Setting Win Limitations

[arcimede$]

I agree with most of what Frank said.

However, I think his hoping that Singer's approach would lead to less gambling is likely to be unfruitful. I doubt any approach will change the psychology of a problem gambler. If anything, I would expect a system that leads to more sessions wins to positively enforce any addictive tendencies.

[Alan Mendelson]

I agree with most of what Frank said.

However, I think his hoping that Singer's approach would lead to less gambling is likely to be unfruitful. I doubt any approach will change the psychology of a problem gambler. If anything, I would expect a system that leads to more sessions wins to positively enforce any addictive tendencies.

Did you just say Singer's system would lead or could lead to more session wins?

[Rob.Singer]

Did you just say Singer's system would lead or could lead to more session wins?

Here's arci's canned/blinded response all over the forums to that:

"Singer will win a whole lot of smaller winners, but then the one big devasting loss shows up that wipes out all his winnings--and more". Of course, being that he has less than a 50% knowledge of how it actually is played, it's no surprise that he'd leave out that there are many many more huge winners hit than "devastating" losers, and even that one big loss doesn't come close to wiping away all those "little" $2500 winners.

Unless you feel sorry for him for being stuck at home these days with nothing else to do and a bleak future awaiting, why are you guys messing with the clown anyway? He's only good for one thing: To poke fun at!

Remember how if you wanted everyone to know a secret but didn't want to go around telling it, so you told your best friend in confidence and made them swear not to say anything--and like clockwork the whole world knew in less than 2 hours? Well, my friend arci throws the bowling ball right up the same alley. When he says "what Singer says about me doesn't bother me"--no one who wasn't bothered would ever cough something like that up.

Thank you Dick - it took you a while, but you just made my day!

[Rob.Singer]

A video poker TV show would not be just about strategies or how to play it. A show on video poker could cover many topics ranging from the business of video poker, to addictions linked to it, to the history of the game, to its many variations and how they came about, if it's a game of skill or a game of chance, and its growth since the first video poker machine was invented. Of course, a show could also include profiles of the people who have contributed to the growth of the game.

A show covering a widespread of vp topics is something interesting to me, in that when my segment appeared it would awaken people to the reality that there has got to be something wrong with AP if almost every famous name is selling it....and I mean selling it. When they see how the biggest name in the business is still hustling cash jobs well into his retirement years, and the 2nd biggest name is comfortably retired from professional play and never once made a penny off of anyone from the hundreds of training sessions given--always on my own nickel and sometimes with my own money--along with the tons of important advice administered, it'll all begin to make perfect sense how Single-Play Strategy is much more fun, FAR less addictive, and the only gambling strategy known that would put the casinos out of business if everyone did it right.

BTW, from almost every arci-post in this thread, read & enjoy as he follows his standard pattern while he stalks RS across the Internet: When you poke him once---he'll lie about me or my strategy once; Poke him twice? He'll tell 3 lies, and even say he'll produce a spun/doctored-up snippett of some sort; But poke him 3 times and he'll tell more lies than Bill Clinton hooked up to a polygraph!

[Frank Kneeland]

I agree with most of what Frank said.

However, I think his hoping that Singer's approach would lead to less gambling is likely to be unfruitful. I doubt any approach will change the psychology of a problem gambler. If anything, I would expect a system that leads to more sessions wins to positively enforce any addictive tendencies.

Well I have great news. I met with a licensed gambling addiction counselor tonight and she is on board to help me with evaluating the psychological aspects of the Singer system and its potential to help or hurt people with gambling problems. I'm going to need input from both sides of the argument and then I will provide her all the information in a double blind set up. I'll take both the pro and con arguments written by different people (I'm guessing) and then have a third party rewrite it, so that there is no difference in writing style and pass it along. In this way I hope to get as close to an unbiased opinion as we can in this situation. I'll keep you all posted.

The quandary as I see it about the Singer system's psychological factors in that it contains an even mix of positive attributes and risk factors. It is therefore impossible for me to rule out that it could have a positive effect. There is also no way to test it in an experimental environment as is it is currently illegal to test untested treatment strategies in addiction therapy. No you didn't miss read that.

