Win Goals/Stop Losses: Basic Facts

[arcimede$]

No, Arc. I can't accept that staying and gambling more is better than leaving with a profit.

Alan, I never said that either. What part of IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE don't you understand?

[regnis]

The problem is if you present it as being better than not leaving. That is simply not true using established mathematics. If you present win goals as being a better approach you are stating something that is provably FALSE.

It actually is, and based on your own previous statements. If you have been winning beyond the EP, you should begin to come back down on that bell curve towards the norm. Therefore, if you take a profit and run, you have effectively stayed on the upside of your beloved bell curve. Will you come back down next time?? It is random--maybe you will and maybe you won't. But if you take profits along the way, you are ahead of the curve. It seems that AP's only believe in randomness for others--for them they can play play play and grind out the 1% no matter what.

[Alan Mendelson]

No, Arc. I can't accept that staying and gambling more is better than leaving with a profit.

Alan, I never said that either. What part of IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE don't you understand?

It makes a difference to me when I leave with a profit because I am a recreational player. Each time I leave with a profit it makes me feel as if I had more fun. When I leave with a loss my "fun" was reduced.

Now, if you are a professional player then by all means continue to play to the point of exhaustion. I tend to work late into the nights to the point of exhaustion. And if you consider video poker "work" then you should also keep going till you can't work anymore.

[arcimede$]

It actually is, and based on your own previous statements. If you have been winning beyond the EP, you should begin to come back down on that bell curve towards the norm.

There is no regression to the mean. The past is meaningless, the future will approach the ER over time.

Therefore, if you take a profit and run, you have effectively stayed on the upside of your beloved bell curve. Will you come back down next time?? It is random--maybe you will and maybe you won't. But if you take profits along the way, you are ahead of the curve. It seems that AP's only believe in randomness for others--for them they can play play play and grind out the 1% no matter what.

Complete and total nonsense.

[arcimede$]

It makes a difference to me when I leave with a profit because I am a recreational player. Each time I leave with a profit it makes me feel as if I had more fun. When I leave with a loss my "fun" was reduced.

Alan, that is fine. No one is claiming that your feelings are unimportant. However, they are meaningless in terms of generally more or less profitability.

Now, if you are a professional player then by all means continue to play to the point of exhaustion. I tend to work late into the nights to the point of exhaustion. And if you consider video poker "work" then you should also keep going till you can't work anymore.

You are making no sense. No one said anything about playing to a state of exhaustion. You are trying to change the subject because my point is not debatable. It is a proven fact. Your ramblings show you are unwilling to deal with the facts.

[Alan Mendelson]

the future will approach the ER over time.

Question: if you are ahead of the expected return, wouldn't it make sense to stop playing while you are ahead? As in... quit when you're ahead?
And couldn't you be ahead at various times in various sessions? And could you maximize your return by always quitting at some point when you are ahead of the expected return?

For example: you are playing a VP game with a 100.17% ER and you just had several double ups and full houses, and you have actually doubled your original buy-in. Would cashing out now, ending this session, not be a way to beat the expected return?

[Alan Mendelson]

No one said anything about playing to a state of exhaustion. You are trying to change the subject because my point is not debatable. It is a proven fact. Your ramblings show you are unwilling to deal with the facts.

I brought that up because in the past you said you quit playing when you're tired and quitting when you're tired makes sense.

[redietz]

Alan, do you realize that if one could simply do as you're saying and thereby ensure a profit by "quitting when ahead" each time, an awful lot of people would have figured it out ages ago? I mean, really, do you think Rob Singer and you are the only people to have stumbled onto this secret and who have the discipline to execute it?

Just run the simulations and all will be revealed.

[regnis]

This is where I disagree with Alan, because I find that I am rarely ahead early on. So it could not work for me. But I am not necessarily profit driven. I hate to lose, but I am there to get some entertainment value and kill some time, and I do try to and hope to win. But my history would not have me ahead enough times for that to work anyway.

