discipline to limit his gambling to a win goal/loss limit still an addict?

Allow me to revise the questions:

Once a gambler who is diagnosed as an addict develops the restraint/discipline to limit his action to one bet is he still an addict?

And the revised second question: does a diagnosed addicted gamblers who has the restraint/discipline to limit his gambling to meet a win goal/loss limit still an addict?

---

And perhaps I was too long in my answer for it to be understood. I'll try to keep this one brief.

The medical community has dropped the "addict" label from what is now referred to as Pathological or Problem Gambling. The need to set limits would be diagnosed by any psychologists as an indication that problem gambling is an issue for the patient. People without any of the factors of Pathological Gambling do not need to set limits.

And I will say again, only 3 of the criteria of pathological gambling as outlined in the DSM-IV are influenced by PLAY VOLUME.

I noticed that even rephrased, you still aren't including time scales in your questions. You said,

"And the revised second question: does a diagnosed addicted gamblers who has the restraint/discipline to limit his gambling to meet a win goal/loss limit still an addict?"

FOR HEAVEN'S-SAKE Alan, over what period of time? Is this loss limit over a SECOND, DAY, MONTH, YEAR. If the loss limit is per MINUTE, I don't think it would be very effective. Please add a time scale and I'll try to answer your question.

Frank. we'll need to talk about this more in person. One point I can make here however, is that I know the AP would always make the most optimal hold on a per-hand basis. As I have shown in Alan's Special Plays videos, there are times when the opportunity for a big winner exists when the hold is sub-optimal, and there are times when that big winner is indeed hit--with a payout that in most cases, will NEVER be overcome by all the tiny give-ups by making that particular special play when it didn't come through. And that has always been the case--that when these things hit, they're NEVER overcome by all the times they don't because there are also so many other smaller winners that do come out of them--not just the infrequent big winners. Always making the optimal hold on a per hand basis only ensures that a long grind is necessary, without error, in order to eek out the tinyest of percentages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob, there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of promotions. Given a trip to a casino on a non promotion day, and a day when I get extra points, or gift cards, or free play, Im going to go on the days where I get the benefits.

Getting the benefits does not alter how I play, it just alters the days that I go.

And I still don't understand how your strategy is supposed to help treat/stop/cure/deter/limit addiction but I am certainly interested in finding out what the experts say.

I think some of your special plays make a lot of sense, and we have discussed these. And I think everyone should realize that you do follow "the math" 95% of the time, and the "special plays" only are made rarely.

---

The reason you are having so much difficulty understanding Rob's reasoning behind avoiding promotions and the like, is because you both have very different Locus's Of Control. I understand Rob's POV very well. I do not agree with it, but I understand where he is coming from. Since the felling of control is personal, I recommend you let him do what's best for himself, and you do what's best for you.

I know enough about this topic to be able to almost guarantee that you will not be able to see eye to eye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Frank. we'll need to talk about this more in person. One point I can make here however, is that I know the AP would always make the most optimal hold on a per-hand basis. As I have shown in Alan's Special Plays videos, there are times when the opportunity for a big winner exists when the hold is sub-optimal, and there are times when that big winner is indeed hit--with a payout that in most cases, will NEVER be overcome by all the tiny give-ups by making that particular special play when it didn't come through. And that has always been the case--that when these things hit, they're NEVER overcome by all the times they don't because there are also so many other smaller winners that do come out of them--not just the infrequent big winners. Always making the optimal hold on a per hand basis only ensures that a long grind is necessary, without error, in order to eek out the tinyest of percentages.

---

OK I think I got that.

I will add that I have never looked at it that way. That's not to say it isn't a good point. I'm just telling you that isn't part of how I think. Or I how I think I thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland

And perhaps I was too long in my answer for it to be understood. I'll try to keep this one brief.

The medical community has dropped the "addict" label from what is now referred to as Pathological or Problem Gambling. The need to set limits would be diagnosed by any psychologists as an indication that problem gambling is an issue for the patient. People without any of the factors of Pathological Gambling do not need to set limits.

And I will say again, only 3 of the criteria of pathological gambling as outlined in the DSM-IV are influenced by PLAY VOLUME.

I noticed that even rephrased, you still aren't including time scales in your questions. You said,

"And the revised second question: does a diagnosed addicted gamblers who has the restraint/discipline to limit his gambling to meet a win goal/loss limit still an addict?"

FOR HEAVEN'S-SAKE Alan, over what period of time? Is this loss limit over a SECOND, DAY, MONTH, YEAR. If the loss limit is per MINUTE, I don't think it would be very effective. Please add a time scale and I'll try to answer your question.

---

Frank, I'm just trying to get a handle on what you're talking about. I'm not trying to push or argue any point. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland

The reason you are having so much difficulty understanding Rob's reasoning behind avoiding promotions and the like, is because you both have very different Locus's Of Control. I understand Rob's POV very well. I do not agree with it, but I understand where he is coming from. Since the felling of control is personal, I recommend you let him do what's best for himself, and you do what's best for you.

I know enough about this topic to be able to almost guarantee that you will not be able to see eye to eye.

---

Obviously, Rob and I have a big difference of opinion about taking advantage of promotions. If a casino wants to give me "show up money" Im going to take it. If Rob thinks that puts him in jeopardy of being controlled by the casino, then that's his opinion.

Ironically, Rob tells me he goes to Vegas when he does have a free play offer, and he uses them.

I would like to say that I believe Rob's methodology of playing on his schedule when gambling does not conflict with his family life and other activities is very sensible.

