Setting Win Limitations

[Frank Kneeland]

I have been asked if setting win goals (or win limitations) is logical. I must say I'm having a great deal of difficulty even understanding the concept. I can certainly understand why someone would want to set a limit on how much they would lose, but I can't for the life of me understand why someone would want to limit how much they could win. So here's our next debate. I think many of the reasons why people play in a casino and when they choose to leave them are emotional decisions and have no basis in logic, but we don't need to worry about that here. The question on the table is it "logical" to set win limits. Logic is something we should be able to lock down.

Here is your goal:

Come up with a chain of logic (thought processes) that can result in a decision to play AND a decision to leave based on exactly the same elements. Example:

A + B = I should play
A + B = I should not play

Here's how I'd think of it for playing a progressive
A = The progressive is up
B = The current return of the game is 102%
A + B = I should play
During your play session the progressive hits and you reevaluate. Now:
A = The progressive is down
B = The current game return is 98%
A + B = I should not play

Now try to come up with a similar formula and include being up $100 during your play session as a reason not to play. The logic to leave CANNOT invalidate your reason to play, and your reason to play CANNOT invalidate your reason to leave. You must keep the equation balanced and logical.

Note: If you use arbitrary demarcations of time periods like, "today" you'll be required to provide logical reasons why your results during the period of time you chose to use are not related to your results before and after. In other words, if you choose to only count your results for a particular day and discount all that has gone before, you will need a logical (non emotional) reason why this is allowable.

Please keep your solutions to this problem free from emotional and subjective variables.

~FK

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank, I don't think anyone has a win "limit." I think people have a win "goal." Usually as you are winning you set a "stop loss" which represents your win "goal."

Here is an example.

You have a win goal of $2500 playing $5 double double bonus. You start by loading $1,000 into the machine.

After only five plays of $25 ($125 in) you hit quad 2s for a $2,000 payoff.
This gives you a net win of $2,000 - $125 = $1875.
You haven't reach your win goal yet, so you keep playing.

Ten hands later ($250 in) you hit quad Kings for $1,250. This increases your net win by $1,000 so your total net win is now $2,875.

If I had that good fortune, I would keep playing the amount above $2,500 hoping to get lucky again. But if the "excess" is lost in subsequent hands, I call it quits with the $2,500 profit.

This is something like what happened to me last night. I hit a couple of quad-Aces at Bonus Poker, and then playing Royal Aces Bonus I hit quad aces which pays the same as a royal. I was well ahead of my win goal, but kept playing hoping to get lucky again. But left the casino when I was back to my "win goal."

[Frank Kneeland]

OK, but these are all emotional reasons. And you aren't answering the question of what changes as a result of reaching your goal to make playing change from a good idea to a bad idea.

You cannot answer the question of why you have a win goal by saying, "because I do".

I'm sure their are MANY good reasons emotional and financial why win goals might be a good idea. We are ignoring those temporarily, because the question on the table is, "Are win goals logical?"

For you the mental equation is:

A + $0 = A decision to play
A + $2,500 = A decision not to play

Now you need to define A in such a way that (A + $2,500) results in a decision not to play anymore. You'll also need to account for what changes in (A + 2,500) that results in a decision to play ever again, since you have now reached your goal.

~FK

[Alan Mendelson]

Ok, Frank, I can be more specific. I am not a professional video poker player. I go to have a good time and if I win money, I want to bring it home. The money I bring home I can use to "finance" my next trip to a casino.

I've been going to casinos for some 35+ years -- always as a recreational gambler. If I happen to double my bankroll for that visit, Im outta there. that is my policy now. (the numbers I used in my example above were just for illustration purposes, and do not relate to me.)

when I play poker games, if I triple my buy-in I'm outta there. Why do I set these? Because many times in the past I won very, very big jackpots and gave it all back. I promised myself never to do it again. It's a wonderful feeling to go home with some of the casino's money or other poker player's money in your pocket.

