And just one more comment here which should have made a long time ago: there is an obvious bias in this entire thread because Frank titled it "Setting Win Limitations" which makes it seem that anyone who doesn't follow the mantra of "advantage play" is making himself lose money. On the other hand, leaving after reaching win goals affords you the opportunity leave with a profit.
Hang on a minute. I was talking to Alan & you included Rob. When last I spoke to Rob, I had him clarify what he meant by Win Goals and they are not what you think, or the same as what Alan does.Originally Posted by arcimede$
I would like to keep these conversations free from "he said, she said" confusion. If we are going to talk to Alan, then lets not include other people and what we think they think they think.
Dear Alan, what I'm saying and what you are hearing appear to only be moderately correlated. I never said it was "a bad thing".Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
In answer to your last question, "why do you have to keep playing to the point where you lose for that session?". The fact that you are asking this tells me you have missed 90% of everything I have attempted to impart to you.
A: Because we don't do this. (You are asking why we do something we don't do) Therefore, there is no answer.
B: Secondly you seem to use arbitrary periods of time that you call "sessions" to add demarcation to tiny portions of your lifelong play. We don't do that. We don't think of it that way. There is no logical reason for thinking of it that way.
C: My "session" began when I turned 21 and starting gambling. It will end when I retire from playing forever or die. If you can't understand that the Tabula Rasa fairy pays me no visits then you aren't ever going to understand my way of thinking. I cannot have a losing "session" because I'm ahead overall in my life gambling and don't compartmentalize my play by days or weeks, and don't employ the concept of "sessions".
I was not trying to talk you out of doing what you do, which you seem to feel that I am. This is yet another misunderstanding. And BTW you are misunderstanding the Singer system as well. I asked him directly and leaving the casino for the day when one reaches a win goal is not part of his methodology. This is apparently something you added.
~FK
Last edited by Frank Kneeland; 08-18-2011 at 12:28 PM.
I entitled the post "Setting Win Limitations" because I thought that's what they were called. You corrected me that they were called "win goals" and I'm trying to use that term now. As I'm really not that familiar with the concept this was just a labeling error on my part. I may have repeated the error, because the term is new an unfamiliar. I'll try to call it by its correct label in the future.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Secondly, please stop making me out to be an Advantage Play advocate. It is my least favorite job that I have ever had, and you keep making it sound like I like it and that I'm recommending it to others. Just because I wrote a history book does not mean I'm telling people to repeat that history. I was hoping that people might read my book and avoid the mistakes I made in my life.
Rob will tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear. The fact is he has stated many times that if he reaches his "win goal" he gets up and leaves the casino and goes home. He has even bragged about leaving minutes after arriving from AZ.Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland
This is equivalent to what Alan is stating.
Last edited by arcimede$; 08-18-2011 at 02:14 PM.
Frank already responded that this has nothing to do with how others play including professionals. There are two errors in your claims.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
1) You assume everyone gets ahead at some point in their daily play.
2) That continuing to play after a win will always result in losses.
Both of those statements are pure nonsense. However, if you have convinced yourself they are true it does explain your misconceptions about the real world of gambling.
To Arcimede$:There are ongoing discussions to which you are not privy, and I cannot include you because they are private. I know you are well meaning, everyone is in their own way, even if it is hard for others to see.Originally Posted by arcimede$
In this situation some of your comments are hampering my attempts at communication. I assume that is not your goal.
Could we please drop any talk about Rob, in just this particular thread and focus on Alan's perceptions. Believe it or not, I'm learning some very interesting things about his views.
To Alan: I just had an Ah ha moment. I now believe I understand why we have been talking at cross purposes. You are encapsulating the concepts of "bad idea" and "an admonition to desist" within the word "illogical". I do not expect nor require that all decisions be made logically. I hope that no one I date will act logically, or else my chances of quality snuggle time are severely limited.
Therefore, when I make a statement that something is not "logical" you are imparting meaning that was not intended. I think before we continue we need to lock down the meaning of "logic".
Dictionary definition:
Logic:
a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
b: something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason
log·i·cal (lj-kl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
2. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.
3. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.
And now my definition: Making a decision based on easily calculated factors free from subjective emotional factors, such that one could explain their logic to another, and if they employed it they would reach the same conclusions every time. To meet my criteria for logic a thought process would have to be able to be usable by any number of people and result in the same decision by all of them.
Therefore, logic is more of an unattainable goal than a mantra to live by. It is something to strive for and not get too upset about when it is not attained. Think of it like the electric rabbit that greyhounds chase but never catch. If I accuse you of being illogical, I'm only accusing you of being human.
Frank about this: "I asked him (Singer) directly and leaving the casino for the day when one reaches a win goal is not part of his methodology. This is apparently something you added." Damn, this is what he wrote about in his book, and what we discussed in person. So I am now going to sit on the sidelines about this until Singer himself clarifies this.
