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