Positive attributes:
1. Eliminates Zeigarnik effect though clear goal setting
2. Limits dysphoric response by stimulating cognition (thinking about strategy and special plays)
3. Limits playtime (when you reach a goal you quit for the day)
4. Requires record keeping and constant tabs on current results and bankroll
Risk factors:
1. Potential for chasing (you bet more when you are losing)
2. May promote "magical thinking" (A belief in luck)(any belief in luck is considered the greatest risk factor in gambling addiction formation)
3. Increases frequency of winning sessions (which combined with selective memory and illusory control can lead to result bias and gamblers fallacy)

The list is not complete. It will need to be for the analysis by the psychologist.

Someone other than me should compile a list for AP (pro & con), and Rob should provide a list of his own making and an explanation of why he feels it is less addictive than AP. If whoever writes this has no formal psychological training you may wish to enlist the aid of someone with the appropriate knowledge to put things in "doctor speak", or you could read Dr. McCown's new book Treating Gambling Problems which is a guide for clinicians. It should get you up to speed.

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank, I'm neutral on whether or not Singer's system will help or hurt people with gambling problems. Actually, "neutral" might be the wrong word. I really think it has no impact at all on people with gambling problems, nor do I think it would create a gambling problem.

There is one exception to my statement: Rob's system is based on the concept that you cannot win over the long term which might prevent some people from playing too much thinking they can beat the casino over the long term. But it would take a rational person to understand that, and I don't think people with a gambling problem are rational.

That's my unprofessional and uneducated opinion on the subject.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, I'm neutral on whether or not Singer's system will help or hurt people with gambling problems. Actually, "neutral" might be the wrong word. I really think it has no impact at all on people with gambling problems, nor do I think it would create a gambling problem.

There is one exception to my statement: Rob's system is based on the concept that you cannot win over the long term which might prevent some people from playing too much thinking they can beat the casino over the long term. But it would take a rational person to understand that, and I don't think people with a gambling problem are rational.

That's my unprofessional and uneducated opinion on the subject.

I'm sorry I thought his reasoning behind advocating a short term strategy was that he believes an individual cannot reach "the long term". I'm not sure he says that if you did reach the long term you cannot win with AP strategy. Of course my whole thing with running the team was to employ so many people playing so much we did reach the long term. Naturally this not be viable for an individual. Out team likely got out more hands in a week than most people will play in their lives.

~FK

P.S. In reply to your last comment. As the discussion of gambling addiction is so serious there really is no place for unprofessional and uneducated opinions on the subject. This is why I'm calling in a professional. I'm not any more officially qualified than you are. Dr. McCown also says that no amount of book study is sufficient and it requires first hand experience to become versed in the field.

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank, my wording was incorrect, and your wording is correct: ...he believes an individual cannot reach "the long term".

[Rob.Singer]

The positive aspects of my strategy, inasmuch as I've actually experienced them.

1. The vast majority of video poker players hit the casinos with whatever money they either have in their pockets, can scrounge from their accounts, or can get from their credit cards. My strategy REQUIRES that you only play with a gambling-only bankroll, that you never apply for or get casino credit, that you stay away from cashing personal checks at casino cages, and you absolutely 100% ignore casino ATM's.

2. The number of winning sessions that I've experienced (which are a lot more than anything most players experience) have nothing at all to do with feeling giddy or wanting to play more than I should. That's because if strictly followed, the strategy promotes taking time out to enjoy the wins or lick the wounds. Further, at the onset when I go to the bank to retrieve initial funds for the visit, I start off loaded with cash. But inside the casino that cash immediately transforms into simple units of play, and is not realized as cash again until leaving the casino.

3. When I played as an AP from 1990-1996, I was singly interested in playing as often as I could and as much as I could, so I could grind my way into the long-term as fast as possible. After just a few visits I discovered I really didn't want to stop or leave, and even though I was overseas most of each month all my mind would think about was when I got back and how much time I had to play. I was constantly adding up the numbers, getting unduly excited over the amounts of slot card benefits I was piling up, and I just couldn't wait to sit at my next machine. I was an addict, I knew it, but I successfully ignored it until 1995 when I decided it was time to do something about it. I was under the spell of the machines, the slot clubs, the action, and the casinos controlled me.

