Win Goals/Stop Losses: Basic Facts

[redietz]

1) Win Goals and Stop Losses do not affect percentage return.
2) They can be of value to those playing negative expectation games because they may help people play fewer hands.
3) The effects of using them are amenable to analysis via simulations.

If you play negative expectation video poker, anything that helps you play fewer hands can aid your bottom line. Pulling money in or out of your pocket, or changing denominations, or having win goals and stop loss rules can all help your bottom line if they slow you down, cut your playing time, and result in you playing fewer hands.

Of course, wearing a wristwatch with an alarm that goes off after a certain assigned time limit, would accomplish the same thing. I'm not sure which, the win goals or the wristwatch, requires more discipline.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm glad you started this thread redietz. My comments:

1. You're correct. There is no impact on expected return of any game. But is that an issue? I don't see how.
2. Yes, they are of value to those playing negative expectation games. They can also be of value playing a positive expectation game to prevent you from losing when the machine or game isn't going "your way." Just because a game has a positive expectation doesn't mean you are guaranteed to win. It's still gambling even on a positive game, so you still must be conscious of your betting and your bankroll.
3. I guess the best analysis with loss limits and win goals is what's in your wallet? (Just had to borrow that from Capital One credit cards....)

Time limits also help. I was almost late for my wedding because the machine I was on kept giving me winners.

And yes, I put the question to the guys on Wizard of Vegas. Take a look at the poll:

http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambl...ts/#post234646

[regnis]

If you are on a positive game but losing badly, the theory is to keep playing because it will all even out. If so, why not do a Singer and go up in denom and really catch the wave when it turns. Oh no--that can't be right cause singer does that.

Loss limits again, in theory, have no place in a positive game. Of course, neither does sleep or eating or a life because you would be stupid to ever leave that game.

You get where I'm going here.

[redietz]

I believe a wristwatch works equally well in a positive or negative game.

[arcimede$]

The problem with limits on a positive game is you have no idea how you will do if you keep playing. For example, today I was down over $1700 when my luck turned. I ended the day ahead $1300. What if my loss limit was $1500? The key thing to remember is the game is random. Just because you are doing poorly doesn't change the fact that the future expectation is exactly the same today as it will be when/if you return.

As for the comment about going up in denomination ... if you can afford to play at a higher denomination on a positive game then that is probably where you are playing. If your bankroll doesn't allow it then you should avoid it at all times.

Once again, a progression doesn't change your expectation. This also means it doesn't hurt your ER as long as you avoid special plays. There's nothing wrong with playing a progression if you are comfortable doing it and it is within your means.

[Alan Mendelson]

The problem with limits on a positive game is you have no idea how you will do if you keep playing. For example, today I was down over $1700 when my luck turned. I ended the day ahead $1300. What if my loss limit was $1500?

Let me suggest this: since the advantage players say that all sessions are just one continuous session then after you called it quits when down $1500 you would have returned another day to win then. Or did you think the winners were waiting for you then and there?

[regnis]

The problem with limits on a positive game is you have no idea how you will do if you keep playing. For example, today I was down over $1700 when my luck turned. I ended the day ahead $1300. What if my loss limit was $1500? The key thing to remember is the game is random. Just because you are doing poorly doesn't change the fact that the future expectation is exactly the same today as it will be when/if you return.

As for the comment about going up in denomination ... if you can afford to play at a higher denomination on a positive game then that is probably where you are playing. If your bankroll doesn't allow it then you should avoid it at all times.

Once again, a progression doesn't change your expectation. This also means it doesn't hurt your ER as long as you avoid special plays. There's nothing wrong with playing a progression if you are comfortable doing it and it is within your means.

The progression would be effective because when the streak changes to the food as you tell me it is supposed to do, you will be at a higher denom and make that much more that much faster. It doesn't change the ER at all. But if the wins are now expected to come because you tell me they will, then take advantage of it.

As to your turn around above, you could have just as easily continued to lose. And Red says use your watch--what if per your watch it had been time to leave and you had not stayed and recouped. You guys are too inconsistent . Get the story line straight.

[redietz]

A person should have a pretty good handle on how long they can play optimally and what else is scheduled that day. Deciding how long one should play isn't rocket science. You look at the day's schedule, figure out how long until you get tired (or pick up the cocktail waitress), and act accordingly. You don't need wins, losses, or algebra to set a reasonable time limit.

[Alan Mendelson]

You don't need wins, losses, or algebra to set a reasonable time limit.