Yes, these are emotional reasons. I play in a casino for the emotion of having a good time. Leaving with cash in my pocket adds to the emotion of a good time.

edited to add: let me address your question about win goals being logical?

well, to you and to other professionals its probably not logical at all to leave. because you are playing what you consider to be a game that gives you an advantage with every push of the button. So, the longer you play, the more advantage you have. And that is the difference between you and me and the rest of the non professional world. And this is the one thing about Singer -- his setting of win goals -- which the general public would love.

[Frank Kneeland]

Ok, Frank, I can be more specific. I am not a professional video poker player. I go to have a good time and if I win money, I want to bring it home. The money I bring home I can use to "finance" my next trip to a casino.

I've been going to casinos for some 35+ years -- always as a recreational gambler. If I happen to double my bankroll for that visit, Im outta there. that is my policy now. (the numbers I used in my example above were just for illustration purposes, and do not relate to me.)

when I play poker games, if I triple my buy-in I'm outta there. Why do I set these? Because many times in the past I won very, very big jackpots and gave it all back. I promised myself never to do it again. It's a wonderful feeling to go home with some of the casino's money or other poker player's money in your pocket.

Yes, these are emotional reasons. I play in a casino for the emotion of having a good time. Leaving with cash in my pocket adds to the emotion of a good time.

OK cool. And no worries mate. It is not important that you have a logical reason to play or not to play. I was just wondering if you or anyone on this forum did.

~FK

P.S. I always have a logical reason to play or to leave and never leave it up to what I want in any way. We can talk about it later.

[Alan Mendelson]

frank, I think what keeps most players banging on machines is nothing less than "fear and greed."

the greed is easy to understand: the players want to win.

the "fear" is that they dont want to give up their seat because someone else might win.

[Frank Kneeland]

frank, I think what keeps most players banging on machines is nothing less than "fear and greed."

the greed is easy to understand: the players want to win.

the "fear" is that they don't want to give up their seat because someone else might win.

Interesting insight. If true, this does not speak well of the players you mention. Not only do they want to win, they wish others to fail. A grim outlook on human nature, but then again any realistic outlook on human nature usually is dark.

[Alan Mendelson]

Interesting insight. If true, this does not speak well of the players you mention. Not only do they want to win, they wish others to fail. A grim outlook on human nature, but then again any realistic outlook on human nature usually is dark.

Two true stories:

#1 About a year or so ago the $5 DDB progressive at Harrah's Rincon was at $70K and a team from Reno had four of the five seats. By Sunday evening they were low on money after two non stop days of play, and now they were playing s l o w l y so they wouldnt have to give up their seats. They even had conversations between plays. By the way, a non team player hit the royal... in an act of righteousness from heaven.

#2 About six months ago also at Rincon the $1 DDB progressive was above $5300 and every seat was filled and players were waiting. A couple -- husband and wife had adjoining seats -- he was the active player, she had $20 in the machine and was watching him play. When others complained to casino managers, a manager said that even if she made one play every ten minutes there was nothing they could do.

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank, I am reading your exchange on the LVA board about this issue. And I think the major point is this:

Rob's system by definition excludes the strategy of advantage play. He says it is difficult if not impossible to find the coveted full pay machines and the promotions. And he also addresses the desire not to be anchored to a machine for any length of time in order to see the long term return that AP offers.

Rob's system is for visitors to a casino who are not long term players, and who may not be able to find the coveted full pay machines. Rob's system is all about maximizing your return in the short run and to get on with your Vegas vacation. You could call his system the "get lucky and get out" system.

His setting of a win goal allows players to enjoy the rest of their trip. His entire strategy is based on the desire not to spend hour after hour at a video poker machine seeking long term results. His strategy is about scoring the win that will allow a player to reach a win goal and get the heck outta there.

APers look at the coveted full pay machine as an opportunity to win their "edge" on each hand played over the long term. RS says "I don't want to be there for the long term, I want to win some money and go enjoy my life."

Well, I kinda feel the same way. I like to pocket a win and take it home with me and when I get to take money home it allows me to go back and play some more for fun and recreation.