Then, things completely changed. My strategy turned the situation around 180 degrees. Slot clubs and their benefits were irrelevant to my play; specials and other rope-'em-in promotions had no effect on where or when I would play; and doing exactly the opposite of what the casino managers expected me to do became the order of the day. I was now in total control of the machines and of my play. As such, I was no longer addicted to either playing or to the slot club cards. I was now playing SPS an avg. of maybe 3 hours a week, whereas I used to play marathon 6-16 hour days as an AP.

4. You read the forums and columns and you'll hear a lot about how this game is "playable" and that game isn't etc. etc. etc. Another positive aspect of my strategy is that any game...any paytable...is beatable - and beatable consistently. While I do look for the best paytable where I choose to play, game EV doesn't matter because I'm only playing for a short while, and anything can happen at any time on any machine. I patiently await good fortune, which immediately sends me home upon arrival. AP's simply play right thru big winners as if they didn't even occur. That's the key: I play to get out of there; AP's play because the more they play the closer to theoretical EV they will get IF they make few to no mistakes--which, of course, is impossible.

[Alan Mendelson]

Rob, all four of your points illustrate your strong self-discipline. But I do not see how, besides your self-discipline, your system or strategy stops, deters, or ends addiction? Basically your four points come down to this:

1. have a firm bankroll, and no cheating
2. having a firm win goal/loss limit
3. not playing for comps and sticking to your money management plan
4. sticking with your win goal/loss limit strategy regardless of pay tables

ALL of these are admirable, but again all of these come down to self discipline and self discipline is not unique to your system. I think the question that Frank is investigating is that somehow your system can have a positive impact on the problem of addiction and I'm not sure what it is beyond your self discipline?

[Frank Kneeland]

Rob, all four of your points illustrate your strong self-discipline. But I do not see how, besides your self-discipline, your system or strategy stops, deters, or ends addiction? Basically your four points come down to this:

1. have a firm bankroll, and no cheating
2. having a firm win goal/loss limit
3. not playing for comps and sticking to your money management plan
4. sticking with your win goal/loss limit strategy regardless of pay tables

ALL of these are admirable, but again all of these come down to self discipline and self discipline is not unique to your system. I think the question that Frank is investigating is that somehow your system can have a positive impact on the problem of addiction and I'm not sure what it is beyond your self discipline?

You're nearly correct. Before publishing my book I did an extra two years of research into gambling addiction to make as certain as I could, that telling my story and talking about progressive teams would not promote anything negative. It is no coincidence that the largest chapter in my book and the one that took me the longest to write is chapter two, which entirely deals with misconceptions and perception. The goal was to mitigate any possible misunderstandings that could lead to issues.

I feel very strongly that a gambling system should first and foremost do no harm, and secondly be a positive effect in peoples lives. Notice I have completely side stepped the issue of winning and money. It is possible to be a winner and still have a gambling problem. I like the goal orientated aspect of Rob's sys. I of course have issues with some of the other elements. The question will be if the net effect is positive.

It is not so much that I'm looking at it as a form of treatment. I just want to make sure it won't through fuel on a fire. None of this has anything to do with whether or not the system works. I am thinking about how it is perceived. Perception is irrespective of reality.

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank, a question: does an addicted gambler who has the restraint/discipline to limit his gambling to one bet still an addict?

Another question: does an addicted gambler who has the restraint/discipline to limit his gambling to a win goal/loss limit still an addict?

[Rob.Singer]

Rob, all four of your points illustrate your strong self-discipline. But I do not see how, besides your self-discipline, your system or strategy stops, deters, or ends addiction? Basically your four points come down to this:

1. have a firm bankroll, and no cheating
2. having a firm win goal/loss limit
3. not playing for comps and sticking to your money management plan
4. sticking with your win goal/loss limit strategy regardless of pay tables

ALL of these are admirable, but again all of these come down to self discipline and self discipline is not unique to your system. I think the question that Frank is investigating is that somehow your system can have a positive impact on the problem of addiction and I'm not sure what it is beyond your self discipline?

