John Grochowski writes about money management.

[slingshot]

And Alan, I'll ask you the same question I asked before -- let's see if you deign to respond, "Do you really think you and Rob are two of the few who have come up with the magic of win goals/loss limits as a way to win on negative expectation machines?"

Or, to put it another way, "Do you really not think thousands of people have tried exactly what you're suggesting?" And still the casinos survive. Everyone else must just not "get it," as you say, or they must have inferior discipline or something.

I beg to differ. I have seen people $500 ahead-many people-on the slots and sit there and throw it away and then loose another couple of hundred. I watch it every time I go. It's insane.

[Alan Mendelson]

Let me explain this to Arc first: win goals and loss limits are not a betting system. In fact, they are based on pure mathematics: 2 > 1 and 1 < 2.

redietz, I think there are very few people who use win goals and loss limits in casinos.

And I have read so many books and so many articles preaching win goals and loss limits -- and as I've said many times ONLY "advantage video poker players" call it BS.


'

[arcimede$]

Let me explain this to Arc first: win goals and loss limits are not a betting system. In fact, they are based on pure mathematics: 2 > 1 and 1 < 2.

A "betting system" is any approach where a decision is made between bets. The point is that no decision can make any difference if the game is random and the hands are independent. The decision to leave and return another day fits the definition of a betting system. Sorry.

This is not rocket science. I have no idea how you can possibly believe you will get better hands by coming back and gambling another day. Of course, if it were true then there would have be some mechanism in place to deal out better hands at the beginning of your play (that is, not random). If that were true, then simply changing machines would also work.

It's called logic, Alan. So simple a cave man could understand.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, let me break the news to you slowly: you are illogical.

Win goals and loss limits are not a betting system. It has nothing to do with random decisions. It is totally unrelated to any decision of any hand. It is simply a money management tool.

I am giving you a new name: The Mad Mathematician

[arcimede$]

So, according to Alan a decision of whether to bet or not is not a betting system. It really doesn't get much funnier than that. Alan, do you also do standup?

[Alan Mendelson]

Are you really this absurd or are you just pulling my chain?

[a2a3dseddie]

Okay, I tried to stay away, but I couldn't.

Alan, we've butted heads on win goals/ loss limits before. Please humour me and read this post.

Let's say a VP machine's ER is 99%. That means that the sum total of all hands, all sessions (winning and losing) on this machine will result in a 1% hold over time for the casino, if every play made was optimal. Agreed?

Now let's move that -EV VP machine into your home so that only you will play it from now on. Will it now become your personal ATM? Will win goals and loss limits ensure you will always be cashing money out of this machine or will your winning sessions and losing sessions added all together (your pER) eventually come close to the ER of the machine?

I'm not going to post links or explain the math because arcimede$ does a good job of it. Instead I just have a few questions for you Alan:

1. Has Rob shown you proof of his systems that he's not shared with everyone else? If not, why do you believe him and seem to side with him? Has he ever asked you for money or have you paid him for personal training? Why so hard on redietz and arcimede$ and so easy on him?

2. If win goals / loss limits really worked, wouldn't they work for craps, slot machines, roulette and every other -EV casino game?

3. This question is for arcimede$. Why don't you run a simulation using win goals and loss limits for the game Alan plays? Plug in the win goal he tries to hit and the loss limit he'll stop at. Program it play computer perfect. Then provide him with the results. (You know, I know, and everyone else knows that the sum total of the results will be pretty close to the machines' ER.)

4. Alan, I know you got pretty sensitive and offended when Rob accused you of being a gambling addict. I don't know you beyond what you post here. I will say though that some of the things you write, and some of the things you seem to believe are more indicative of someone with a gambling problem rather than someone with rational thought who thinks logically and accepts mathematical proofs.

[Alan Mendelson]

Sorry, Eddie, but you don't get it either. Win goals and loss limits have nothing to do with the math of the game. A negative expectation game will stay a negative expectation game. A positive expectation game will stay a positive expectation.

But win goals and loss limits have nothing to do with expectations -- they have to do with money management which is how much money do you have (won) and how much money have you lost.

This is why I keep asking The Mad Mathematician to show me the math that says using win goals and loss limits is wrong. I ask him that because there is no math.

