Smart Gamblers Know How To Make Strong Decisions

Not sure if anyone here has ever heard of this writer, Mark Pilarski, and I can't say I've ever read anything by him although I've heard of him in the past. But today I read an article by him in the local paper that came out this week, and it seems he really knows what he's talking about. I tried to take a couple pictures that might be readable, but the jist of the article revolves around setting win and loss goals as a method of approaching gambling intelligently.

Alan, he says to somewhat follow what you do at times that's different than what I do--to look at attaining your pre-set win goal as an opportunity to not stop if you suddenly feel the urge to keep on playing, similar to how an investor would invoke a stop-loss order after reaching their "win" goal in order to at least go home with a partial profit.

I just saw I again forgot to rotate the picture, so please rotate either your computer or your head.

All sanity is not lost in the world of gambling.

Thanks Rob. I found his website and here is a link to the article:

http://www.markpilarski.com/deal-me-...ney-music.html

Edited to add: what is good about the "stock market method" of raising your stop-loss (effectively raising your win goals) is that it allows you to take advantage of a run of good luck. (On Wall Street it allows you to take advantage of a continuing rally.)

The other "Wall Street" technique is to sell some of the shares you made a profit on to cover your original investment and to have remaining stock that represents only your profit. This is similar to the idea of "playing with the house's money."

However, never lose sight of this: once you win it or earn it, it's not the house's money anymore, it's your money.

The stock analogy is silly. Stocks are non-insulated entities that are affected by outside variables. In that context, win goals and stop loss limits make logical sense. Games such as vp or roulette are insulated systems. Unless the house changes the odds mid-stream (or the player is getting drunk), win goals or loss limits don't affect game return.

I take it Rob wanted the thread title to somehow relate to the content. Smart gamblers make strong decisions? Really? How about strong gamblers make smart decisions? Or smart gamblers make smart decisions? Or, perhaps, strong gamblers make strong decisions? And what exactly is a "strong decision?" One that requires strength? How is a strong decision different from your normal, everyday decision? Is there such a thing as a weak decision? Or are strong decisions those that look good in retrospect?

redietz, I guess I'm not a strong gambler. When I go to a casino I try to have fun and win money. I hate to lose. So is having a win goal, and a rising stop-loss bad for a weak gambler like me?

You need to say you AGREE with Arci and Redietz and that they have the best approaches to winning. THEN, they would slobber all over themselves about how you don't know what you're talking about.:cool:

Well, Alan, riddle me this. Does using win goals make you a smart player? Or a strong player? Am I to understand that not using a win goal makes me a "weak" player or a "not smart" player? Is that the gist of Rob's title? Do you agree with that?

I can't tell you if you're not smart or weak because you don't use win goals. But...

Win goals allow me to decide when I have had enough. "Enough" could be enough of a win to make the trip worthwhile, or enough of a loss that I don't want to regret in the morning that I continued to lose more.

I would suggest that knowing when enough is enough is a very smart thing.

Keeping your resolution to taking action when enough comes I think makes you a strong player.

Maybe I am stronger than I thought?

Whenever I see comparison to stocks I get a bit of a chuckle. No one would ever buy a "negative" ER stock. However, as I've stated before win/loss goals limit play which is always a good thing on negative VP games.

Disagree--during the hot market of the tech stocks era, P/E ratios were ridiculously low. Yet if you didn't buy into the bull market, you missed out. Those stocks were definitely "negative" based upon P/E and other relevant economic factors--but it just didn't matter at that time.

All you did was state that there are more things to determine a "positive" stock than P/E ratios. My statement is still fact. If you didn't think the stock would go up (ie. Positive) then you would never buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

Whenever I see comparison to stocks I get a bit of a chuckle. No one would ever buy a "negative" ER stock.

---

You've got this one wrong. Ever bought into a start up? How about buying a tech company that only has ideas and no profits... how about non revenue stocks? Sometimes you can hit the proverbial "home run" with these kinds of stocks. And there are many stories about buying low quality, "negative earning" stocks that turned out to be big winners in the market.

Besides Arc, you don't buy stocks based on current earnings... you buy stocks for their future potential.

Edited to add:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcimede$

If you didn't think the stock would go up (ie. Positive) then you would never buy.

---

Do you think that a stock might go up makes the balance sheet positive? Wow, that's almost like Rob saying he can win on negative pay tables.

I believe you caught arci off-guard with forcing him to think about something before disagreeing with known principles. I expected the AP crowd to cry foul over the idea Pilarski put forth--along with his excellent analogy--simply because it's just another undeniable truth about video poker.

Alan, have you heard of Pilarski before? Is he as "silly" in his gaming knowledge and opinions as redietz thinks?

Sorry Alan, you misread my comment and both you and regnis then attempted to scold me. I never said anything about balance sheets of P/E ratios. You guys are the ones in fantasy land. As I stated, no one buys a stock that they think will go down. Do you understand what the word "positive" means? It means you will be able to sell the stock in the future for a profit.

I think there was a simple misunderstanding between Alan and arci here. Alan seemed to be referring to the future potential growth of corporate operations as reflected on a balance sheet where arci was referring to actual stock prices.

I should point out that there often is a grave disconnect between the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Alan, have you heard of Pilarski before? Is he as "silly" in his gaming knowledge and opinions as redietz thinks?

---

Mr Pilarski has agreed to let me publish his weekly column here on the website. I haven't decided exactly how I will post them here on the website (location, date of publication, etc) but I think they will provide good information and a source for material to discuss.

If you get a chance, please tell him I enjoy his articles in "The Buzz" up here.