Setting Win Limitations

[Frank Kneeland]

Then Frank, how could you possibly oppose Singer's advice to quit when you hit a win goal?

I did not say that I opposed Singer's advice to quit when you hit a win goal? I said it wasn't logical.

Saying that something is not logical, and saying that you oppose it are two totally different things. I met a girl I really liked last week that's not the least bit logical. I have no intention of opposing her, unless it is perpendicular opposition, if you know what I mean? Quitting when you are ahead is perfectly fine in the context of the Singer system. But let's not muddy the waters with logic.

I am not against the practice of quitting ahead for the day for recreational players. Even if they aren't really ahead, and they aren't really quiting. Hay it's a fantasy anyway, might as well enjoy it. I am only against the practice for contrived reasons. In other words, you have my blessing to do as you please, as long as YOU are clear that it is an emotional decision with no mathematical precedent. It's the confabulated justifications that get up my skirt, as they are indicative of risk factors for problem gambling. If you have any doubt of this fact please read the book Best Possible Odds by Dr. William McCown.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank: Nothing is more delusional than Vegas casinos.

Yes Alan, that was what I was saying. Which is why I ended my post with, "And as for Vegas, Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure".

[Alan Mendelson]

OK, Frank. Then this followup question: must you have a mathematical application for something to be logical? I ask that because you wrote "In other words, you have my blessing to do as you please, as long as YOU are clear that it is an emotional decision with no mathematical precedent."

Is someone who scores a win at a casino and cashes out the win to make his car payment the next day not using logic, or good sense-- even though he might return to the casino a week later?

[Frank Kneeland]

I've been following all the discussions with everyone with keen interest, but now I'm not sure that the outcome of all this will be couched in terms that will apply to me as the average VP player. If I am off base, then perhaps Frank will clarify: is the "Frank & Rob" thing being done from the perspective and for the benefit of the professional gambler or regular guys like me? With Frank's background being that of a member of a team which plays progressives, how will this play into all of this since most of us are definitely not a part of a team and progressives are not necessarily a specialty with us.

Vic, my main interest in the Singer system is it's ability to reach and help people that standard AP cannot, because AP requires an understanding of probability math and other factors, that honestly most American's could not pronounce, let alone possess. Rob said to me that he believes his system has less addictive potential than AP or standard non system gambling, and on that alone I intend to give it as good an evaluation as I can. If these claims prove to be true I will support it as an alternative to AP, because problem gambling is becoming a serious problem in this country. Anything that helps, should not be dismissed.

[Alan Mendelson]

Vic, my main interest in the Singer system is it's ability to reach and help people that standard AP cannot, because AP requires an understanding of probability math and other factors, that honestly most American's could not pronounce, let alone possess. Rob said to me that he believes his system has less addictive potential than AP or standard non system gambling, and on that alone I intend to give it as good an evaluation as I can. If these claims prove to be true I will support it as an alternative to AP, because problem gambling is becoming a serious problem in this country. Anything that helps, should not be dismissed.

Whoa... are you now saying that "advantage play" is addictive or can be addictive? I think advantage play might keep you in a casino too long and might keep you grinding away instead of cashing out a big win and do other things, but I don't understand how "advantage play" would trigger someone to become addicted to a game?

[Frank Kneeland]

OK, Frank. Then this followup question: must you have a mathematical application for something to be logical? I ask that because you wrote "In other words, you have my blessing to do as you please, as long as YOU are clear that it is an emotional decision with no mathematical precedent."

Is someone who scores a win at a casino and cashes out the win to make his car payment the next day not using logic, or good sense-- even though he might return to the casino a week later?

Of course he is not. He's an idiot. If he needs to cash out a win to make his car payment, he should never have been gambling in the first place. Look Alan, we kicked this around for two weeks on LVA and the best minds there could not come up with a logical reason to quite ahead, because one simply does not exist. For starters, it isn't quiting, unless you never play again. The entire premise is flawed. It's like building a house on sand. It will not stand.

No one is saying you can't do it. Making emotional decisions is a normal integral part of everyday life. Go yea forth and be happy.

I'm about to go watch an episode of Mythbusters for no logical reason whatsoever. But I'm not fooling myself, I'm saying it isn't logical.

