I'd like to get back to discussing goal based play as it applies to advantage play. Rob has accurately made an argument that for some people the knowledge that the more they play, the closer to expectation they are likely to come is a strong incentive to play as much as possible, and that this can lead to abuse. I would define this as dysfunctional advantage play. Rob has further gone on to state that his goal based system is therefore the clear winner because it has more ways to get you out of the casino.
Would it surprise you to know that ALL my advantage play is goal based with even more solid and logical ways to get you out of the casino.
Only dysfunctional AP's play without goals. The functional ones have very clear and omnipresent goals, they are simply different than things like loss limits or win goals.
Here's an example: In advantage play we ignore results in so far as determining whether or not a play is good or bad.
A dysfunctional AP could use that to ignore losses completely and continue to play something for which they were not adequately bankrolled.
A functional AP does not alter their play based on losses, but they would alter their play based on their available bankroll. Therefore in the face of continuous losses they might well alter what they were playing if their bankroll dropped below what was necessary for a given play. It isn't the losses that generate the alteration, it is a logical risk assessment based on math that would and should alter your behavior...and it would be dependent not on how much you had lost but on how much you had left.
One is logical the other is not. The difference is not slight.
Would you like to guess at what some of the other logical goals of functional AP's are???
Reply With Quote