I have adopted a similar methodology in the last few years and never put gambling ahead of my social life anymore. This costs me a butt load of money, but I am happier for it.

If I find that I am free on a particular day, I will find the best play in town that day, and if it meets my criteria of "a Play" I play. I no longer schedule my life around plays, I schedule plays around my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Frank, I'm just trying to get a handle on what you're talking about. I'm not trying to push or argue any point. Thanks.

---

I'm not trying to argue either. I just wanted to know the time frame of your question, so I could answer it. In it's current state it is unanswerable. Is there a reason you are refusing to add a time frame?

I think we are all disagreeing about the values attached to promotions, play and life. In my case I do not put casino visits ahead of work or family obligations. but given an offer of free play on a wednesday or going on a friday when there is no free play, Im going to go for the free play.

If Rob thinks that I am giving up my soul to the casino because I'm taking advantage of their free play, then that is his opinion.

If I were skipping work so I could grab the free play, I would have to measure the value of the free play vs. the value of my work. I can tell you now: my work is more valuable than the free play from a casino.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland

I'm not trying to argue either. I just wanted to know the time frame of your question, so I could answer it. In it's current state it is unanswerable. Is there a reason you are refusing to add a time frame?

---

I understand that you cant answer it, and frankly I dont have a time frame to discuss. I was more interested in just discussing whether someone who is once an addicted gambler can ever stop being an addicted gambler? put it another way: does one single bet mean you are still addicted? or does one single bet mean you are no longer addicted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I understand that you cant answer it, and frankly I don't have a time frame to discuss. I was more interested in just discussing whether someone who is once an addicted gambler can ever stop being an addicted gambler? put it another way: does one single bet mean you are still addicted? or does one single bet mean you are no longer addicted?

---

This is almost an impossible question as well. But I'll give it a try.

If someone that had been diagnosed with pathological gambling and had quit completely, was still so obsessed with it that they had to make one more wager, then they almost certainly still have a problem.

Honestly, what's the point of a single wager??? The issue would be that they were still thinking about it. And in fact that is the real the real factor that would mark a secession of their addiction, if they stopped THINKING about gambling. Whether or not they wager is irrelevant.

P.S. How can you not have a time frame? Everything in life occurs over some period of time. A life, a Year, A day. I am confused.
You asked about setting Limits, but you did not specify over what period of time. How can you not be able to define your own question?

I was always under the impression that addiction cannot be cured. And that all addicts are recovering and never recovered. That was the basis for my questions.

edited to add: so even an "addict" who uses the Singer system of limiting play would still be an addict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I was always under the impression that addiction cannot be cured. And that all addicts are recovering and never recovered. That was the basis for my questions.

---

Those are fallacious concepts from the disease model for addiction therapy, and though it is still widely used and has been shown to be an effective treatment regime (Used by GA), it is considered outmoded by current researchers, and as possibly leading to a greater chance of relapse or severity of relapse. The disease model has no basis in science, and so far has only been employed primarily because there was nothing better.

Even the people that use it mostly know its only claim to fame is somewhat flimsy evidence of efficacy. One partitioner of the disease model was quoted as saying, "Yea I know it's bull-crap but it's the best bull-crap I have". The attitude is, we know it isn't true, but it seems to work.

Your first clue that it should considered suspect is its inclusion of words like "all" & "never". When was the last time absolutes like that ever turned out to be true for individuals???

Addiction can most certainly be cured in some people, there are no absolutes where people are concerned.

I have a close relative who went through GA and still participates. If you have a discussion with him and in the course of the discussion you happen to use the phrase "wanna bet?" -- he will say "I don't bet." So my questions come from that personal experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Obviously, Rob and I have a big difference of opinion about taking advantage of promotions. If a casino wants to give me "show up money" Im going to take it. If Rob thinks that puts him in jeopardy of being controlled by the casino, then that's his opinion.

Ironically, Rob tells me he goes to Vegas when he does have a free play offer, and he uses them.

---

Yes, but it's only when I can scoop up a bunch of "free things" by checking into a half dozen hotels or so. When I played professionally I just chose a place and made a reservation. If they gave me anything then great. If not, I usually beat them anyway.

Rob, now you are making sense. Because you were playing professionally with a bankroll of $57-thousand, was it? Getting $50 of free play or a $100 gift card meant very little to you.

To the rest of us, picking up a $100 gift card or $100 of free play is enough to alter the decision about whether we go to the casino on a Wednesday or a Friday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

I have a close relative who went through GA and still participates. If you have a discussion with him and in the course of the discussion you happen to use the phrase "wanna bet?" -- he will say "I don't bet." So my questions come from that personal experience.

---

Did you understand what I was saying about GA being both effective and not based on truth at the same time???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Rob, now you are making sense. Because you were playing professionally with a bankroll of $57-thousand, was it? Getting $50 of free play or a $100 gift card meant very little to you.

To the rest of us, picking up a $100 gift card or $100 of free play is enough to alter the decision about whether we go to the casino on a Wednesday or a Friday.

---

I never thought of it that way, but now that I'm a recreational player who'll play from time to time at lower limits, yes, I'll do just what you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson

Fair enough Rob, I can't argue with those "rules of play." They are beneficial for everyone.

But your critics are going to say that having a budget, having a win goal and a loss limit, and not playing for comps, and setting a certain amount of time for casino action is not unique to "the Rob Singer system."

I think the critics will also say that these beneficial rules of self discipline do not justify making your "special plays" which violate the "accepted math." Be prepared for that.

---

The reason critics will say this is because it's absolutely true.