John Grochowski writes about money management.

[redietz]

I have addressed most of Alan's questions in previous posts. To review, my bankroll for all gambling is sufficiently large that I am not going to go broke playing positive expectation 25-cent video poker. I don't know what my risk of ruin is, but it's gotta be millions to one. I am ahead lifetime.

Alan evidently doesn't find 25-cent video poker very exciting. I personally find it strange that anyone gets excited playing $1 or $5 video poker, but doesn't get excited playing 25-cent video poker. I don't play a lot of video poker, and when I do, it's gotta be positive expectation. Larger denominations are generally not positive unless you play 40 hours a week for rebates and top tier cash back and usually not even then. The idea that I would give money to a casino by playing higher denominations because I need to be excited is completely alien to me. I stopped getting excited about gambling when I was 16 or 17.

To answer the cogent question, I don't use win goals or loss limits on positive expectation machines because I'm playing positive expectation machines. What is the mystery? I stop when I'm tired or have some other reason for stopping. I'm not going to feel better about myself because I won some money; I'm not going to feel worse if I've lost some money. So why would I use win goals or loss limits on positive machines?

[Vegas_lover]

Nobody ever said it was wrong to use win goals or loss limits. Yeezzzz you're using your own forum to show you can't stand to be corrected. How come that people have to correct you constantly about the false statements you make resulting in more and more sarcasm an personal attacks??? Weak, weak, weak!!!!

I'll spell it out for you one more time, please read carefully: THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE IS A LOSS LIMIT ON A NEGATIVE GAME. NOBODY CRITICIZES YOU FOR USING WIN GOALS AND LOSS LIMITS, THEY ALL SIMPLY STATE THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE LONG RUN. WHO THE F ARE YOU TO CONSTANTLY DENY THAT? LEARN HOW TO READ BEFORE YOU EXPLODE....

Oh and one other thing (as has been pointed out earlier on in this thread), do you honoustly believe you're just as critical towards Singer as to the other contributors on this forum? Serious lack of self reflection my friend.

[arcimede$]

Thank you. All done. If it doesn't hurt than why not? If it allows me to enjoy a win and at the same time limit my losses, why not? If it makes me say at the end of a trip, "okay it was fun and I didn't lose too much," than why not? If it allows me to go home with some extra money so I have the money to return with and play again, why not?

Which is perfectly fine as far as it goes. You just don't know if you would have done better or worse without the goals. The problem has always been your claims that win/loss goals IMPROVE your bottom line. It is this claim that has been objected to.

And thanks for your explanation about how you play for a certain amount of time to manage your comps. Sorry, I don't play for comps. Comps don't keep me at a machine nor do comps motivate me to play. I thought that was the first rule of "advantage play"? You don't play for comps.

It has nothing to do with comps. I get all the free food and free rooms I want over and above the numbers I gave. There were also promotions, drawings and gifts. I'm talking about cash. The numbers I gave you makes the play a 2% edge. That is 2% of the base coin-in is my average win. Note that if I played more than once a week, the free play would not increase and that is why I only played once a week. It's called Advantage Play.

[arcimede$]

What's wrong? To preach to someone not to follow a loss limit strategy? I would never tell you to keep playing if you lost more than you felt comfortable losing -- because that would be wrong to do. And I would never tell you to keep playing if you wanted to pocket a win, because that would be wrong to do.

Silly strawman. No one has said any of that. It's very telling when you misrepresent what is being explained to you so you have something you can argue against. All you do by creating these ridiculous strawmen is make it evident you can't argue against the statements that we have made.

How dare you people criticize anyone for saying that they have a budget for a trip and they have a limit to how much they feel comfortable losing. How dare you people criticize anyone for saying they are happy with the profit they made and they want to put that profit in their pocket. Who the F--- do you think any of you are to say "the math" makes you wrong for having a win goal or a loss limit?

Screw all of you.

More strawmen. Really, Alan, if you think you can support your claim that win/loss goals will improve your bottom line then provide the evidence. Making up things as you go is seriously dishonest.

[Alan Mendelson]

Which is perfectly fine as far as it goes. You just don't know if you would have done better or worse without the goals. The problem has always been your claims that win/loss goals IMPROVE your bottom line. It is this claim that has been objected to.

Of course it improves my bottom line. If I have a budget of $100 and lose it, but don't keep to a loss limit and lose another $100 then my loss increases to $200. In this case, how does a loss limit not help to improve my bottom line?

If I hit quad aces and win $800 on a $2 Bonus machine and quit with a net gain of $700 how does that not improve my bottom line? I just improved my bottom line by the net value of the win.

[arcimede$]

Of course it improves my bottom line. If I have a budget of $100 and lose it, but don't keep to a loss limit and lose another $100 then my loss increases to $200. In this case, how does a loss limit not help to improve my bottom line?