So why is there so much opposition to setting win goals? Why do the "advantage players" label this a sin?

[redietz]

I actually have some answers for that -- these are mine, not others' ideas.

First of all, why should how much you won or loss matter? If one session's wins or losses are a big deal, it strongly -- as in STRONGLY -- suggests you are wagering way too much per hand and per session for your bankroll.

Second, and this is rather scary for you negative expectation players, setting win goals and loss limits doesn't necessarily reduce your play. It may actually INCREASE your play -- because instead of quitting according to a time schedule or a fatigue schedule, you soldier on until you get to a win goal or until you reach a loss limit. I mean, really, how often do people quit when 80% of the way to a loss limit?

Third, which ties in with what I just said, using win goals and loss limits is a way to avoid out-and-out saying, "I will play two hours." Sticking to a schedule requires discipline, which Mr. Singer says is important. Well, using win goals and loss limits, in most cases, requires less discipline, I submit, than just saying, "I'll play two hours," and sticking to it.

Guys, wake up and smell the coffee. Win goals and loss limits are very similar to slot club benefits in that instead of letting a life schedule and fatigue dictate your number of hands, you're allowing some abstract figure -- which should not be that big a deal if you are properly bankrolled -- to guide how long you play.

[regnis]

INCONSISTENCY---you guys keep saying play play play because you have a positive game. You don't say to play for 2 hours. And where did anyone say they don't have a time table in addition to the goals and limits. In every thread where I have argued with Arci about the extra hands that a special play may cost you, I have pointed out that I am on a time table or leaving at a set time and won't achieve those fictional extra hands.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'd like to comment about these. But first I want to say that having a win goal or a loss limit does not mean that you also have time limits for your play. No one is tied to a machine until they reach a win goal or until they reach a loss limit. The win goals and loss limits are guides to help you battle the financial extremes. There are other extremes or conditions including whether or not you have a dinner or show to catch, a plane to catch.

I remember playing craps at Caesars several years ago when I went there to go the Global Gaming Expo, and our table was red hot. I kept looking at my watch and Syl who was the floorman (he passed away a few months ago after a couple of years of retirement) asked me why I kept looking at my watch. I told him I had to go the Expo. He said "you won't leave" because the table was too good. Well, I did leave. Business is business, and playing craps is playing craps. As the dealers like to say... "we'll be here when you get back."

Now, some specific comments:

First of all, why should how much you won or loss matter? If one session's wins or losses are a big deal, it strongly -- as in STRONGLY -- suggests you are wagering way too much per hand and per session for your bankroll.

Having a win goal or a loss limit doesn't mean you are betting too much. It means you are conscious of your play. And what's so wrong about leaving with a win?

Second, and this is rather scary for you negative expectation players, setting win goals and loss limits doesn't necessarily reduce your play. It may actually INCREASE your play -- because instead of quitting according to a time schedule or a fatigue schedule, you soldier on until you get to a win goal or until you reach a loss limit. I mean, really, how often do people quit when 80% of the way to a loss limit?

No one is obligated to play till they reach the extremes of the loss limit or the top of the win goal. I've often said if I am winning I will raise my win goal using a "stop loss" strategy. And if the session is not going well, no one has to keep playing till they lose the full loss limit.

Third, which ties in with what I just said, using win goals and loss limits is a way to avoid out-and-out saying, "I will play two hours." Sticking to a schedule requires discipline, which Mr. Singer says is important. Well, using win goals and loss limits, in most cases, requires less discipline, I submit, than just saying, "I'll play two hours," and sticking to it.

As noted above, you can have time limits too.

The truth is, your objections are not really the objections of the advantage players. The advantage players firmly believe that because they are at a positive expectation game that every time they push the button they are adding money to their theoretical wallet. If a game has a positive edge of 0.1% then every time they push the button they think they are adding 0.1% to their bankroll. This is why they reject win goals -- because the longer you play you theoretically making more money. Yeah, sure.

Guys, wake up and smell the coffee. Win goals and loss limits are very similar to slot club benefits in that instead of letting a life schedule and fatigue dictate your number of hands, you're allowing some abstract figure -- which should not be that big a deal if you are properly bankrolled -- to guide how long you play.

Actually, its the "advantage players" who are using abstract and theoretical figures to govern their play.

[arcimede$]

Let me suggest this: since the advantage players say that all sessions are just one continuous session then after you called it quits when down $1500 you would have returned another day to win then. Or did you think the winners were waiting for you then and there?