[Frank Kneeland]

Whoa... are you now saying that "advantage play" is addictive or can be addictive? I think advantage play might keep you in a casino too long and might keep you grinding away instead of cashing out a big win and do other things, but I don't understand how "advantage play" would trigger someone to become addicted to a game?

All types of gambling have the potential for addiction. Advantage Play is not immune, and just because you aren't losing doesn't mean you don't have a problem.

It is Rob's contention that "advantage play" is more addictive than his system. I REALLY want to test this. At this point it is an unsubstantiated claim (I'm not disputing it).

It is my belief that "advantage play" is far less addictive than normal no system gambling (that doesn't mean it is harmless). If Rob's system was even less problem prone than AP, it would be of great interest to current treatment strategies and researchers.

[Alan Mendelson]

OK, the car payment is a bad example. Instead, he cashes out the win to buy himself a new watch.

And after seeing the long threads about someone and his love triangle I have to question the "best minds" on the other board. LOL

edited to add: I don't think the major debate over Rob's system has anything to do with addiction. Most -- if not all -- of the debate has been about whether it will help you to make a profit.

[Frank Kneeland]

OK, the car payment is a bad example. Instead, he cashes out the win to buy himself a new watch.

And after seeing the long threads about someone and his love triangle I have to question the "best minds" on the other board. LOL

edited to add: I don't think the major debate over Rob's system has anything to do with addiction. Most -- if not all -- of the debate has been about whether it will help you to make a profit.

If he is playing with a logical bankroll, no amount of money he lost or won in the course of day (or month) should be required for any immediate purchase of any kind. Gambling under bankrolled is illogical.

I agree with you that using the LVA board as an example was a bad idea. Before I posted it on LVA I asked several 150+ IQ friends if it had a logical solution and none of them could find one.

Why do you need it to be logical? Just do it. I promise not to tell on you, or turn you into the mattress police.

As far as the current debates on the RS system having not been about addiction, you are correct. I think I'm the only VP author seriously worried about pathological gambling. It is counter productive to book sales, but I'd rather help people than turn a profit any day.

[arcimede$]

The claim that Singer's system is less addictive is nonsense. First of all it would have to do what it claims, it does not. Second, it does lead to more session wins ... guess what, wins are what gets the dopamine going. If anything, his system has to be MORE addictive.

Finally, the claim is like saying drinking alcohol a little bit at a time will not cause problems. Yeah, right.

[Frank Kneeland]

The claim that Singer's system is less addictive is nonsense. First of all it would have to do what it claims, it does not. Second, it does lead to more session wins ... guess what, wins are what gets the dopamine going. If anything, his system has to be MORE addictive.

Finally, the claim is like saying drinking alcohol a little bit at a time will not cause problems. Yeah, right.

Three years ago I would have agreed with you and given it no further thought. ALL the research I have read about current problem gambling treatment strategies would indicate that many if not most of the effective methods are not based in fact and if anything involving lying to the patients. GA not only tells people that gambling is completely unbeatable, it employs the "disease model" and convinces people that they must surrender to a higher power. It remains the most effective treatment strategy available. Though there is also debate on its severity of relapse, because the same things they teach people to get them to quite also make them more prone to relapse (and may increase the severity of relapse). The debate is ongoing and unresolved. The researchers doing all the work on the issue state emphatically that the entire psychology field must maintain an open minded and eclectic mind set and focus only on what works, rather than what is empirically "true".

It is therefore not necessary in any way for the Singer system to have to do what it claims to possibly have the ability to reduce pathological gambling potential. Those two dynamics may be completely unrelated.

That's like saying that for the placebo effect to work the medication must be real. Or that only "real" placebos are effective. It is a non-sequitur. What concerns me is the nocebo effect.

I am extremely dubious that the Singer system is less addictive than conventional no-system gambling. But the only way to know for sure is to do a scientific study. These aren't concepts you can define and resolve with math or a VP trainer. I recommend you withhold any speculation and let me pass the issue along to the scientific community for proper evaluation. I have the country's top gambling addiction researcher working on it. Until I have word, I would recommend the book Best Possible Odds to get you up to speed.

~FK

P.S. BTW: Drinking alcohol a little bit at a time will not cause problems. Most doctors recommend two glasses of red wine a day with meals. Both of my doctors told me to drink two, so I drink four (nothing wrong with my math skills 2x2 =4)...hm, if I had three doctors?