Because you don't know if you would have lost more money. You might have won $100 or $1000 and now you are even or ahead. Your loss limit might have cost you money.

If I hit quad aces and win $800 on a $2 Bonus machine and quit with a net gain of $700 how does that not improve my bottom line? I just improved my bottom line by the net value of the win.

Because the next hand after you quit might have been a RF for $8000 (or any big winner) while the next time you play after quitting this time, you could lose that $800 in less than an hour. Hence, your bottom line is now less than it would have been. For every scenario you can imagine there is one with the opposite effect. That is why win/loss goals cannot improve your bottom line.

[Alan Mendelson]

Because you don't know if you would have lost more money. You might have won $100 or $1000 and now you are even or ahead. Your loss limit might have cost you money.

Because the next hand after you quit might have been a RF for $8000 (or any big winner) while the next time you play after quitting this time, you could lose that $800 in less than an hour. Hence, your bottom line is now less than it would have been. For every scenario you can imagine there is one with the opposite effect. That is why win/loss goals cannot improve your bottom line.

this is where theory vs reality come crashing together. I can't operate in a theoretical world and think about what might happen. I can only think about what has happened.

If you can, then more power to you.

[arcimede$]

this is where theory vs reality come crashing together. I can't operate in a theoretical world and think about what might happen. I can only think about what has happened.

If you can, then more power to you.

Nonsense, you are the one that offered a couple of "theories". Now, you say you can't operate in that world. Double talk at its finest.

[a2a3dseddie]

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.

Win goals and loss limits are a tool, just as using strategy about which cards to hold is a tool, that is part of a formula to win.

Of course it improves my bottom line. If I have a budget of $100 and lose it, but don't keep to a loss limit and lose another $100 then my loss increases to $200. In this case, how does a loss limit not help to improve my bottom line?

If I hit quad aces and win $800 on a $2 Bonus machine and quit with a net gain of $700 how does that not improve my bottom line? I just improved my bottom line by the net value of the win.

Doesn't your first statement contradict the other 2 you made? What are you really trying to say here?

[Alan Mendelson]

Doesn't your first statement contradict the other 2 you made? What are you really trying to say here?

I'm not going to say any more. For some reason I am on trial here. Sorry, I won't play this game. There are too many gaming authors and experts who suggested win goals and loss limits.

"He who wins, and runs away, will live to gamble another day."

--VP Pappy

[arcimede$]

I'm not going to say any more. For some reason I am on trial here.

That is because you are making claims that have been mathematically proven false. No one cares what you do personally, Alan. Just quit making invalid statements.

Sorry, I won't play this game. There are too many gaming authors and experts who suggested win goals and loss limits.

Which means what precisely? It has been proven win/loss limits have no impact on future expectation. That is all that has been stated. If you'd stop arguing against proven mathematics you wouldn't get any grief.

[Alan Mendelson]

That is because you are making claims that have been mathematically proven false.

Here you go again. How do you prove mathematically that if I buy in with $100 and double my money and cash out that this is somehow "false"?

Show it to me. Show me the math. Show it once and for all.

[Rob.Singer]

This is so funny. Redietz has to say he plays 25c video poker every....um....now & then for who know what reason, when he claims to have some humungous bankroll that'll never let him go broke over it. Then he vents about how higher denominations can't possibly be manufactured by the AP crowd so that they're "positive plays", when there's hundreds of these people doing it every day. Methinks red took on more than he can chew by originally proclaiming to be an AP who plays some vp. Now he's stuggling to find the right pegs to fit the right holes.

The best part of what I read here is all the theorizing about what using win and loss goals can or cannot do. Alan seems to know what they ACTUALLY do because he actually USES them. I know what they do because, well, they along with other important parts of my play strategies, have given me more than a million dollars in net profit in the past decade and a half. But the guys who claim they don't mean squat? Ha! One's afraid to or unable to play above quarters, and the other knows he wouldn't be sitting on the wrong end of a happy & healthy retirement if he had used them starting years ago--yes, even prior to losing his little LV duplex to the poker machines and now finding himself in a geriatric park-full of duplex lovers.

As I said, it's funnier than watching Obama trying to make believe he counts towards anything to other world leaders

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob I am still waiting for their "math."

I don't care if they don't use win goals and loss limits. To each his own. But to say " you are making claims that have been mathematically proven false" is a load of BS.

Oh Rob, just to make Vegas_lover happy... stop your personal attacks on Arc.

[regnis]

Because you don't know if you would have lost more money. You might have won $100 or $1000 and now you are even or ahead. Your loss limit might have cost you money.



Because the next hand after you quit might have been a RF for $8000 (or any big winner) while the next time you play after quitting this time, you could lose that $800 in less than an hour. Hence, your bottom line is now less than it would have been. For every scenario you can imagine there is one with the opposite effect. That is why win/loss goals cannot improve your bottom line.

