Win Goals -- Why Do You Believe (or not)?

[arcimede$]

This is interesting. I wonder if you might want to rephrase this, Arc, based on the other thread and the discussion about a game that is supposed to be a 100%+ game? You agreed that it would be difficult to come out ahead on that other game at the bar, yet here you say win goals are worthless for positive games. The point is, you don't necessarily win at positive games, do you? Otherwise, you wouldn't have said this in the the other thread:

Some games may be >100% on paper but still not positive to most gamblers. That was what the words after "I agree" was supposed to communicate.

[regnis]

Quantitate. Really? Last time I quantitated I almost broke my abdula oblongatta.

All those QUA words are confusing QUAhaug.

[quahaug]

All those QUA words are confusing QUAhaug.

I equate brother.

[redietz]

Well, we stand at 22 posts, no evidence, and a smattering of beliefs. Any chance we could improve on that?

[Alan Mendelson]

Well, we stand at 22 posts, no evidence, and a smattering of beliefs. Any chance we could improve on that?

There is no evidence unless you have a time machine to look into the future to see what would have been if you hadn't stopped when you reached your win goal or your loss limit.

[Rob.Singer]

Correct Alan. Just as their is no evidence from anyone or anywhere that a player can win or ever has won on the so-called +EV machines. Math alone doesn't cut it, unless you are the casino. Machines make no mistakes; people do. Do you think a "tested genius" like arci can sit for 7 hours at a machine without multiple distractions that cause errors, with all the more pressing home issues he has running thru his mind? And why do you think the latest Dancer article has him begging a fellow friendly vp player for "$200/hr." just to talk to him? Evidence? It just does not and cannot exist without actual witnessed play.

[slingshot]

The least a person can do to save face is to stop, look back after the win. Did you have to fight to just get the win? Are the players around you doing anything? If not, I've learned it's time to boogie outta there. It's just common sense.

[Alan Mendelson]

I find it amazing that the only people (besides addicts) who can justify gambling are the so-called "advantage players."

Everyone else seems to recognize the risks of gambling. But only addicts and "advantage players" can justify gambling over and above the risks.

[arcimede$]

How does anyone justify investing in stock markets? Simple answer, you look at the numbers and make a bet that they will play out as expected. No guarantees. Now, explain how that is different from advantage play.

[Alan Mendelson]

How does anyone justify investing in stock markets? Simple answer, you look at the numbers and make a bet that they will play out as expected. No guarantees. Now, explain how that is different from advantage play.

Good question. Consider this as one possible answer: casino bets or sports bets are "all or nothing bets."
When you bet $5 on an positive expectation video poker game you hope to either hit a winner or you will lose all $5.

When you bet $5 on a share of stock you also hope to hit a winner, but you have a chance to bail out either at the same price, or a slightly lower price, or at a much lower price. For example, you buy at $5 and sell at $4. Is there a similar casino bet that works this way? (Do sports bets work this way when a game or season is in progress?)

[redietz]

Win goals and stop limits are just another way for people to think they're exerting some kind of control over what they're doing. I mean, let's face it, why would anyone run 400K through Caesars' video poker when it's a bad percentage thing to do? Because they are behaviorally locked into doing that kind of thing. Now does anyone who runs 400K through a bad paytable say to themselves, "I'm behaviorally locked into doing this?" No -- of course not. They say, "It's entertainment and I actually have all kinds of control over what's happening." Win goals and loss limits provide them some kind of internal evidence that they do indeed have control.

I tend to think of folks who do this as Maxwell Smarts. They work for Control -- but it's something of an oxymoron.

[Alan Mendelson]

Win goals and stop limits are just another way for people to think they're exerting some kind of control over what they're doing.

Of course it's a way to control what you are doing. You are sitting down to play and you are saying -- "if I win this much I will be very happy and I won't press my luck anymore. But if I lose this much I will walk away and not risk anymore." Do you have a problem with that?

I think you are a very cynical person who wants to establish himself as some sort of casino know-it-all who hasn't shown us anything but an ability to criticize. If I recall, you don't even play video poker.

And redietz, 8/5 Bonus, returning 99.2%, is not a "bad percentage thing" especially when you hit from the "get go" with quad-aces and you were never in the negative column.

[Rob.Singer]

This type of response is normal Alan. It's always the people who are unable to control important things in their lives who knock what others can do. Just look at arci.....

[redietz]

Nobody on this forum is paying me $200 an hour to demonstrate how to gamble, Alan. And if they did, with some of this crew, it'd cost me more in therapist bills than the $200-per to stay sane. I'm doing you guys a favor by debunking some of your logical weirdness.

[Alan Mendelson]

You havent debunked anything. Nor have you shown us any of your gambling wisdom.

[Rob.Singer]

You know how they say Obama had a "tough" week a few weeks ago? I think redietz is having one of those right now.

BTW, it is easy to constantly & continuously beat negative EV games. Maybe I should start charging $200/hr to those doubting Thomas's.