Rob is quite upfront that all of his special plays are at a disadvantage when the "math" is used. But as he says, when you do get lucky and hit with a special play, it can give you enough profit so you can leave and do other things.

[Vegas Vic]

But he has yet to convince most of us that his waiting for lightning to strike method is any better (read: luckier) than the tried and true AP method. The "luck" factor cannot be assigned to one style with any more certainty than the other, so it's pretty much a wash in that regard. What AP does for me is that it allows me to gather the smaller wins (and pushes) which extend my playing time, which is pretty important. I am of the firm belief that you can't win if you're not playing. Rob's "get lucky and get out" system has too much "get out" built into it for me.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, I am reading your exchange on the LVA board about this issue. And I think the major point is this:

Rob's system by definition excludes the strategy of advantage play. He says it is difficult if not impossible to find the coveted full pay machines and the promotions. And he also addresses the desire not to be anchored to a machine for any length of time in order to see the long term return that AP offers.

Rob's system is for visitors to a casino who are not long term players, and who may not be able to find the coveted full pay machines. Rob's system is all about maximizing your return in the short run and to get on with your Vegas vacation. You could call his system the "get lucky and get out" system.

His setting of a win goal allows players to enjoy the rest of their trip. His entire strategy is based on the desire not to spend hour after hour at a video poker machine seeking long term results. His strategy is about scoring the win that will allow a player to reach a win goal and get the heck outta there.

APers look at the coveted full pay machine as an opportunity to win their "edge" on each hand played over the long term. RS says "I don't want to be there for the long term, I want to win some money and go enjoy my life."

Well, I kinda feel the same way. I like to pocket a win and take it home with me and when I get to take money home it allows me to go back and play some more for fun and recreation.

Rob is quite upfront that all of his special plays are at a disadvantage when the "math" is used. But as he says, when you do get lucky and hit with a special play, it can give you enough profit so you can leave and do other things.

Yes I believe all that is true. And I also may believe a quick in and out strategy might be better for someone that did not want to make gambling the focus of their trip to LV. It is this quote that you have on your press release page that concerns me,

""Video poker can be beaten, but not by buying those tempting, math-only based strategies that are easy to sell, difficult to learn" and, as the author of The Undeniable Truth About Video Poker says, "impossible to succeed with".

I would have no problem with the use of the phrase, "Difficult to succeed with". By using the word "impossible" you are opening up yourself to a lot of ridicule from people who are succeeding at AP and have been for umpteen years, not to mention a whole lot of black swans that might peck you. I will make no personal statement here about my own success, as I consider talking about results tacky and not proof of anything, since in a game involving a random element it is possible to win playing badly and lose playing well.

Anyway, you really should change "impossible" to some other word that implies difficulty. The gap in meaning between difficult and impossible is like the difference between 1 and infinite.

[Alan Mendelson]

Yes I believe all that is true. And I also may believe a quick in and out strategy might be better for someone that did not want to make gambling the focus of their trip to LV. It is this quote that you have on your press release page that concerns me,

""Video poker can be beaten, but not by buying those tempting, math-only based strategies that are easy to sell, difficult to learn" and, as the author of The Undeniable Truth About Video Poker says, "impossible to succeed with".

I would have no problem with the use of the phrase, "Difficult to succeed with". By using the word "impossible" you are opening up yourself to a lot of ridicule from people who are succeeding at AP and have been for umpteen years. I will make no personal statement here about my own success, as I consider talking about results tacky and not proof of anything, since in a game involving a random element it is possible to win playing badly and lose playing well.

Anyway, you really should change "impossible" to some other word that implies difficulty. The gap in meaning between difficult and impossible is like the difference between 1 and infinite.

I don't recall a "press release" page on www.alanbestbuys.com and I don't recall that quote that you cited. And if it is a "quote" from Singer, I don't alter quotes. After all, a quote is a quote.

Can you tell me where to find that particular quote? Thanks.

[Frank Kneeland]

I don't recall a "press release" page on www.alanbestbuys.com and I don't recall that quote that you cited. And if it is a "quote" from Singer, I don't alter quotes. After all, a quote is a quote.