[redietz]

I argued many of these points previously. Defining "addiction" is key here, and I'm not going to touch that monster. I'll stick to evaluation of profit/loss. To put it simply, given the current state of video poker, and evaluating ALL video poker players, would everyone adopting the "Singer system" reduce the casinos' bottom line? Second question, would all non-advantage-players' adopting of the "Singer system" reduce the casinos' bottom line? Now I think arcimedes feels it would not. I strongly feel it would.

These are fascinating topics and worth exploring.

By the way, all of the AA, GA, and so on methodologies appear, in macro-studies as of 10 years ago, to have the same or less efficacy as simply having friends or any social group who wants you to "get well."

What Frank says is correct regarding the truth not "working." However, let's define "working" before going further. For most of these so-called treatment options, the efficacy is very, very low. It's better than doing nothing, but not better than having your social group supporting you as you attempt to clean up your act. So while the "truth" doesn't work, the other stuff really doesn't work much better, although you'll have a tough time getting the psychological industry to publicly admit that. You will get the occasional journal macro-study that basically exposes the emperor as having no clothes, but these are increasingly difficult to get published. It's hard, after all, to get funded (and tenure) demonstrating that your departmental specialty doesn't really work.

[Frank Kneeland]

I argued many of these points previously. Defining "addiction" is key here, and I'm not going to touch that monster. I'll stick to evaluation of profit/loss. To put it simply, given the current state of video poker, and evaluating ALL video poker players, would everyone adopting the "Singer system" reduce the casinos' bottom line? Second question, would all non-advantage-players' adopting of the "Singer system" reduce the casinos' bottom line? Now I think arcimedes feels it would not. I strongly feel it would.

These are fascinating topics and worth exploring.

By the way, all of the AA, GA, and so on methodologies appear, in macro-studies as of 10 years ago, to have the same or less efficacy as simply having friends or any social group who wants you to "get well."

What Frank says is correct regarding the truth not "working." However, let's define "working" before going further. For most of these so-called treatment options, the efficacy is very, very low. It's better than doing nothing, but not better than having your social group supporting you as you attempt to clean up your act. So while the "truth" doesn't work, the other stuff really doesn't work much better, although you'll have a tough time getting the psychological industry to publicly admit that. You will get the occasional journal macro-study that basically exposes the emperor as having no clothes, but these are increasingly difficult to get published. It's hard, after all, to get funded (and tenure) demonstrating that your departmental specialty doesn't really work.

I'm not sure how old your information on GA is. I read a paper on its success rate 8 years ago which agreed with your statement, "slightly better than doing nothing". The Penn and Tellar show on HBO "Bullshit" also did a piece on 12 step programs about 6 years ago that supported this view. EXTREMELY recent research has placed the efficacy of programs like GA far higher. You should listen to the 3 interviews I did with Dr. William McCown on my radio show. https://www.progressivevp.com/radio_show.php

I hate GA and all they stand for. I tried to volunteer and they treated my like an illegitimate child at the family reunion. I have set aside my disdain for them, based on the recent indications that it is having a more positive effect than previously believed. I remain vigilant and hopeful that GA will be debunked and all their facilities accidentally burned to the ground. But it won't be "my accident" so long as the science says it is helping people. If your information is more than six months old, you'll need to restudy to get current.

~FK

P.S. Pluto is no longer a planet.

[arcimede$]

Three years ago I would have agreed with you and given it no further thought. ALL the research I have read about current problem gambling treatment strategies would indicate that many if not most of the effective methods are not based in fact and if anything involving lying to the patients. GA not only tells people that gambling is completely unbeatable, it employs the "disease model" and convinces people that they must surrender to a higher power. It remains the most effective treatment strategy available. Though there is also debate on its severity of relapse, because the same things they teach people to get them to quite also make them more prone to relapse (and may increase the severity of relapse). The debate is ongoing and unresolved. The researchers doing all the work on the issue state emphatically that the entire psychology field must maintain an open minded and eclectic mind set and focus only on what works, rather than what is empirically "true".

It is therefore not necessary in any way for the Singer system to have to do what it claims to possibly have the ability to reduce pathological gambling potential. Those two dynamics may be completely unrelated.

That's like saying that for the placebo effect to work the medication must be real. Or that only "real" placebos are effective. It is a non-sequitur. What concerns me is the nocebo effect.