First it highly promotes self-discipline, which in and of itself is an addiction deterrent. Then, the entire purpose of the strategy was to develop a way in which the casinos did not control me any longer with their promotions and specials and slot club card reel-ins. It makes it far more desireable to play knowing every aspect of what you're doing is totally under your own control, and you're not being yo-yo'd by some slick marketing type or aggressive casino manager.

Finally, the goal of the strategy is to just get out of the casino and stop playing. Those who go after AP know full well that the more they play the closer to expectation they get, so quitting before they're tired or have something else to do is usually ignored. And it is not whether one wins or loses that causes machine addiction--it's the amount of time one spends at the machines. You hear all sorts of excuses from AP's & "pros" claiming they are not gambling because it's a "job" or a "hobby where they make a supplemental income". And even though they're sitting in casinos and at a gambling machine, they are somehow able to spin that BS in their own minds just to ignore that they are addicted to playing the game.

SPS, as you know, has a concept that is totally opposite this approach: Get in--get out, and don't go back just because it's quadruple points day, there's some sort of cash-frenzy giveaway going on, or they're awarding a new car to the addict who gets the most points today. That's not lack of discipline on their part or just strong discipline on mine. It's the difference between being able to stay away and not being able to stay away, i.e., the difference between addiction and non-addiction. And that's what my strategy is all about, first and foremost.

[Alan Mendelson]

Fair enough Rob, I can't argue with those "rules of play." They are beneficial for everyone.

But your critics are going to say that having a budget, having a win goal and a loss limit, and not playing for comps, and setting a certain amount of time for casino action is not unique to "the Rob Singer system."

I think the critics will also say that these beneficial rules of self discipline do not justify making your "special plays" which violate the "accepted math." Be prepared for that.

But I have always said that the idea of hitting a win goal and bolting is an excellent idea that everyone should follow. It might not follow the "logic" of the math (as my critics have pointed out here) but it certainly gives you time to enjoy the win. And there is nothing wrong with leaving with more cash than you came to the casino with.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, a question: 1. does an addicted gambler who has the restraint/discipline to limit his gambling to one bet still an addict?

Another question: 2. does an addicted gambler who has the restraint/discipline to limit his gambling to a win goal/loss limit still an addict?

In answer to 1: Probably not, if you only ever made one bet in your entire life, it would be unlikely that addiction could be a factor as most clinical definitions of "addiction" require time to develop. One definition of problem gambling involves the level of preoccupation with the activity in question. A person could still meet several of the criteria in the DSM-IV for disordered gambling and be classified a problem gambler, but only people that meet five out of the ten criteria are considered to be pathological gamblers. It would be very easy to meet some of the criteria without having to ever play at all. You would merely need to think about it.

In Answer to 2: First, your question is impossible to answer because you did not include a time frame. You asked, "who has the restraint/discipline to limit his gambling to a win goal/loss limit" with no reference to time. A blackjack player that is betting $100 per hand is limiting his win goal/loss limit to $100 for that hand (not including doubling and splitting)...and then he plays another hand after that one. A person that has win goals/loss limits but leaves the casino only to return another time is IDENTICAL TO THE BLACKJACK PLAYER in everything but the duration of delay between wagering again.

Second, the word, "addict" and "addicted gambling" are not in widespread use as medical terms anymore. The primary medical calcifications are now:
1. Pathological Gambler (meets five or more of the criteria in the DSM-IV)
2. Problem Gambler (meets less than five of the criteria in the DSM-IV)

Only three of the criteria would be less likely as a result of self imposed limits. The issue that the person imposing those self limitations felt them necessary in the first place, and thought about it enough to create them, would likely make them meet at least two of the criteria. In other words, if a person had felt the need to create and impose such limits, they might be less likely to be classified as pathological, but they would automatically qualify as a "problem gambler".