Can you tell me where to find that particular quote? Thanks.

It does not appear to be on your site, but I thought you sent me the link, I could be wrong.

http://www.free-press-release.com/ne...289256672.html

I'm not trying to dispute that statement here on this forum. I'm just saying it is the kind of statement that can be perceived as inflammatory and serve to generate bad press...which I'm guessing is not desirable.

[Alan Mendelson]

It does not appear to be on your site, but I thought you sent me the link, I could be wrong.

http://www.free-press-release.com/ne...289256672.html

I'm not trying to dispute that statement here on this forum. I'm just saying it is the kind of statement that can be perceived as inflammatory and serve to generate bad press...which I'm guessing is not desirable.

That was a press release from Rob Singer. At the bottom you can see the "Contact info" which is Rob's.

[Frank Kneeland]

OK I'll mention it to him. I'm trying to help him be less controversial and less confrontational. I think there's a good chance of proving his system has merit, but as long as it includes disproving AP as part of its methodology the job becomes twice (10x) as hard. He's not making my job easy!

[Alan Mendelson]

We agree there Frank!!! I have pleaded with him to be less confrontational and less controversial.

But the biggest misunderstanding about Rob is that he does not dispute the math. He says he follows the math 95% of the time and makes his special plays when they might present themselves to get lucky. His position, as he explained it to me, is that it is almost impossible to be an APer because there are so few casinos offering the vital elements needed including positive expectation machines, the appropriate cash back, etc.

Besides, he says, there are other things to do in life besides grind away at machines. This is why the better elements of his system might actually appear as completely logical to the general public who haven't studied the math or the precise differences between certain holds.

The classic example is Rob advocating that you hold triple aces in Triple Double Bonus while dropping the kicker. The "math" says to hold the kicker. And I suspect that if you asked a thousand players at random -- not knowing if they know the math or not -- Singer's hold of only the three aces would be what the vast majority would choose.

[Frank Kneeland]

We agree there Frank!!! I have pleaded with him to be less confrontational and less controversial.

But the biggest misunderstanding about Rob is that he does not dispute the math. He says he follows the math 95% of the time and makes his special plays when they might present themselves to get lucky. His position, as he explained it to me, is that it is almost impossible to be an APer because there are so few casinos offering the vital elements needed including positive expectation machines, the appropriate cash back, etc.

Besides, he says, there are other things to do in life besides grind away at machines. This is why the better elements of his system might actually appear as completely logical to the general public who haven't studied the math or the precise differences between certain holds.

The classic example is Rob advocating that you hold triple aces in Triple Double Bonus while dropping the kicker. The "math" says to hold the kicker. And I suspect that if you asked a thousand players at random -- not knowing if they know the math or not -- Singer's hold of only the three aces would be what the vast majority would choose.

I aware of the fact that he says he does not dispute the math. What I believe he disputes is some of "the maths"conclusions, which is more or less the same thing as disputing the math. For instance he proposes that the house always retains the edge, even if the odds are in the players' favor, because the players can never get to the long term. This implies that the house gets out more wagers than the players. I have it on the best of authority that "the house" and the players get out EXACTLY the same number of wagers, unless somehow the house is playing with itself. It is not possible for the house to have an edge due to volume of play because every single bet, wager, or hand of video poker requires a player to make it. The volume of play is identical on both sides. I believe the confusion also stems from the fact that his definition of certain words do not match dictionary definitions and so it's hard to understand what he means a lot of the time. His definition of "edge" appears to include some additional concepts beyond merely the odds of the game.

At this point all I know is that I don't know everything. I'm working on it.

