With that cleared up, now comes the $1 million dollar question.

[a2a3dseddie]

Ok, so now that the issue involving "single event odds" and "multiple event odds" has been cleared up to everyone's satisfaction by the faceless experts over at The Wizard of Vegas (Odds) website, let's get down to it's implications.

What is "Computer Perfect Strategy" as it applies to VP? Isn't it the ideal hold designed to generate the most profit (or result in the least amount lost) for the player when that same scenario appears an infinite number of times (long term)?

Well, if the ideal holds generate more profit (long term) they would therefore generate more hands if you continue to play. As shown in the previous thread, if you play more hands your odds (applied collectively to all the hands you play in a session) for hitting a high paying hand improve.

So, let's analyze Rob's special plays because really that's the only difference in his VP strategy approach compared to other APs. (I know he also incorporates win/loss goals, increasing denomination progressions, soft profits and so forth)

Someone run a simulation and plug in some hands where his play would differ from the ideal play. Run it a million times and let's see what the final totals are.

[Alan Mendelson]

Why bother? Any simulation you run will show that Rob's strategy is at a disadvantage. Rob says that. That's why in the other thread I said there was no need to contact any math experts. The math clearly shows Rob's special plays are at a disadvantage to conventional strategy -- period. Done. Over.

What I find interesting about Rob is not so much the special plays. If you were to ask me what makes Rob successful it's not the special plays -- it's his strict discipline (he claims) of having tight loss limits and win goals. I say "he claims" because I've called him out on some big session losses including that $57,000 loss which to me was just chasing losses.

But what is appealing about win/loss goals and limits is that you can also apply them to conventional video poker strategy. You don't have to use special plays to use win/loss goals and limits.

And just from my own experience I know that in almost all trips or sessions there was a time when I was ahead, and if I had a crystal ball that told me to stop I would not have lost as much as I did.

Case in point: A few weeks ago I had $390 of free play. At one point I had $420 that I could have cashed out. I didn't. I kept playing and ended up losing it all. And that has happened so many times -- and sometimes for much more money -- that it really has convinced me that win/loss goals are important.

While Rob's "identity" is his special plays, I think the attention given to them is overdone. For all we know he never uses them.

[a2a3dseddie]

Alan,

I don't really want to re-hash the win goal/loss limit argument since that's been discussed here many times already.

I will state that I do believe they make you a more "responsible" gambler, but I don't believe it can make you rich.

How can you prove or disprove win goal/loss limits are effective? How can you "prove" anything? With the math of course. Why don't you post that question over on The Wizard of Odds. Everyone seems to agree with what they have to say.

[Alan Mendelson]

Win/loss goals and limits are strictly a personal decision and a personal yardstick. I happen to have higher win goals and larger loss limits than most people. So if I am ahead a couple of hundred bucks I will keep playing and risk it. But for someone else, winning $100 might be enough to head to the pool and quit playing video poker.

So there is no formula you could use to teach win goals or loss limits or to even test them for effectiveness.

I recall a player who came into the high limits room at Caesars on my last trip. There is only one $5 bonus game in the high limit room (Palace Court) and I was on it, and this other player sits down at a $100 vp machine three seats away. He put in $500 on jacks or better, hit two pair cashed out $1,000 for a $500 profit and started to leave. I asked him if he was moving to another machine -- and he said no -- he made his $500 for the day and was leaving.

Regarding the crowd over on the WOV site -- pretty much a very conservative group and I would guess that most if not all have win/loss goals and limits.

[a2a3dseddie]

Alan,

I saw the poll question you posted there. I think a better question would have been "Will win goals and loss limits make you a long term winner on negative expectation games?"

[redietz]

Only if you can carry a tune.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, I saw the poll question you posted there. I think a better question would have been "Will win goals and loss limits make you a long term winner on negative expectation games?"

I think your question doesn't really apply to the purpose of win goals and loss limits. I understand though why you are asking that question -- it's because Rob says it is part of his winning strategy. Well, it might be what he considers part of a winning strategy but I look at it as a "control" so that you don't chase your losses and a control so that when you do have a profit it prevents you from giving it all back when the game goes against you.

