Setting Win Limitations

[Lucky(St)Louis]

[QUOTE=Frank Kneeland;1259]

"If you have a proper logical reason to enter a casino and play, there is no need for a confabulated illogical reason to leave. If the only effect of win goals was to reduce gambling then I would have no objection to them. The problem is that they also have a secondary reinforcement effect to make people that are losing overall feel like they are wining sometimes, without actually effecting net results."

I'm going to say the majority of players don't have the proper, logical reason to play based on the simple belief that if I ask everyone in the Casino if they like to lose, 99% + will say no. Therefore maybe the majority of players need and can benefit from an illogical reason to leave.

Sorry 'bout the quote problem..........

[Frank Kneeland]

"If you have a proper logical reason to enter a casino and play, there is no need for a confabulated illogical reason to leave. If the only effect of win goals was to reduce gambling then I would have no objection to them. The problem is that they also have a secondary reinforcement effect to make people that are losing overall feel like they are wining sometimes, without actually effecting net results."

I'm going to say the majority of players don't have the proper, logical reason to play based on the simple belief that if I ask everyone in the Casino if they like to lose, 99% + will say no. Therefore maybe the majority of players need and can benefit from an illogical reason to leave.

Sorry 'bout the quote problem..........

I think we are saying the same thing. What I'm suggesting is that instead of following bad thinking with more bad thinking as a fix to the other bad thinking...we try to address the root cause.

[arcimede$]

Frank is absolutely correct about the logic. The problem, of course, is most people don't apply logic to most things in their life and gambling is just one example. In addition, the advice of using win goals is just as likely to be ignored as the advice of not playing.

So, is it a waste of time or not? Well, maybe there is a subset of the population that wishes to gamble for entertainment, is willing to lose money and simply wants to limit those losses. I suspect having win goals is one way to accomplish that goal. Keep in mind, it's not the only one ... just saying you'll leave after X amount of time could also satisfy the goal.

[Lucky(St)Louis]

Frank is absolutely correct about the logic. The problem, of course, is most people don't apply logic to most things in their life and gambling is just one example. In addition, the advice of using win goals is just as likely to be ignored as the advice of not playing.

So, is it a waste of time or not? Well, maybe there is a subset of the population that wishes to gamble for entertainment, is willing to lose money and simply wants to limit those losses. I suspect having win goals is one way to accomplish that goal. Keep in mind, it's not the only one ... just saying you'll leave after X amount of time could also satisfy the goal.

I agree with both of you but I think players who say "I gamble within my budget, it's only entertainment dollars, my bills are paid first, I donate to charities"........are not truthful with themselves if they say they like losing or they have a different criteria for entertainment. More of a cognitive consonance thing. Those same people might have time to type away these thoughts from their living room, but I don't see that many happy losers where I play.

Finally, when you type an opinion or belief, do you also see the opposing argument? As in debate, if you were assigned the opposite view? If not, then maybe there is absolute truth? I think this is one of the best forums around. Have a great holiday weekend!

[Vegas Vic]

I agree with both of you but I think players who say "I gamble within my budget, it's only entertainment dollars, my bills are paid first, I donate to charities"........are not truthful with themselves if they say they like losing or they have a different criteria for entertainment. More of a cognitive consonance thing. Those same people might have time to type away these thoughts from their living room, but I don't see that many happy losers where I play.

I am one of those players who DOES gamble within my budget (it's a gaming budget kept totally separate from all other family budgets)... and it is the primary entertainment for me (I don't go to movies, own a boat, go skiing or golfing, etc.). Not only are you wrong with your assertion that players like me are not being truthful with themselves ( I know EXACTLY what I am doing when I enter a casino), but my entertainment criteria (and the $$ allocated for such entertainment) is pretty much none of your concern nor that of anyone else. When I'm in a casino, my reaction to other players is for me to MYOB. You should try it.

[Frank Kneeland]

I am one of those players who DOES gamble within my budget (it's a gaming budget kept totally separate from all other family budgets)... and it is the primary entertainment for me (I don't go to movies, own a boat, go skiing or golfing, etc.). Not only are you wrong with your assertion that players like me are not being truthful with themselves ( I know EXACTLY what I am doing when I enter a casino), but my entertainment criteria (and the $$ allocated for such entertainment) is pretty much none of your concern nor that of anyone else. When I'm in a casino, my reaction to other players is for me to MYOB. You should try it.

One of the things which is perceived by the medical community as an issue with gambling is that people who gamble recreationally tend over time to enjoy other more productive activities less. If correct, it is a pastime that drains the fun out of other pastimes, which become less exciting to the gambler over time. This is sad since the "excitement" of gambling is largely illusory. It reminds me of that Pink Floyd song Wish You Were Here.

And did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?

For me it is hard to understand why people get excited about winning back money they have already lost as though it was profit. I have even seen a person thrilled to have a jackpot solve a short term financial crisis for them that never would have existed if they didn't gamble. Overcoming adversity is fulfilling, but it shouldn't be when it is contrived and self inflicted.

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank, this is all so ironic coming from someone whose career was playing professionally and managing a professional team. Would you mind telling us why you are so down on gambling?

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, this is all so ironic coming from someone whose career was playing professionally and managing a professional team. Would you mind telling us why you are so down on gambling?

I would not describe myself as down on gambling, at least not inherently. I'm just not up on it either. It would be impossible for me to impart 23 years of experience in a web post. Let's just say that when I read the current research on gambling, the results do not come as much of a surprise to me. I had suspected as much for years now. I was studying to be a psychologist in my twenties, but never followed through. I have always looked at gambling with more than a typical view, and had to do a lot of informal counseling when I ran the team.

If you had known all the people I have known for which gambling has destroyed their lives, you'd find it hard to say anything nice on the subject as well. Most of the pros I know that are winning are lonely, single, and miserable.

Even the people that gamble to live, quickly end up living to gamble.

So would you be able to answer my question?: Why do people get excited about winning back money they have already lost as though it was profit?

So far, in all the times I have asked this question (here and elsewhere) no one has been honest enough with themselves to answer it.

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank, you asked this question:

Why do people get excited about winning back money they have already lost as though it was profit?

First, I'm going to ask you a question: do they really consider it to be profit? Or are they getting excited because of the win?

When I get a win I get excited but I am fully aware that over my life I am a net loser. But-- I am not playing as a professional would. I play for entertainment. There is none of the logic you look for in my decision to play craps or video poker or live poker in a casino. I've had my winning sessions and that's part of the fun. I also enjoy the game and that is part of the fun too.

I've been asked to leave certain casinos because I have been able to demonstrate a certain skill in throwing dice -- but I can't make a living doing it and I don't think anyone can except those who sell books and courses about it. So I can't say there is any logic at all behind my decision to walk into a casino except for the entertainment value.

And I think most people do go to casinos for the entertainment value. And if they happen to win, that helps boost the entertainment value. I don't think the casinos are filled with addicted gamblers.

If I were logical about gaming, I would say the house has the games set so they win so there is no logic in playing. The math says you can't win at craps or at slots or at a host of table games. And while the math says there are a few video poker games where it is possible to win, I share Rob Singer's belief that you'll never be there for the long term to have that advantage (if you could find the right machines) so you might as well cash out whenever you're ahead and enjoy the rest of your stay.

[Frank Kneeland]

We've talked about this before earlier in the thread. So as not to repeat myself, I'll read back over the thread and try to phrase it in a different way with hope that this will promote better understanding.

[Frank Kneeland]

Since I think my reply to your questions will cross the line between web chatter and psychological advice, I have passed it on to Randi for editing and advice. I'll post it when I hear from her.

[Alan Mendelson]

OK Frank, if you need to refer this to a specialist please be my guest.

But I think you can answer this question from my previous post, which responded to a question that you made:

Frank, you asked this question:

"Why do people get excited about winning back money they have already lost as though it was profit?"

First, I'm going to ask you a question: do they really consider it to be profit? Or are they getting excited because of the win?

[arcimede$]

So would you be able to answer my question?: Why do people get excited about winning back money they have already lost as though it was profit?

So far, in all the times I have asked this question (here and elsewhere) no one has been honest enough with themselves to answer it.

Frank, I think your position as a pro gambler and your personal distaste for gambling is warping your thinking here. A recreational gambler considers the money previously lost to be money spent on entertainment. It's no different than a trip to Hawaii, or a new set of golf clubs, etc. They received compensation for that money. The money they win on the current trip really is a win in their eyes. You just have to take a different perspective. Ity's not ALL about the money.

[Vegas Vic]

One of the things which is perceived by the medical community as an issue with gambling is that people who gamble recreationally tend over time to enjoy other more productive activities less. If correct, it is a pastime that drains the fun out of other pastimes, which become less exciting to the gambler over time. This is sad since the "excitement" of gambling is largely illusory. It reminds me of that Pink Floyd song Wish You Were Here.

And did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?

For me it is hard to understand why people get excited about winning back money they have already lost as though it was profit. I have even seen a person thrilled to have a jackpot solve a short term financial crisis for them that never would have existed if they didn't gamble. Overcoming adversity is fulfilling, but it shouldn't be when it is contrived and self inflicted.

Frank...I'm not in that group who traded "other productive activities" for spending time visiting casinos. I never spent time or money at all on those things I mentioned, so there is no "draining of the fun" out of them. As an empty-nester now, my time and expendable finances go to an activity I enjoy. If I spend money in a casino, it's no different than spending money to fill up the gas tank to take a boat out from the marina or to fly around the country playing golf at one resort or another. Because I find those two activities (golfing and boating) to be both a waste of my time and money, any excitement derived from them is illusory to me. (And I don't gamble to solve a short term financial crisis either.) So you see, there are exceptions to the perception by the medical community.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, I think your position as a pro gambler and your personal distaste for gambling is warping your thinking here. A recreational gambler considers the money previously lost to be money spent on entertainment. It's no different than a trip to Hawaii, or a new set of golf clubs, etc. They received compensation for that money. The money they win on the current trip really is a win in their eyes. You just have to take a different perspective. Ity's not ALL about the money.

One question: Aren't you also a professional gambler? (I thought you were)

Second not question: The reason I sent this off to Randi for double checking, is to make sure I was not being negatively biased, and correctly portraying the current thinking of the psychological community. In that respect, you could say I was ahead of you. I tried to anticipate my own bias and counteract it. The only way I know of to check if one is biased, is to get a second opinion from someone else. Randi has treated pro gamblers in the past and isn't 100% against gambling. She only feels it is a problem, if as you have said in the past, "it creates problems". The difference is that she is in a position to be a much better judge of what constitutes a problem than an individual would be of themselves, if they had issues with gambling. One of the most common attributes to all addiction is denial.

You ended your post with, "it's not ALL about the money". I would agree. The issue here is a much deeper one and relates to why gambling is considered entertainment and has any potential for "fun" at all.

I also agree that people feel they receive compensation for their money. What I'd like to address is the source and origin of those "feelings" as it is understood by the latest research.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank...I'm not in that group who traded "other productive activities" for spending time visiting casinos. I never spent time or money at all on those things I mentioned, so there is no "draining of the fun" out of them. As an empty-nester now, my time and expendable finances go to an activity I enjoy. If I spend money in a casino, it's no different than spending money to fill up the gas tank to take a boat out from the marina or to fly around the country playing golf at one resort or another. Because I find those two activities (golfing and boating) to be both a waste of my time and money, any excitement derived from them is illusory to me. (And I don't gamble to solve a short term financial crisis either.) So you see, there are exceptions to the perception by the medical community.

There are always exceptions to everything, and I don't know enough about you to have said anything more than general opinion, which is why I told a story about someone else I did know. I was not suggesting you and this person had anything in common. BTW: His name was Peter... he was not an exception.

Really I was just looking for an excuse to quote Floyd (I always forget which one's "pink").

[arcimede$]

One question: Aren't you also a professional gambler? (I thought you were)

Second not question: The reason I sent this off to Randi for double checking, is to make sure I was not being negatively biased, and correctly portraying the current thinking of the psychological community. In that respect, you could say I was ahead of you. I tried to anticipate my own bias and counteract it. The only way I know of to check if one is biased, is to get a second opinion from someone else. Randi has treated pro gamblers in the past and isn't 100% against gambling. She only feels it is a problem, if as you have said in the past, "it creates problems". The difference is that she is in a position to be a much better judge of what constitutes a problem than an individual would be of themselves, if they had issues with gambling. One of the most common attributes to all addiction is denial.

You ended your post with, "it's not ALL about the money". I would agree. The issue here is a much deeper one and relates to why gambling is considered entertainment and has any potential for "fun" at all.

I also agree that people feel they receive compensation for their money. What I'd like to address is the source and origin of those "feelings" as it is understood by the latest research.

Frank, I always gamble to win money. If I didn't have an advantage I would not gamble. So, my approach is pretty much the same as a pro. The difference is, I have other priorities. I gamble one day a week. I have other money that I live on and the money I make gambling just goes to things I might (or might not) buy otherwise. Sometimes it just ends up in savings.

I'm retired so there's no interfering with job or other responsibilities. I usually schedule the gambling around my other activities.

As for your (not) question. I believe some of the entertainment is simply getting out of the house. This applies especially to senior citizens that would otherwise be doing very little. Also, you have the folks you see at LVA. The entire trip is another type of getting away. Forget the job, have a few drinks, enjoy a nice climate, etc. The whole experience is the entertainment and the gambling is part of that whole.

I realize there are people that get addicted to the gambling and their entire trip is simply to get a fix. However, not everyone fits that description.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, I always gamble to win money. If I didn't have an advantage I would not gamble. So, my approach is pretty much the same as a pro. The difference is, I have other priorities. I gamble one day a week. I have other money that I live on and the money I make gambling just goes to things I might (or might not) buy otherwise. Sometimes it just ends up in savings.

I'm retired so there's no interfering with job or other responsibilities. I usually schedule the gambling around my other activities.

As for your (not) question. I believe some of the entertainment is simply getting out of the house. This applies especially to senior citizens that would otherwise be doing very little. Also, you have the folks you see at LVA. The entire trip is another type of getting away. Forget the job, have a few drinks, enjoy a nice climate, etc. The whole experience is the entertainment and the gambling is part of that whole.

I realize there are people that get addicted to the gambling and their entire trip is simply to get a fix. However, not everyone fits that description.

Yes all that seems reasonable. I haven't heard back from Randi. I'll post what I wrote about the redefinition of "winning" later when I do hear back from her. Even if it doesn't apply to you, I hope you can understand how serious this tip of the iceberg kind of thing can be for others.

~FK

[Frank Kneeland]

I sent the following information off to Randi (A practicing therapist) to make sure I had not overstated the psychological community's stance on any of these points. That isn't to say that doctors advice is by any means the final word, as new information is the rule in science, not the exception. Therefore, one should only take this as "current thinking". As an additional step, I had a recovering pathological gambler read it as well, to make sure my statements were as accurate as possible. I did not get back a line by line evaluations from them, but the general sentiment was, "Completely agree, and well said". That was in fact a quote.

First: Please note that cognitive distortions are not by themselves considered insanities. They are considered components in the formation and maintenance of certain psychiatric conditions. It is possible to have mild to moderate cognitive distortion without qualifying as “crazy”. Severe cognitive distortion is reserved for things that would qualify you for treatment. Most of what I'm discussing here is considered “mild” by itself, if no other factors are present.

Why Gamblers Redefine “Winning”.
I think it might be useful to start out by stating the dictionary definition of 'winning' which is the one I use.

1.Noun: Money won, esp. by gambling
2.Adjective: Gaining, resulting in, or relating to victory in a contest or competition

I looked up 'winning' in several dictionaries. In none of them did I find any reference to a time limit or statute of limitations on previous results. If we stick to the dictionary definition, you must be ahead overall to claim that you are winning. It's fairly clear that some/most people don't use the word correctly and claim small temporary refunds of their lifetime losses as 'winning'. They use 'winning' to denote a loss reduction. If this were a mere error in nomenclature, one could almost forgive it. The problem is that not only do people use the word incorrectly, (here I'm using “incorrectly” only to mean “departure from dictionary definition”) they perceive it incorrectly as well, with potentially dire results.

Don't obsess on the word's usage. Even if we accept that the dictionary definition is wrong, because it does not account for colloquial use, it is the meaning behind the word that is the issue. If you handed me $2,000 and I handed you back $1,000, you would not immediately turn to a friend and proudly exclaim a $1,000 win. Neither would you claim a win if the same transaction occurred over days or weeks. The reason the loss (not win) here is clear is we don't declare the transaction terminated until it has been completed. In gambling, such as video poker, we add imaginary lines of demarcation that give the illusion of completion, even though the transaction is ongoing. Casinos take deliberate advantage of this weakness, which is why almost every machine now has a nice little window that tells you how much you have 'won' irrespective of your coin in.
It's the new math: -100 coins + 35 coins = a 35 coin 'win'

This particular cognitive distortion, where gamblers redefine a reduction of losses as 'winning', has been found to be one of the greatest risk factors in the development of gambling problems, present in nearly 100% of all pathological gamblers screened. Its prevalence is unclear in the general populace. People with the severe form of this distortion will claim any jackpot hit as a win, irrespective of losses. They will change machines and, even if down thousands of dollars during a single trip to the casino overall, focus only on the machines where they had positive results. A key ingredient here may be reduced reactivity to negative stimuli and over-stimulation to reward. (Side Note: This trait has been frequently found in criminal behavior, where felons risked years of incarceration for trivial rewards. Current research is pointing to a strong genetic component ~recent issue of Science).

Let's be clear on this: If you told a psychologist that you were winning a thousand dollars this week, and they followed up your statement by asking you your lifetime results, and you then answered that you were behind overall, they would write this down on your chart and possibly send you for a full psych evaluation. This doesn't rise to the level of insanity, but it is considered a serious risk factor for pathological gambling and is a sign of cognitive distortion (mild, if no other factors are present). If you have this particular issue, it will likely not be possible for you to understand the concept. You'll have to settle for understanding that it is considered a problem by the medical community. They would not care why you gamble, they'd mark your chart and move on.