I'd like to respond to a couple of your specific questions:

1. Has Rob shown you proof of his systems that he's not shared with everyone else? If not, why do you believe him and seem to side with him? Has he ever asked you for money or have you paid him for personal training? Why so hard on redietz and arcimede$ and so easy on him?

No, Rob hasn't shown me any proof, and like the rest of you I have asked him to come up with the proof of his various claims including non-random machines, 5th card turnovers, and such. I do not follow his system. Let me repeat that: I do not follow his system. However, I presented his special plays here because no where else -- even on his own website -- were his "special plays" presented. The rest of his "system" including his romps or whatever he calls them, evolved from posts here on the discussion forum. I don't know anything about this but this is a free and open discussion forum so if folks want to discuss them it's okay with me.

I have been just as hard on Rob about his claims about non-random machines, and secret deals in Nevada, and collusion between slot makers and casinos and the state government as I have been about redietz and Arc blasting win goals and loss limits.

2. If win goals / loss limits really worked, wouldn't they work for craps, slot machines, roulette and every other -EV casino game?

Win goals and loss limits are used by most if not all of the "smarter craps players." It is very common for craps players to cash out after a hot roll. Win goals and loss limits are also used by live (cash) poker players and most cash game players will cash out when they have doubled up or tripled their initial buy-in. I am not a slot player, nor do I play roulette or other casino games but tell me why players at those games wouldn't want to use win goals and loss limits? I don't think I've read a book on casino gambling for the general public that didn't include advice about budgeting and win goals and loss limits. As we all know, Rob Singer wasn't the first to utilize this.

3. This question is for arcimede$. Why don't you run a simulation using win goals and loss limits for the game Alan plays? Plug in the win goal he tries to hit and the loss limit he'll stop at. Program it play computer perfect. Then provide him with the results. (You know, I know, and everyone else knows that the sum total of the results will be pretty close to the machines' ER.)

Let me save Arc and you the trouble: win goals and loss limits will vary with each individual. Sometimes I have a very tight loss limit, and sometimes I have a big loss limit. It depends on my budget and my mood. If you can simulate that, be my guest.

4. Alan, I know you got pretty sensitive and offended when Rob accused you of being a gambling addict. I don't know you beyond what you post here. I will say though that some of the things you write, and some of the things you seem to believe are more indicative of someone with a gambling problem rather than someone with rational thought who thinks logically and accepts mathematical proofs.

Thank you for your concern. I think my thought processes are a lot better than those of the "math guys." I know when I have lost enough. And I have enough sense to quit when I'm ahead. So let me ask, when do the "math guys" quit? When they're hungry and tired? I could lose all of my money well before I get hungry and tired. If you want to discuss logic, what is more logical -- quitting when you have lost enough or quitting when you get hungry?

[a2a3dseddie]

Alan,
Thanks for not banning me.

So, back to the paragraph before the questions. If you had a bona fide casino VP machine in your house like Rob claims he had, would it be your own personal ATM just by using win goals and loss limits? Remember only you will play it.

[Alan Mendelson]

If you are asking if Caesars Palace installed a VP machine in my house for me to play whenever I wanted to play it, I would follow my own win goals and loss limits as if I had to get in the car and drive to Vegas to play it. I have no idea if I will be a winner over time. If I get lucky, I could win. The important thing is that by using win goals and loss limits I will not blow my budget by chasing losses, and I can celebrate my wins when they do come. And this would be the same if the game has a positive expectation pay table or a negative expectation pay table because there is no guarantee that a game with a positive expectation will allow you to win. Even when you play a positive expectation game it is still gambling.

Let me repeat that: Even when you play a positive expectation game it is still gambling. Perhaps this is why Frank Kneeland, the great video poker advantage player, played video poker for 14 years using other people's money and never bet even a quarter of his own on a video poker game.

[a2a3dseddie]

I've read almost all the posts here Alan, and I don't remember reading anyone posting that the AP player plays until exhaustion or until they run out of money. Only you and Rob, claim that. Don't the AP's restrict their play to positive machines or positive promotions? I don't see anything wrong with that. In terms of "gambling style" I'd say I'm more like you. I don't play +EV VP. I play blackjack, slots, some craps and poker. I am a lifetime loser when it comes to slots, blackjack and craps. I had hoped that Rob would provide proof or an explanation as to why he was successful, but none came.