I'd really like to state here that these are medical terms and you have asked me to tell you how the medical community views this. These are NOT MY OPINIONS. Keep in mind that the medical community considers nearly all gambling of any kind to be as a result of some sort of cognitive distortion, mental deficit or varying degrees of mental illness.

[Rob.Singer]

Fair enough Rob, I can't argue with those "rules of play." They are beneficial for everyone.

But your critics are going to say that having a budget, having a win goal and a loss limit, and not playing for comps, and setting a certain amount of time for casino action is not unique to "the Rob Singer system."

I think the critics will also say that these beneficial rules of self discipline do not justify making your "special plays" which violate the "accepted math." Be prepared for that.

But I have always said that the idea of hitting a win goal and bolting is an excellent idea that everyone should follow. It might not follow the "logic" of the math (as my critics have pointed out here) but it certainly gives you time to enjoy the win. And there is nothing wrong with leaving with more cash than you came to the casino with.

Name somebody else who doesn't play for comps. Name somebody else who doesn't get a thrill up their leg when they spot a "triple points day" sign, "car-a-month-giveaway" ads, or "free-play frenzy" promotions. Only the addicts respond to those, and almost always under the guise that they're getting some type of non-existent, theoretical "edge" or that they're not gambling but working.

Anyone who believes the special plays that deviate from optimal play are not justified for the simple reason that they go against long-term probability theory, have the most difficult of time understanding that TODAY'S session is unrelated to any that have come before or any that have yet to come. They react as if every one of the special plays I make are being played a million times today, and at the end of my session I'll be behind by X percent because of them.

You cannot pull aside any one or two parts of SPS and comment on them in the context of addiction reduction or not. You have to put all the parts together first, then analyze them as a whole vs. what the AP's do. It was exciting when I finally figured it all out, it was a blast winning all that money, and I enjoy teaching the concepts to other players as often as I can.

[Frank Kneeland]

First it highly promotes self-discipline, which in and of itself is an addiction deterrent. Then, the entire purpose of the strategy was to develop a way in which the casinos did not control me any longer with their promotions and specials and slot club card reel-ins. It makes it far more desirable to play knowing every aspect of what you're doing is totally under your own control, and you're not being yo-yo'd by some slick marketing type or aggressive casino manager.

Finally, the goal of the strategy is to just get out of the casino and stop playing. Those who go after AP know full well that the more they play the closer to expectation they get, so quitting before they're tired or have something else to do is usually ignored. And it is not whether one wins or loses that causes machine addiction--it's the amount of time one spends at the machines. You hear all sorts of excuses from AP's & "pros" claiming they are not gambling because it's a "job" or a "hobby where they make a supplemental income". And even though they're sitting in casinos and at a gambling machine, they are somehow able to spin that BS in their own minds just to ignore that they are addicted to playing the game.

SPS, as you know, has a concept that is totally opposite this approach: Get in--get out, and don't go back just because it's quadruple points day, there's some sort of cash-frenzy giveaway going on, or they're awarding a new car to the addict who gets the most points today. That's not lack of discipline on their part or just strong discipline on mine. It's the difference between being able to stay away and not being able to stay away, i.e., the difference between addiction and non-addiction. And that's what my strategy is all about, first and foremost.

I have been one of the biggest and most outspoken voices for the addictive potential of Advantage play. In five of my radio show broadcasts this was the primary topic or at least brought up and discussed with professionals in the field. Therefore I would be the first to say that AP can be addictive and that winning is no insulation from problem or pathological gambling. In certain situations, and if certain personality traits are present, the absence of loss only prevents the person with problems from ever seeking help because they never bottom out.

Almost every other thing Rob said involves a dynamic called Locus of Control and pertains to how people perceive themselves in control, and what events are and are not included in this self evaluation. He is then projecting his own Locus of Control onto others and attempting to evaluate their motives based on his own perception of self. It is quite normal to do this, but it is not an effective method for determining anything. You cannot judge other people by your own criteria because people do the SAME things for DIFFERENT reasons.

