You've both said there's no reason a person can't keep hitting win goals and winning session after session have you not? What did you mean by this? Are you saying that you accidentally omitted mentioning all the losing sessions required to bring a game to a negative expectation?
You just contradicted yourself. First you said "allow the player to have more control" and then you said "it still all depends on the RNG". If it all depends on the RNG what control have you provided with win/loss goals? The answer is none but I don't think you will ever accept reality. You don't want it to be true so you ignore the facts and end up contradicting yourself like some bumbling idiot.
What I've told is the math of the game tells you IT DOESN'T MATTER. Pay attention. If you want to employ them that's fine, just don't think it will make a difference over any other method.
The probability of winning (making any kind of profit) is based on the amount of the edge and increases as the number of hands increase. This is simple math, Alan. Since the probability of winning increases with more hands played why would you want to have any limits?
It's almost laughable that you thought you were making some kind of point by putting random in all caps. The randomness is key to our ability to compute the probabilities.