[a2a3dseddie]

If you are asking if Caesars Palace installed a VP machine in my house for me to play whenever I wanted to play it, I would follow my own win goals and loss limits as if I had to get in the car and drive to Vegas to play it. I have no idea if I will be a winner over time. If I get lucky, I could win. The important thing is that by using win goals and loss limits I will not blow my budget by chasing losses, and I can celebrate my wins when they do come. And this would be the same if the game has a positive expectation pay table or a negative expectation pay table because there is no guarantee that a game with a positive expectation will allow you to win. Even when you play a positive expectation game it is still gambling.

Let me repeat that: Even when you play a positive expectation game it is still gambling. Perhaps this is why Frank Kneeland, the great video poker advantage player, played video poker for 14 years using other people's money and never bet even a quarter of his own on a video poker game.

Yes Alan it is all gambling. But wouldn't your pER eventually come close to the ER of the machine over time? The only time it wouldn't would be if you hit a Royal Flush early on and never played again. We can all have winning sessions, even in horrible games like roulette. But if we continue to play doesn't the house edge eventually grind you down? This goes back to what I stated earlier. What type of person thinks they can win every time? Or win enough times to be an overall winner?

[Alan Mendelson]

I think Arcimedes said he plays for a fixed number of hours. Why play for a fixed number of hours if you won big early in your session? Why play a fixed number of hours if you were losing big from the start?

[Alan Mendelson]

Yes Alan it is all gambling. But wouldn't your pER eventually come close to the ER of the machine over time?

Yes it could. Which is why using win goals and loss limits allow me to limit my losses and take money home when I win.

[a2a3dseddie]

Yes it could. Which is why using win goals and loss limits allow me to limit my losses and take money home when I win.

So what makes you think you can repeat this process enough times to make you an overall winner?

[Alan Mendelson]

Can't. But it's better than sitting there and going through all your money when you lose and it keeps you from giving back all of the money as soon as you win it.

Now let me ask you something. Where is the math that says I'm wrong?

[a2a3dseddie]

Can't. But it's better than sitting there and going through all your money when you lose and it keeps you from giving back all of the money as soon as you win it.

Now let me ask you something. Where is the math that says I'm wrong?

Well, set up some parameters for arci to run a simulation on your game of choice. Would that satisfy you?

[redietz]

I have to give you credit, a2 -- that thought experiment of stashing the vp machine in Alan's home was more elegant and to-the-point than anything I said. That was a really clear, concise way of highlighting the absurdity.

Alan's not going to bite on the simulation offer. He's committed as in Leon Festinger's "When Prophecy Fails."

So what we have here, thanks to a2, is simple -- Alan and Rob could simply put one of Caesars' video poker machines in their home and demonstrate how win goals and loss limits make you a winner on a negative EV game. I'll just add that if they decide to do that, I suggest they contact the JREF and shoot for that million dollar paranormal challenge while at it. No reason to pass up an extra million.

Good luck.

Odds on Alan agreeing to simulation test as a way of settling this? Better than Blutarsky's grade point average or not?

[Alan Mendelson]

Unfortunately redietz I didn't say win goals and loss limits will make me a winner. What I said is that they control losses and allow me to maximize wins.

Now why don't you tell me where the math says i'm wrong?

I am still waiting for an answer.

[regnis]

I'll try 1 more time. I'm up a significant amount. On the next hand my ER is 99%. Also my ER is 99% on the next 100 hands, 1000 hands, 10,000 hands. So my ER is a loss. But I'm ahead. So if I have met a win goal I can quit. Or, I can adjust my win goal up a little if i want to keep playing for a while. But I will not lose it all back, because I have a loss limit that was also asjusted.

This is bad how??? And Arci keeps double talking that you could win or lose and it makes no difference. But he's the ER guy and the ER is going to cut into my profit. So again, it is bad to take the profit why???

And I guess I should add that I'm not saying I will always be up and that I can't lose. I can and do lose plenty. But again, I may be limiting my losses and maximizing my wins. So I am avoiding the extremes on arcis bell curve.