[Alan Mendelson]

I aware of the fact that he says he does not dispute the math. What I believe he disputes is some of "the maths"conclusions, which is more or less the same thing as disputing the math. For instance he proposes that the house always retains the edge, even if the odds are in the players' favor, because the players can never get to the long term. This implies that the house gets out more wagers than the players. I have it on the best of authority that "the house" and the players get out EXACTLY the same number of wagers, unless somehow the house is playing with itself. It is not possible for the house to have an edge due to volume of play because every single bet, wager, or hand of video poker requires a player to make it. The volume of play is identical on both sides. I believe the confusion also stems from the fact that his definition of certain words do not match dictionary definitions and so it's hard to understand what he means a lot of the time. His definition of "edge" appears to include some additional concepts beyond merely the odds of the game.

I'm not sure if he is aware of his alteration of standard words with well defined meanings. I'm working on it.

I agree, the house plays the same number of hands as all the players combined but does that mean that the individual player is in the same position as the accumulated results of all of the players?

I tend to agree that as a group, when all the players are playing a positive expectation game, then all of the players playing proper strategy as a group probably do have an edge. But does that mean an individual player will have the same results as the aggregate? Of course not, and you know that.

You've told how in one month you were down $45,000 but only because you had a partner did you not lose that month-- sharing with your partner his wins.

Singer's strategy is best applied to individual players seeking to get the most enjoyment from a trip to a casino. It is not meant for professional gamblers seeking the positive expectation games with top tier cash back and perks and comps. It's really a guide to what I could call "everyman's video poker."

Now, with that said, let me also add and this is very important: that I follow proper strategy with few exceptions such as holding only three aces when dealt trip aces with a kicker in triple double bonus. I also like Singer's concept of leaving when you reach a win goal. It just makes sense for someone like me who is not a pro and does not have a partner or a large bankroll, and wants to be able to return for another enjoyable night out at the casino sooner rather than later.

[Frank Kneeland]

I agree, the house plays the same number of hands as all the players combined but does that mean that the individual player is in the same position as the accumulated results of all of the players?

I tend to agree that as a group, when all the players are playing a positive expectation game, then all of the players playing proper strategy as a group probably do have an edge. But does that mean an individual player will have the same results as the aggregate? Of course not, and you know that.

You've told how in one month you were down $45,000 but only because you had a partner did you not lose that month-- sharing with your partner his wins.
.

You seem to be suffering from the same ??? (Gosh I'm not sure what to call it)...I think I'll call it "miss-definition" of the word "edge", which is the reciprocal of the odds for the game. The volume of play, real or potential is not part of this calculation. If the house offered a game where the odds were in the players favor, and all the players combined, did indeed have an edge, then each individual player would also have an edge. Think of it using set logic.

Edge + Edge + Edge = Edge
No edge + no edge + no edge = cannot add up to edge

What you and Rob seem to be talking about is standard deviation, the law of large numbers and regression to mean; which all state that the more you play the closer your results should be to expectation when looked at relative to total trial volume. These ARE really important concepts and SHOULD be on people's minds, but they are not related to the odds of the game or the "edge" players or casino's.

The house's edge or the player's edge is calculated based on the game's odds and is independent & irrespective of play volume.

Take an easy game like Roulette that pays 35 to 1 for a single number bet. There are 38 possible stops on the wheel so the odds are calculated:

36/38 = .9473 (The games return)
1 - .9473 = 0.0527 (The house's edge)

Now you will notice that any mention of play, players, volume of play, etc...is conspicuous by its absence. Who's playing, how many people are playing, how many wagers those people who are playing intend to play, simply aren't part of this calculation. Therefore, it does not matter if we use the term "edge" for a single player, all the players, or the house; it is a statement about the odds of the game and is the same for all parties on both sides of a wager, whether the be noble or gross.

Lastly, the concept of standard deviation means that in a small number of trials your results are more likely to deviate from expectation. Deviation can be both up and down. It is not a one way process that only ever subtracts. It can help as much as it hurts.

[Alan Mendelson]

Here's what I know and what a lot of other gamblers know:

It's gambling. The edge may be on my side, the odds may be on my side, the chance of winning may be on my side, but when the money is in my pocket it's my money.

And if I have a nice win and I've won enough money to bring a nice smile to my face (a win goal) I'm going to take my money home and enjoy it -- or save it for my next casino outing.

Why is that such a foreign concept to you?