As an example: I absolutely consider doing what I want when I want to, as a LOSS OF CONTROL. For me to feel "in control" I need to know that external factors and pure math are dictating my actions. The very actions that would make Rob feel "In control" would make me feel "out of control"...see what we are talking about, "feelings". The felling of control is subjective and different for everyone and related to what scientists call your Locus of perception.

Rob isn't wrong per-say, but he is only right for himself. Without a clear reason to play, I (and many others) would feel I was surrendering to emotional desires and I would feel completely "out of control".

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank, Im afraid I wasn't clear with my questions:

Originally I wrote:

Frank, a question: does an addicted gambler who has the restraint/discipline to limit his gambling to one bet still an addict?

Another question: does an addicted gambler who has the restraint/discipline to limit his gambling to a win goal/loss limit still an addict?

Allow me to revise the questions:

Once a gambler who is diagnosed as an addict develops the restraint/discipline to limit his action to one bet is he still an addict?

And the revised second question: does a diagnosed addicted gamblers who has the restraint/discipline to limit his gambling to meet a win goal/loss limit still an addict?

[Alan Mendelson]

Name somebody else who doesn't play for comps. Name somebody else who doesn't get a thrill up their leg when they spot a "triple points day" sign, "car-a-month-giveaway" ads, or "free-play frenzy" promotions. Only the addicts respond to those, and almost always under the guise that they're getting some type of non-existent, theoretical "edge" or that they're not gambling but working.

Anyone who believes the special plays that deviate from optimal play are not justified for the simple reason that they go against long-term probability theory, have the most difficult of time understanding that TODAY'S session is unrelated to any that have come before or any that have yet to come. They react as if every one of the special plays I make are being played a million times today, and at the end of my session I'll be behind by X percent because of them.

You cannot pull aside any one or two parts of SPS and comment on them in the context of addiction reduction or not. You have to put all the parts together first, then analyze them as a whole vs. what the AP's do. It was exciting when I finally figured it all out, it was a blast winning all that money, and I enjoy teaching the concepts to other players as often as I can.

Rob, there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of promotions. Given a trip to a casino on a non promotion day, and a day when I get extra points, or gift cards, or free play, Im going to go on the days where I get the benefits.

Getting the benefits does not alter how I play, it just alters the days that I go.

And I still don't understand how your strategy is supposed to help treat/stop/cure/deter/limit addiction but I am certainly interested in finding out what the experts say.

I think some of your special plays make a lot of sense, and we have discussed these. And I think everyone should realize that you do follow "the math" 95% of the time, and the "special plays" only are made rarely.

[Frank Kneeland]

Anyone who believes the special plays that deviate from optimal play are not justified for the simple reason that they go against long-term probability theory, have the most difficult of time understanding that TODAY'S session is unrelated to any that have come before or any that have yet to come. They react as if every one of the special plays I make are being played a million times today, and at the end of my session I'll be behind by X percent because of them.

I think there has been a misunderstanding. First off Rob talks a lot about "short-term" and "long-term" and here used the phrase "long-term probability theory". Probability theory does contain some elements of expectation over infinite trials, which is covered by such concepts as standard deviation and the law of large numbers. These are only subsets of probability theory and not the ones that provide the greatest objections to his system. Oddly, (very oddly) the one single element of probability theory that provides the greatest objections to his system is the one stating that each trial is an independent random event and "unrelated to any that have come before or any that have yet to come". As Rob and I both agree on this point completely, I am at a loss to understand why we don't completely agree on the conclusions this concept leads us to make.

The very argument that he is providing as "proof for" would be the one I would use as "proof against". I would not now, and never have included the concepts of Long-Term Probability Theory in video poker strategy, as I believe as Rob does that it is difficult for an individual to play enough for the Law of Large Numbers to hold sway. I am in favor in doing of what is best on a per hand basis (as they are independent random events) with no regard to how many hands you intend to play or are able to play.

I hope that in the coming months I will understand better how Rob and I can have such different conclusions when we agree on the basic elements. It is currently a mystery to me.