I am extremely dubious that the Singer system is less addictive than conventional no-system gambling. But the only way to know for sure is to do a scientific study. These aren't concepts you can define and resolve with math or a VP trainer. I recommend you withhold any speculation and let me pass the issue along to the scientific community for proper evaluation. I have the country's top gambling addiction researcher working on it. Until I have word, I would recommend the book Best Possible Odds to get you up to speed.

I'm skeptical of a lot of research these days. So, pardon me if I don't jump on the bandwagon. So much research bias gets through the cracks. The reason the truth may not work is that other lies have not been sufficiently countered and the person still does not have all the facts.

OTOH, we have our host continuing to accept illogical beliefs. Maybe he would make a good candidate for study.

P.S. BTW: Drinking alcohol a little bit at a time will not cause problems. Most doctors recommend two glasses of red wine a day with meals. Both of my doctors told me to drink two, so I drink four (nothing wrong with my math skills 2x2 =4)...hm, if I had three doctors?

Since we were discussing problem gambling I assumed you would take my comment on alcohol consumption in that context. I guess I was mistaken.

[Frank Kneeland]

I'm skeptical of a lot of research these days. So, pardon me if I don't jump on the bandwagon. So much research bias gets through the cracks. The reason the truth may not work is that other lies have not been sufficiently countered and the person still does not have all the facts.

OTOH, we have our host continuing to accept illogical beliefs. Maybe he would make a good candidate for study.



Since we were discussing problem gambling I assumed you would take my comment on alcohol consumption in that context. I guess I was mistaken.

As you know I'm a huge proponent of skepticism, so do your own research and keep me in the loop. I know of your math skills. I'm not hip to your psych skills. So I can judge the level of your knowledge on the subject, what do you know about pathological gambling now and from whence does this info originate?

My comments on alcohol were purely humorous, I knew what you meant.

[Frank Kneeland]

To Alan. The primary reason for my LVA post about the logic of "quitting ahead" was for amusement, as I more or less knew it was impossible. If you would like to continue "the fun" please have at it. Just don't take it too seriously as I believe it is impossible. Here are your tasks:

1. Come up with a logical reason why anyone should not count their lifetime results in a calculation of whether or not they are "ahead".
2. Come up with a logical reason why it should be considered "quitting" if you intend to play again.
3. Then come up with a stable logic string where the A variable remains constant and the only difference is the amount won from the time you began playing.

A +$0 = Decision to play
A + $100 = Decision to "quit"
assuming a lifetime result of -$40,000, this would modify to:
A - $40,000 = Decision to play
A - $39,900 = Decision to "quit"
assuming a lifetime result of +$40,000, this would modify to:
A + $40,000 = Decision to play
A + $40,100 = Decision to "quit"

Note: If you choose to redefine "quitting" to incorporate resuming at some point in the future, you will need to explain what changes between the time you quit and left, and the time you returned and resumed.
To be logical you must keep the entire discussion free from any emotional or subjective variables. You don't get to use things like "fun" or phrases like, "Because I wanted to".

"A" can be any number of variables that lead up to your decision as long as they do not change. Therefore things like "fatigue" would have no bearing as your fatigue level would be considered the same for both decisions. Your are making a decision to leave or stay based solely on having just won $100 and coming to different conclusions, explain the logic.

[Alan Mendelson]

I enjoy a good discussion so yes, I'll have at it and hope others will also contibute their thoughts.

However, I'm going to have to break down your discussion points a bit more than what you outlined.

Here's what you wrote, and my responses:

"The primary reason for my LVA post about the logic of "quitting ahead" was for amusement, as I more or less knew it was impossible."

Well, being someone who does not play positive expectation games, I have to say first of all that I think there are very few people who are ahead after a lifetime of play, unless they hit some sort of mega jackpot. A neighbor in my former neighborhood of Valencia, CA hit the California lotto twice. I think he will finish "ahead" over his lifetime.

"Here are your tasks:

1. Come up with a logical reason why anyone should not count their lifetime results in a calculation of whether or not they are "ahead".

Some people measure their casino results over a lifetime, and some over a trip. The IRS wants to know your results over an annual basis to figure your tax liability. Ideally we'd all like to be "up" over our lifetime of play. Saying that you won on one trip or for one year but lost over another 20 years is not a true assessment of "how you did."