You missed the point. The point is you never know when you might do well. As a result the win goals and loss limits don't provide any function. Hence, the decision to quit should be based on other factors, not imaginary ones.

[arcimede$]

The progression would be effective because when the streak changes to the food as you tell me it is supposed to do, you will be at a higher denom and make that much more that much faster. It doesn't change the ER at all. But if the wins are now expected to come because you tell me they will, then take advantage of it.

No, I never said anything about what "it is supposed to do". It is random, there is no "supposed". Over time the return at a higher denom will average out the same as the lower denoms, besides, as I already said, you should be playing at the highest level your bankroll permits. That is, there is no higher denom.

As to your turn around above, you could have just as easily continued to lose. And Red says use your watch--what if per your watch it had been time to leave and you had not stayed and recouped. You guys are too inconsistent . Get the story line straight.[/QUOTE]

[arcimede$]

INCONSISTENCY---you guys keep saying play play play because you have a positive game. You don't say to play for 2 hours. And where did anyone say they don't have a time table in addition to the goals and limits. In every thread where I have argued with Arci about the extra hands that a special play may cost you, I have pointed out that I am on a time table or leaving at a set time and won't achieve those fictional extra hands.

This is quite a humorous remark. If you are playing Singer's system, then there is no time limit. There is only losing at the highest level or reaching a win goal. If you happen to hit a quad on a special play it may take you back to a lower level. So, worrying about a few hands is ridiculous when one of the goals of a special play is to get you back to previous levels which would keep you playing much longer.

Of course, you could stop at any time and resume playing where you left off. Of course, you could also do that when skipping the special plays and earning more hands. So, the bottom line is your comment is somewhere out in left field. It demonstrates you aren't interested in a logical discussion but simply want to say something to support Singer. You are behaving just like your name.

[arcimede$]

Actually, its the "advantage players" who are using abstract and theoretical figures to govern their play.

Absolutely nothing abstract about the what governs my play. My goal is to optimize my winnings per unit of time spent gambling. The winnings are based on mathematics. While it may be "abstract" to people who don't understand math, in reality, they provide a solid foundation to gambling.

[Alan Mendelson]

You missed the point. The point is you never know when you might do well. As a result the win goals and loss limits don't provide any function. Hence, the decision to quit should be based on other factors, not imaginary ones.

You also missed the point. Loss limits provide the function of keeping you from emptying your bank account when you don't do well. Win goals can be adjusted higher should you decide to keep playing by also employing a stop loss.

[arcimede$]

You also missed the point. Loss limits provide the function of keeping you from emptying your bank account when you don't do well. Win goals can be adjusted higher should you decide to keep playing by also employing a stop loss.

No, they don't stop you from emptying your bank account. They just delay it. And, if you are in danger of emptying a bank account you are playing at too high a denomination.

[redietz]

Alan,

Nobody with any idea of what they are doing is going to empty their bankroll in one session or short series of sessions. My serious suggestion to you is that, if you are concerned about something like that happening, you are wagering way too much per hand or per session for your bankroll.

Now if "enjoyment" requires that you wager the amounts you do per hand or per session, then (as someone said) "Houston, we have a problem."

I haven't experienced what some people call a gambling "rush" since I was 17 or so. If one of your primary reasons for gambling is to experience some physico-chemical emotional boost, that's not a good thing if you're playing negative expectation games. Of course, this is what casinos want you to experience. It's a trade-off -- your "entertainment," which is an addictive boost because you won a few bucks, which will not change your life, for which you pay the casinos a tariff.

Not a good deal for you in the long run. Of course, you'll argue there is no "long run." Good luck with that.

Frighteningly, I am sounding a tad like Rob here. Where Rob and I agree is that the object is to manage the casino for profit for yourself. The object is not for the casino to manage you.

If win goals and loss limits matter so much to you, if you are truly worried about falling into some financial chasm, you are betting too much money per session.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz this much I agree with you: "the object is to manage the casino for profit for yourself. The object is not for the casino to manage you." And that' why you use loss limits and win goals.

When I refer to bankroll I don't mean your entire life savings... it's your gambling budget for that trip. Most people that I know are recreational gamblers to begin with and have small gambling bankrolls.

The issue is not the denomination of play. The issue is why throw good money after bad? Without a loss limit that's exactly what you're doing... throwing good money after bad and it doesnt matter at which denomination you're doing it.