[Dan Druff]

I have been a professional gambler for 10 years, and I have a mathematical background, so I can answer some of these questions/points.

redietz is correct. A stop-loss' main purpose is psychological. It does not serve any mathematical advantage, other than stretching your negative-expectation gambling over a long period of time, as well as allowing you to leave without losing an amount of money you're uncomfortable dropping in one session.

Specifically, here are the only advantages to stop-losses:

1) It makes it more psychologically palatable to lose.

2) It stretches the amount of time it will take before your gambling depletes your bankroll. (I'm talking about actual time, not time spent gambling.)

3) It often prevents you from gambling higher limits in order to "chase" your current losses. This, again, allows you to stretch your gambling dollar over a longer period of time.

4) It allows you to keep your head on straight and play proper strategy. This is only true for strategy games such as video poker and blackjack. It does not affect slots at all, and it only affects craps a little bit.

5) If engaging in advantage gaming that is against the house rules (such as counting cards in blackjack), it allows you to leave before a potential "comeback" will trigger unwanted attention from the pit staff and your eventual barring from the game. For example, if you are spreading $25-$150 per hand in blackjack and are down $3000, you should leave. At that point, you will either keep losing (bad), or will likely get kicked out of the game for counting if you make most of it back (also bad).

Now, a word about advantage gaming.

Many people think they are advantage gamblers. These are some of the casino's favorite players, as they will keep sinking their money into the tables and machines believing they have an edge, when in reality they are doomed to lose. Most "advantage" gamblers are actually disadvantage gamblers and don't realize it. These include:

1) Pseudo card-counters: People who know the basics of card counting but don't have a deep enough understanding of it to be positive expectation. They will often make wrong plays, lose the count, make terrible "cover" (intentional negative expectation) bets that are way too large, or play games with negative expectation too high to compensate with card counting (such as 6:5 single deck). Most card counters I know are actually pseudo counters, and they lose in blackjack, typically blaming it on luck or pretending they are winners.

2) Comp Hounds: These "advantage" players think they are beating the casino by rolling up as many comps as possible, which is actually correct, but often do so at games with a high enough negative expectation to where the comps do not compensate, and the player will lose overall even with the comps. An example would be players at 8-5 Jacks or Better video poker, who believe that they are earning enough comps to counteract their losses.

3) False Systems: Many people believe they have a "betting system" to get an edge on the casino. I'm not talking about the mathematically proven betting structure to beat blackjack which is based upon accurate card counting. I'm talking about random adjustments of bets, riding "streaks", etc. These will always result in big losses in a relatively short time.

4) Wise Guy Sportsbettors: Everyone thinks they're an expert on sports, and a short winning streak can make you believe you're a genius sportsbettor. You're not. Being a winning sportsbettor takes an incredible amount of research and talent, and almost everyone loses at it in the long run. The only way for "normal" people to beat sports is to find mathematical edges, such as "Wong" NFL teasers (and getting the right lines on them).

There are still a few ways to do advantage play in casinos, but it's become tougher over the years.

There are some advantage slot and video poker machines that are positive expectation only under certain circumstances. You need to know these circumstances and have the discipline to only play when they are like that.

You can still count cards in blackjack and win, though doing so consistently is tough because the pit staff is always on the lookout at any kind of meaningful betting limit, and many games have been changed to where they are impossible to beat even with counting cards.

You can make a very small profit on certain high limit video poker machines if you play perfectly, have a large bankroll to absorb swings, and only play in casinos with good comp programs.

You can sportsbet in mathematically-proven spots such as NFL "Wong" teasers (google it for info), but these are very tough because most casinos have lowered teaser payouts to where these are no longer positive expectation.

[redietz]

I just want to add that so-called "Wong" teasers were being bet 25 years ago by people who knew what they were doing. It's only in the last couple of years that premiums must be paid for most of these. Now, why they're called "Wong" teaser I'm not sure -- I'm hoping it's not after "Stanford Wong," because the folks who were betting these 20 years ago knew a helluva lot more about sports than "Stanford Wong," and, if his moniker is the nickname, the damn things should be re-named.