2. Come up with a logical reason why it should be considered "quitting" if you intend to play again.

"quitting" needs a qualifier-- are you quitting for the session, the day, the trip, the year or for the rest of your life.

3. Then come up with a stable logic string where the A variable remains constant and the only difference is the amount won from the time you began playing.

A +$0 = Decision to play
A + $100 = Decision to "quit"
assuming a lifetime result of -$40,000, this would modify to:
A - $40,000 = Decision to play
A - $39,900 = Decision to "quit"
assuming a lifetime result of +$40,000, this would modify to:
A + $40,000 = Decision to play
A + $40,100 = Decision to "quit"

Forget this one (above), Frank, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not that "complex" in my thinking.

I keep annual records because the IRS tells me to. I've never had a yearly profit from gambling-- though I've come close. But then, Im not a professional gambler to begin with-- I play in casinos for recreation so winning is not that important to me. What is important is managing my losses and not losing too much so that I can return to the casino to play again. And for this reason, when I find myself "up" a certain amount of money I will quit for that day or weekend so that I can come back again to play.

[Frank Kneeland]

1. Some people measure their casino results over a lifetime, and some over a trip. The IRS wants to know your results over an annual basis to figure your tax liability. Ideally we'd all like to be "up" over our lifetime of play. Saying that you won on one trip or for one year but lost over another 20 years is not a true assessment of "how you did."

2. "quitting" needs a qualifier-- are you quitting for the session, the day, the trip, the year or for the rest of your life.

Forget this one (above), Frank, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not that "complex" in my thinking.

3. I keep annual records because the IRS tells me to. I've never had a yearly profit from gambling-- though I've come close. But then, Im not a professional gambler to begin with-- I play in casinos for recreation so winning is not that important to me. What is important is managing my losses and not losing too much so that I can return to the casino to play again. And for this reason, when I find myself "up" a certain amount of money I will quit for that day or weekend so that I can come back again to play.

I numbered your replies for easier understanding.

In reply to 1: I believe you are agreeing with me here. There is no such thing as "winning" unless one is actually ahead overall. Therefore winning back money one has lost and declaring it "winning" is self disingenuous.

In reply to 2: I believe you just made my point for me. Quitting should not need a qualifier. If one quits and never plays again, it is quitting. If one quits and then plays again it was only a break. In a game involving independent random trials, there is no difference between pausing for a second between hands, pausing for an hour to eat, pausing for a day to sleep, pausing for a month to return home, etc.... They are all the same, as the duration of the "break" is irrelevant. All these things are breaks, not quiting. And breaks have no influence on your results or expectancy whether they be a year or a micro-second. To quit one must never play again, end of story. If you ever play again you did not quit, you just took a break.

In reply to 3: What you seem to be saying is that you sometimes quit when you have reached a win goal to manage bankroll. It is perfectly logical to manage your bankroll by setting loss limits. Everyone has a limit to how much they can lose. The same does not apply to Win Goals, which make no sense, other than to give the player a contrived goal, that gives them a false sense of accomplishment when they reach it.

I'm sorry the puzzle was too hard. It's fun to try to solve it even if there is no solution.

It is logical to leave a casino when one is fatigued. It is logical to leave a casino when the progressive one was playing for is down, or the promotion that one was playing ends. It is not logical to leave as a result of results (I was going to say "winning", but then I remembered "winning" sometimes means "losing less").

~FK

[arcimede$]

Frank has it right. Everything Alan and Singer have been saying about quitting while ahead is pure emotion. It has nothing to do with what results a person will achieve over time.

Now, that doesn't mean that the emotion is a bad thing. It's just not logical nor will it change a player's expectation. Unfortunately, it appears both Alan and Singer believe it WILL change their results. This type of math challenged thinking can only lead to problems. You guys really need to accept the truth.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks for the comments Frank and Arc. But I think that for me, and for the general public, anytime you leave the casino "up" any amount of money, you get the satisfaction and entertainment that you set out to get, plus you put some extra money is your pocket. Why is that "bad logic"? Why is leaving the casino with more money than you started with a bad thing or illogical?

Perhaps every time in my life (more than 35 years of going to casinos) I have been "up" at some point. Had I cashed out at the point when I was "up" (whether it was $10 or $10,000) I would be much wealthier today.

So I am going to ask you professionals this: why do you have to keep playing to the point where you lose for that session?