No, Arc, I don't think everyone is ahead at some point in their daily play. And I don't think that continuing to play after a win will always result in a losses. But what's wrong with going home after a big win?Originally Posted by arcimede$
Based on the number of times you have thought I meant something that I did not, I have little difficulty believing that this might also extend to things Rob has said as well. I just emailed him and confirmed that I had it right from my last conversation with him.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
His concept of a win goal is related to his progressive betting strategy. One begins and ends a "session" when the goal is reached. Where you are getting confused is because your definition of "session" is completely different from his. This is the inherent problem with using these types of nebulous words that mean different things to different people.
Alan the question you are asking for the gonzilenth time implies that we said it was WRONG to go home after a big win. Neither Arc or I can answer that question, because we never said that. You are either skimming our replies and not reading them all, or misinterpreting them. I can think of no other reason why you would be asking this question.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
A discussion of wrong and right & a discussion of logical and illogical are two totally different conversations.
The word "illogical" does not imply the word "wrong".
There is nothing WRONG with going home after a big win. It is simply isn't logical, but that's OK!
Do you have it now or are you incapable of grasping this concept entirely. No one is saying you are doing something WRONG, please stop putting words in my mouth.
I am in favor of any reason, logical or illogical that results in people leaving a casino and limiting their play. I'd like to abolish all gambling everywhere, but as this is not possible I have to settle on trying to help people gamble better (or less). PLEASE GO HOME AFTER A BIG WIN. Or for any other reason you'd like. Discard all thought and reason if it gets you out of a casino. You have my blessing!
If you are still having any trouble please refer to what I mean by logic: Making a decision based on easily calculated elements free from subjective emotional factors, such that one could explain their logic to another, and if they employed it they would reach the same conclusions every time. To meet my criteria for logic a thought process would have to be able to be usable by any number of people and result in the same decision by all of them.
Therefore "Illogical" would simply mean: Making a decision based on reasons that don't meet the above criteria. The inclusion of subjective or emotional factors, and a thought process that would not necessarily result in identical conclusions by different people employing it.
Neither of these methodologies for decision making is always right or always wrong. They both have their time and place.
Last edited by Frank Kneeland; 08-18-2011 at 05:29 PM.
Frank, something is wrong here: Rob has said repeatedly that he has a win goal of $2500 and when he hits it he leaves. $2500 is a win goal for each trip to a casino and this also applies to his weekend excursions.
I sent him a message myself asking him to clarify.
And Frank, regarding this:
"The word "illogical" does not imply the word "wrong".
There is nothing WRONG with going home after a big win. It is simply isn't logical, but that's OK!"
Thanks for clearing this up. I now understand that when you say something is "illogical" it is not wrong.
In the communications/advertising/media business, the following applies: if the audience misunderstands the message it means we failed to make them understand. Or to put it another way: if they can't understand what you told them, you let your client down.
Last edited by Alan Mendelson; 08-18-2011 at 05:41 PM.
Perhaps I can put this issue to bed by replacing the word "illogical" with its description.
Leaving the casino and going home after a big win is not a decision everyone would make even if they used the same thought process you did.
You are asking the wrong questions. You asked him if he leaves after hitting his win goal. The answer to this is, "yes". You did not ask him why he leaves after he hits his win goal. It is not related to his concept of a "session".Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Ask him if his definition of "session" implies that one must leave a casino and go home when it is completed. You'll find that it does not.
Here's what I asked, "So your concept of 'a session' ends when a loss limit or win goal is reached, but you could play more than one session in a single visit to a casino?" His answer was, "Yes, but I usually go home after a single session because I don't like to play that long in a day."
The key word there was "like" if you missed it in bold.
Last edited by Frank Kneeland; 08-18-2011 at 06:04 PM.
OK super duper. That was easy!Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Excuse me, Frank, but you are raising things that were never brought up before. The only thing Ive discussed is that Singer says he leaves when he hits a win goal of $2500. There was no discussion about anything else including length of session, etc.Originally Posted by Frank Kneeland
OK I give up. I don't understand what you are saying, and I don't think you understand what I am saying. Understanding in any form seems to be absent. I'll bail on the conversation. Believe what you will.Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Here's what Singer has said: He goes to a casino for a trip. He wins $2500 and he leaves because that's his win goal. He sets this win goal because he says he has a starting budget of about $17,000. That's it.
Sometimes, he says, he hits the win goal quickly playing dollars, and sometimes he has to use his "progression" and goes up to $25/coin or even $100/coin to reach it.
No matter at what level, when he reaches a win goal of $2500 (and it might be more like when he hit a royal at the $25/coin level) he is finished.
If Rob says that is not his position, he should say so here.
Alan, you are correct. Singer has always stated he leaves the casino and goes home after achieving his win goal. In fact, I'm sure I can find multiple references where he said exactly that. I'm not surprised he is saying something different to Frank. Singer is a pathological liar and will say whatever he thinks will promote his agenda.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote