Setting Win Limitations

[Vegas Vic]

I think I understand where you are going with your latest posts, but this is a bunch of bull hockey:

"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.”

Why is it that this sort of analysis is applied just to gamblers and the conclusion is immediately made that there is something terribly wrong with gambling?

Suppose Person A spent $10,000 a year golfing at various resorts and at the end of the year showed the entire $10,000 dent in his "leisure bank book".

Person B spent $10,000 a year gambling, and on the last day, hit for $1,000. His "leisure bank book" reads $9,000.

If each of these guys did this for 10 years, I'd say that Person B is not the one who has a problem. He's $10,000 better off than Player A. (Even if he lost all of his $10,000 for 9 out of 10 years, he's still $1,000 ahead of Person A...and by comparison, he's a "winner".)

Where are the studies that claim Person A has a golfing disorder? It appears that the golf resort's intentional manipulations cost this person $100,000 and something should be done about HIS addiction.

[Frank Kneeland]

I think I understand where you are going with your latest posts, but this is a bunch of bull hockey:

"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.”

Why is it that this sort of analysis is applied just to gamblers and the conclusion is immediately made that there is something terribly wrong with gambling?

Suppose Person A spent $10,000 a year golfing at various resorts and at the end of the year showed the entire $10,000 dent in his "leisure bank book".

Person B spent $10,000 a year gambling, and on the last day, hit for $1,000. His "leisure bank book" reads $9,000.

If each of these guys did this for 10 years, I'd say that Person B is not the one who has a problem. He's $10,000 better off than Player A. (Even if he lost all of his $10,000 for 9 out of 10 years, he's still $1,000 ahead of Person A...and by comparison, he's a "winner".)

Where are the studies that claim Person A has a golfing disorder? It appears that the golf resort's intentional manipulations cost this person $100,000 and something should be done about HIS addiction.

Though you said you understood my post, I'm not sure I understand your post at all. If person B's "leisure bank book" reads $9,000 they would not have the cognitive distortion that I was discussing.

If person B spent $10,000 a year gambling, and on the last day, hit for $1,000...and they thought of it as having "won" $1,000, then they would have the issue we were discussing.

You seem to be comparing apples and sky. You have nicely sited two examples of people that don't have problems. I find no fault in your logic other than it is off topic.

The recreational value of money spent gambling is not in question. I'm not sure why you thought it was.

Your first statement that you "think you know where I'm going with this post" seems to have missed that I was mostly paraphrasing recent literature I have read on pathological gambling, which I confirmed with a practicing psychologist to make sure I was conveying the points accurately. The purpose of my last post was not to share my opinion, it was to share the current sentiment of the medical community. Obviously, I wrote it in my style, but the ideas are not even close to original.

Hope that clears up any confusion.

~FK

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank, I'm afraid you're being too rigid in your thinking. You wrote:

If person B spent $10,000 a year gambling, and on the last day, hit for $1,000...and they thought of it as having "won" $1,000, then they would have the issue we were discussing.

Yes, Frank, if they won $1,000 on the last day they indeed won $1,000 on the last day. Winning a thousand dollars on the last day does not negate the fact that they might have lost $9,000 previously, but a win for the day is a win. I'm sure there are many visitors to Vegas who go home from a trip with a win for that trip but are well aware that they lost on prior trips.

I'll say it again: not everybody in a casino is addicted to gambling or is headed for addiction. You're really being a kill-joy. And you just might be taking this whole thing a bit too seriously.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank, I'm afraid you're being too rigid in your thinking. You wrote:

If person B spent $10,000 a year gambling, and on the last day, hit for $1,000...and they thought of it as having "won" $1,000, then they would have the issue we were discussing.

Yes, Frank, if they won $1,000 on the last day they indeed won $1,000 on the last day. Winning a thousand dollars on the last day does not negate the fact that they might have lost $9,000 previously, but a win for the day is a win. I'm sure there are many visitors to Vegas who go home from a trip with a win for that trip but are well aware that they lost on prior trips.

I'll say it again: not everybody in a casino is addicted to gambling or is headed for addiction. You're really being a kill-joy. And you just might be taking this whole thing a bit too seriously.

I responded to Vic because he seemed to think that my post was speaking to the recreational value of gambling. His argument about golf was perfectly reasonable, it just had nothing to do with cognitive distortion.

I can say nothing else on how people define "losing less" as "winning" and why psychologists feel this is a serious issue. As I said towards the end of my long post, if you are still having trouble with this concept you'll have to read up on it yourself. I recommended several books, but I would imagine any modern book on gambling problems should suffice.

As far as me being a kill-joy, as I also stated at the very end of my post. Good record keeping and clear rational thought should not be able to ruin the fun of a truly worthwhile activity.

If as a result of keeping lifetime records the "fun" of gambling disappears, you should not have been doing it in the first place.

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks Frank. But to many people Profit does not equal fun. And it is okay to spend money (aka lose money) to have fun. And in a casino fun can be the thrill of throwing dice, of the turn of a card, of watching the wheels spin on a machine.