Like you, I don't think win goals and loss limits will make you a long term winner, I just think they can help you keep your good luck or bad luck in perspective. It's like your wife sitting there with you and saying... honey you lost enough, stop... or honey that's enough money for that new dining room table we want, let's go.

[regnis]

Any form of gambling requires proper money management---I don't care if it's a positive game, negative game, sports, horses, poker. Win goals and loss limits are a necessary part of money management to, as Alan says, avoid the big losses and ensure that you don't get all wrapped up in the fun of winning and piss it all back.

[Alan Mendelson]

It's funny how so-called "advantage players" who covet their "positive expectation games" dismiss loss limits and win goals... it's as if to say the good times never end and their winnings will roll on like the Cannonball Express.

[redietz]

I think that's because advantage players are more likely to have a bankroll that dwarfs what they put into action any given session or handful of sessions. In my experience, winning money tends to lead to larger bankrolls.

Oh yeah, and winning players can afford wristwatches, so they know when it's time to stop playing.

[arcimede$]

Several months ago I wrote a simulation of win/loss goals. I posted the results. The actual returns matched very closely to the expected return of the games.

[Alan Mendelson]

Several months ago I wrote a simulation of win/loss goals. I posted the results. The actual returns matched very closely to the expected return of the games.

Can you give us the link?

when you say the "actual returns" do you mean the returns from your simulation, or did you actually play this?

[regnis]

I think that's because advantage players are more likely to have a bankroll that dwarfs what they put into action any given session or handful of sessions. In my experience, winning money tends to lead to larger bankrolls.

Oh yeah, and winning players can afford wristwatches, so they know when it's time to stop playing.

Red-what makes the time on your watch a better time to stop than a loss limit or a win goal? The AP still has good and bad times. What if you stopped at 9:00 and hadn't had the good streak that might have started at 9:15? You're saying you have a watch is meaningless if not plain stupid. At least if you are using a loss limit, there is a logical reason to stop. And be reminded, most of us are playing negative games.

Oh yea--you think next Thursday it all evens out.

[redietz]

My point, which evidently was too obtuse, is that a rational decision on when to quit should depend on fatigue and other commitments (you know, having a life). That decision is easily made before start-of-play, and needs nothing other than a wristwatch. If you decide to play four hours, you play four hours and quit. If you decide to play two hours, you play two hours and quit. Whatever fits your schedule --

Deciding to quit based on losses or wins suggests that you're playing stakes too high for your bankroll. And it doesn't take into account fatigue or what's going on in your life -- two factors the illustrious Mr. SInger would agree are important.

So yes, a wristwatch should be used. And the idea is far from stupid.

[Alan Mendelson]

There is nothing wrong with using a time limit to play. Using a time limit is just as rational as using win/loss limits or whether or not your favorite crew is at a craps table. In fact, playing when your favorite crew is on a craps table makes more sense than anything else.

[regnis]

My point, which evidently was too obtuse, is that a rational decision on when to quit should depend on fatigue and other commitments (you know, having a life). That decision is easily made before start-of-play, and needs nothing other than a wristwatch. If you decide to play four hours, you play four hours and quit. If you decide to play two hours, you play two hours and quit. Whatever fits your schedule --

Deciding to quit based on losses or wins suggests that you're playing stakes too high for your bankroll. And it doesn't take into account fatigue or what's going on in your life -- two factors the illustrious Mr. SInger would agree are important.

So yes, a wristwatch should be used. And the idea is far from stupid.

Or maybe you achieve the win goal in 10 minutes and move on to other hobbies or interests. You can't have both goals and limits and time constraints? And since when does obtuse mean wrong.

[arcimede$]

Can you give us the link?

It was right here in one of the older threads.

when you say the "actual returns" do you mean the returns from your simulation, or did you actually play this?

I mean the returns from the simulation.

[arcimede$]

Or maybe you achieve the win goal in 10 minutes and move on to other hobbies or interests. You can't have both goals and limits and time constraints? And since when does obtuse mean wrong.

OTOH, if playing Singer's system you could play for hours and hours if not days.

[regnis]

This has nothing to do with Singer. Talking about Alan's win goals and loss limits.

[arcimede$]

This has nothing to do with Singer. Talking about Alan's win goals and loss limits.

Singer's system has win goals and loss limits.