[redietz]

Oh, and welcome Dan Druff -- always nice to have someone who has a handle on reality.

[regnis]

I just want to add that so-called "Wong" teasers were being bet 25 years ago by people who knew what they were doing. It's only in the last couple of years that premiums must be paid for most of these. Now, why they're called "Wong" teaser I'm not sure -- I'm hoping it's not after "Stanford Wong," because the folks who were betting these 20 years ago knew a helluva lot more about sports than "Stanford Wong," and, if his moniker is the nickname, the damn things should be re-named.

Sadly Red--Stanford Wong was the one who wrote about them and made them popular for awhile.

[redietz]

It is sad. "Wong" managed to promote himself and do the sports books a favor -- simultaneously. Why would anyone who was aware of them let the cat out of the bag? I guess that means people think he discovered them --- NOT!!!

People were on to these teasers back in the early 80's.

[arcimede$]

Question: if you are ahead of the expected return, wouldn't it make sense to stop playing while you are ahead? As in... quit when you're ahead?
And couldn't you be ahead at various times in various sessions? And could you maximize your return by always quitting at some point when you are ahead of the expected return?

No, you can't maximize your return with win goals. Let me say it for the thousandth time. The game is random. You never know when your near future holds good news or bad news. Just because you are ahead does not mean you are going to lose. There is no memory of your past results. For the same reason, if you've been losing there is no memory of that either which somehow means you will now start winning.

Random is random. You future results are completely unrelated to what you have experienced. Quitting when ahead $500 could mean you missed out on winning another $500. And, the next time you play you could lose $1000 right away. There is no magic time that can make a difference when dealing with random, independent events.

For example: you are playing a VP game with a 100.17% ER and you just had several double ups and full houses, and you have actually doubled your original buy-in. Would cashing out now, ending this session, not be a way to beat the expected return?

For that session, sure. But overall it means very little. There is absolutely no difference in playing another hand vs. coming back another day. Life really is one long session mathematically. Whether you play your next hand in 3 seconds or in 3 days is completely immaterial. You are only fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

[redietz]

That was as cogent a commentary as you will find anywhere.

If anybody should be featured on video promos, it's Arci. Plus he has great patience for multiple takes.

[Alan Mendelson]

No, you can't maximize your return with win goals. Let me say it for the thousandth time. The game is random.

Let's see if I agree with you:

1. You can't maximize your return with win goals. Yes, I agree.
2. The game is random. Yes, I agree.

Why do you have to maximize your return when you play? I know casino-goers who say this: If I come out of the casino breaking even I am a big winner. Sometimes, we mortals are happy with any kind of a win. And the problem with trying to maximize your win is...

You never know when that darn randomness is going to come along and bite you in the ass and take away that small profit you thought you could maximize.

But I concede, there is no mathematical rationale for having a win goal or quitting when ahead.

http://www.sjacob.org/home/humour/Qu...oureAHead.html

[arcimede$]

Let's see if I agree with you:

1. You can't maximize your return with win goals. Yes, I agree.
2. The game is random. Yes, I agree.

We are making progress.

Why do you have to maximize your return when you play? I know casino-goers who say this: If I come out of the casino breaking even I am a big winner. Sometimes, we mortals are happy with any kind of a win. And the problem with trying to maximize your win is...

You never know when that darn randomness is going to come along and bite you in the ass and take away that small profit you thought you could maximize.

No one has to try to maximize their profits. That is not the point. People can and will do whatever they please. The point is, and always has been, win goals will not change a person's expectation. You can use them all you want, you can rub the screen before making one card draws, you can bring a rabbits foot to the casino, you can do lots of silly things ... just don't believe they make a difference or you're fooling yourself.

[regnis]

We are making progress.



No one has to try to maximize their profits. That is not the point. People can and will do whatever they please. The point is, and always has been, win goals will not change a person's expectation. You can use them all you want, you can rub the screen before making one card draws, you can bring a rabbits foot to the casino, you can do lots of silly things ... just don't believe they make a difference or you're fooling yourself.

Don't use a magnet. A friend of mine is getting free room and board for that.