This is where you contradict yourself every time. You don't know what the next hand would have been, or the next 10 hands, or the next whatever hands. But you do know that the ER is less than what your actual return was after you were up the $800. Therefore, your expected return on the next 1 hand 10 hands or 100 hands is going to cut into your profits. For someone who lives and dies by the ER, how come when Alan is up $800 all of a sudden the ER is out the window and anything can happen.

[regnis]

regnis,

So, let's say I bring $50,000 (or $171 000) to the casino like Rob and set a win goal of $2500. I have him sit beside me and according to his instructions, play exactly the way he wants me to. Let's say I do indeed win $2500. But, I don't want to leave. I don't want to have to wait 10 years in order to win $1 million dollars. I want to shorten that up. So I want to reach 500 X $2500 win goals before I stop. I'll go down or up in denomination whenever I'm told to.

Would that work?

Ask Rob---I don't play his system and have never endorsed it (other than to piss off arci when appropriate). But again, if I am up a significant amount, and the ER is less than my actual return, further play can be expected
to reduce my profit according to you mathemeticians. Therefore, how can it be bad to not blow it all back.

[regnis]

no, you aren't avoiding anything except reality. Since you have idea how you would have done if you didn't quit after reaching a goal you could be costing yourself money. And, when you return you could lose right away over and over again.

Think about singer's claims. For him to have won what he claims he must have hit big at higher denominations. The only way to reach those denoms is to lose at the lower ones. But, if you have small win/loss goals you would never have reached those higher levels. You would have quit and lost money. The only reason singer could reach those levels is because of an enormous loss limit.

see above............................................. ..............................................

[redietz]

I was actually going to publicly apologize to Alan for being so snarky on this thread, but then Rob showed up and I realized why I was snarky in the first place.

I am unaware of any video poker for a dollar and up that yields positive expectation in Las Vegas unless you are a high tier cashback member or have access to rebates, as we suspect Dancer does. Rob now informs us that there are hundreds of players who are playing positive expectation dollar-and-up machines in Las Vegas and, drum roll please, they are all losing. Okay, if Rob says so, it must be correct.

I have no interest in playing enough video poker to be a high tier cashback guy, and I doubt the opportunities are any good, as Frank said, compared to 20 years ago.

The thing to remember about Rob is that he knows a bit about video poker, but he knows very little about any other type of gambling -- not craps, not poker, not blackjack, not sports betting, not horse racing. He was a video poker writer for Gaming Today, a fun read, but not exactly The Mensa Guide to Casino Gambling. So bear that in mind when taking "gambling advice" from a guy who, by his own admission, really doesn't do much gambling. And just to be clear, Rob is not exactly a high roller.

Rob got one other thing correct -- I am absolutely terrified to play dollar and up video poker. The excitement might just kill me.

[regnis]

Red-do you gamble for fun or entertainment at all or strictly for profit? It doesn't seem like you get any enjoyment out of your VP play. I think you are overlooking the thrill that gamblers do get from the risk of loss as well as the win itself. On a Saturday, I can bet over 200 races if I want the thrill of the gamble. I, instead, bet 15-20 races for profit, and throw around 5's and 10's on some other races on which I don't have a strong opinion for the thrill of the race. So I basically have $5,000 to use for profit, and a couple hundred for entertainment. Of course, I still hope to win those smaller bets but they are for the entertainment aspect of betting a horse race.

[slingshot]

I was actually going to publicly apologize to Alan for being so snarky on this thread, but then Rob showed up and I realized why I was snarky in the first place.

I am unaware of any video poker for a dollar and up that yields positive expectation in Las Vegas unless you are a high tier cashback member or have access to rebates, as we suspect Dancer does. Rob now informs us that there are hundreds of players who are playing positive expectation dollar-and-up machines in Las Vegas and, drum roll please, they are all losing. Okay, if Rob says so, it must be correct.

I have no interest in playing enough video poker to be a high tier cashback guy, and I doubt the opportunities are any good, as Frank said, compared to 20 years ago.

The thing to remember about Rob is that he knows a bit about video poker, but he knows very little about any other type of gambling -- not craps, not poker, not blackjack, not sports betting, not horse racing. He was a video poker writer for Gaming Today, a fun read, but not exactly The Mensa Guide to Casino Gambling. So bear that in mind when taking "gambling advice" from a guy who, by his own admission, really doesn't do much gambling. And just to be clear, Rob is not exactly a high roller.

Rob got one other thing correct -- I am absolutely terrified to play dollar and up video poker. The excitement might just kill me.

Not to worry, Red. Now I know this is gonna drive you bonkers, but yes, Rob had an article "Understanding risk of ruin" wherein he stated if you felt comfortable not going above quarters, that little voice is there for a reason.