This distortion appears to be mostly confined to gambling involving independent random events which occur over time, if they do not inherently provide the person experiencing them a method to accurately evaluate their total results at a glance. For instance, in the stock market the distortion largely disappears. I have never personally heard a trader claim a sale, regardless of the size, as a win, if they sold the stock for less than they bought it for. Certainly, they might end the day with $100,000 more in cash than they started with after a sale, but if the stock cost them $100,001, they do not claim it as 'winning'. Stock Traders don't even tend to claim winning in the market at all, unless they are ahead overall for their life. Of course a quick glance at their portfolios is all that is required to snap them back to reality, even if they wanted to experience this particular distortion. The stock market is a form of gambling; the difference is that it is one with built in forced record keeping.

People that hock or sell their jewelry do not claim the infusion of money as 'winning' unless they get more for it than they bought it for. A reclaiming of monies previously spent or lost, is never seen as winning, except in casinos. No football team would claim to be winning after a touchdown if they were still behind in total score. In almost all other walks of life, except for gambling, to be winning, one must actually be winning (ahead), and this is usually irrespective of time frame. Even if a stock trader had held onto stock for 50 years, they would not claim a win if they sold it for less, half a century later. Reference to results over arbitrary time spans (such as “today”), that discount the past, only seem to rear their ugly head in gambling.

One cognitive distortion that appears to effect both casino goers and stock traders alike is illusory control: The overestimation of the effect that one's voluntary actions have over random events. This leads to causation errors where one believes something they did, rather than random chance, influenced the outcome. It is a highly self-reinforcing belief as it is never possible to go back in time and test the road not taken. It's too broad a subject to cover here. I recommend a book called The Drunkard's Walk.

By this point, for those readers who have any cognitive distortion, their justification engines are in full swing and the “but I only gamble for fun” argument is ringing in their heads. It should be obvious to all but the most distorted that whether you gamble for fun or professionally, this only effects your motivation and intent. The thoughts in your head do not have the power to alter the physical reality of what happens to you in a casino. Your thoughts and intent do have the power to alter your perception of that reality, which is why recreational gamblers can experience results identical to the results of a professional gambler but mentally record them differently. It is a completely subconscious process, and no one who does it is aware that they are doing it. In fact, if one becomes aware of it, the distortion mostly disappears.

Here is the process:
If one gambles for “fun” their brains overemphasize momentary upswings in random fluctuations, dismiss or discard negative trends, and parse continuous results into disparate segments that allow the mind to classify parts of a downward slope as “winning”. Cognitive dissonance (unwillingness of the human mind to admit fault) drives this happy spin process, and the more negative the experience, the more committed the human mind becomes to “enjoy” it, creating fabricated justifications left and right to convince itself it is having “fun”. It is not clear yet how much of the “fun” of gambling comes from this cycle: negative experience > denial > justification. It is only clear that it is a major component in why people derive enjoyment from the activity. Another reinforcing component is the random variable reward schedule, which has been found to be the best at ingraining animal and human behavior alike. Except here the “reward” isn't even really a net positive reward. Imagine Pavlov's experiments if the animals had to gamble what food they already had to get more, with eventual starvation as the result. Because the time span is expanded, the effect becomes almost imperceptible. A net negative penalty is seen as a positive reward because of the slow variable reward schedule.

No one can argue that gamblers don't have “fun”. The issue is the source of that fun. If winning is fun, then their brains become highly motivated to morph anything, even a loss reduction, into “winning”. The result is distorted thinking > motivational conditioning.

Finished in part 2

[Frank Kneeland]

Part 2:


I have said pretty much all I can on this subject, so if you still don't understand the issue, I recommend reading any modern book on gambling addiction. They all have references to this topic, and naturally state it better than I can in a brief web-post.

My favorite book on gambling to date is: Best Possible Odds by Dr. William McCown and Dr. Linda L. Chamberlain (Note: it is written for doctors at the graduate level) Dr. McCown's latest book Treating Gambling Problems is less informative, but more accessible to the layman.

Since I'm reasonably sure no one would like to think that they are being manipulated by casinos, try this: Keep accurate lifetime records. If you are down money in casinos overall for your life, the next time you hit a jackpot rather than declare it as a win exclaim instead:

“I'm now losing $xxx less than I was, and I'm only down $x,xxx,xxx dollars overall.”

If this in no way reduces your enjoyment of the experience, you can rest assured that your “fun” is not the result of this particular cognitive distortion and the casino's intentional manipulations. If an activity is really worthwhile, clear thought should not be able to ruin the fun in it. ~FK