As I wrote before, I had plenty of fun collecting coins, and as a kid I had plenty of fun collecting stamps too. They were not profitable. (In hindsight, had I held on to those circulated, common date Washington quarters with 90% silver I would have a profit today.) But it was recreation.

I can understand how you say that some people who figure that "losing less" is "winning" is a serious issue for psychologists, but I don't think that applies to most people in a casino.

Besides, many times people say things that they don't really believe and really don't mean. Many people come back from Vegas and proclaim that they were "even" but they know they lost. It's just something that people "say." People sometimes just "say things" without really meaning it.

[Frank Kneeland]

Thanks Frank. But to many people Profit does not equal fun. And it is okay to spend money (aka lose money) to have fun. And in a casino fun can be the thrill of throwing dice, of the turn of a card, of watching the wheels spin on a machine.

As I wrote before, I had plenty of fun collecting coins, and as a kid I had plenty of fun collecting stamps too. They were not profitable. (In hindsight, had I held on to those circulated, common date Washington quarters with 90% silver I would have a profit today.) But it was recreation.

I can understand how you say that some people who figure that "losing less" is "winning" is a serious issue for psychologists, but I don't think that applies to most people in a casino.

Besides, many times people say things that they don't really believe and really don't mean. Many people come back from Vegas and proclaim that they were "even" but they know they lost. It's just something that people "say." People sometimes just "say things" without really meaning it.

Your welcome. I wanted to let you know what the psychological community was saying currently. I have done that. I have my own opinions, but I can't see how they would be relevant. I'll consider the matter closed.

~FK

[arcimede$]

From Frank's description it would appear Singer's system is set up to promote gambling problems. Singer promotes the idea of short term thinking. That is, never consider the long term, if you reach your win goal for the day then go home a winner. Interesting.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc: I would suggest that any gaming author, strategist, book, program, or system that tells you how to beat a game, or suggests there is a way to beat a game (whether true or not) can lead to or promote gambling problems.

[Frank Kneeland]

From Frank's description it would appear Singer's system is set up to promote gambling problems. Singer promotes the idea of short term thinking. That is, never consider the long term, if you reach your win goal for the day then go home a winner. Interesting.

Yes interesting, but inconclusive. That isn't going to suffice.

As you may or may not know Rob feels that his system has less addiction potential than standard AP. He came to this conclusion from personal experience. I do not question the fact that he believes his system has less possibilities for abuse (possibly related to locus of control). I would question any evaluation of psychological factors that was based on personal experience, which has been found to be a very poor teacher in psychology. The current movement in problem gambling treatment is a move away from personal experience towards empirical data.

What would be helpful is if you could provide a comparison of AP and RS in standard pro-con format that focused exclusively on perceived psychological factors.

From my previous exchanges with you it appears you have had some psych training, though it was unclear how comprehensive and current it is. 98% of the research done into problem gambling has been done in the last 12 years. If your knowledge is more than a decade old you'll need some catchup. I think your insights could prove useful.

Without turning this into yet another mud slinging contest I could use your help on this.

I need comments on AP even more than I do RS, so if you choose to respond please include both.

[Frank Kneeland]

Arc: I would suggest that any gaming author, strategist, book, program, or system that tells you how to beat a game, or suggests there is a way to beat a game (whether true or not) can lead to or promote gambling problems.

I know you were asking Arc, but I have some info on this as it relates directly to my book and current life project. Believe it or not, my Book on gambling is being considered for its ability to treat problem gamblers. Currently the information is anecdotal. Several people that read it that admitted to having had gambling problems, are claiming that it has made them lose all interest in pursuing gambling as a career or hobby.

The short answer to your question is yes and no. Whether a system works or doesn't work it has the potential to hurt or help SOME PEOPLE.

Problem gambling in not a single problem with a single cure, it is a broad spectrum of problems, with many possible causes, and one of the highest rates of co-morbid disorders of all the diagnosis available to a modern clinician. Saying someone has a gambling problem is nearly the equivalent of a medical doctor telling you he thinks you might be "sick".

It is my intent over the next few years to classify precisely which particular causes of problem gambling may be helped or exacerbated by pro gambling knowledge.

[arcimede$]

My response above was simply considering Frank's comments headed by: "Why Gamblers Redefine “Winning”."

I simply pointed out that a system where all else is ignored except the current session is pretty much what was described by Frank.

As for AP play, I think it most likely works the opposite. Winning or losing on any particular day is not a consideration. You play with the advantage and count on the law of large numbers to bring you close to expectation. I would think this would temper both the agony of defeat and the thrill of winning for many people. One thing to keep in mind is many people don't really understand AP and these people may be the ones that suffer if they try to adopt AP. They don't really end up playing with any real advantage yet feel they can ignore losses. The idea that the winning will eventually come allows them to continue gambling when they probably should quit. I suspect Singer fell into this group.

Of course, the person involved is still a major factor. Certain types will always tend more towards addiction no matter what system is employed.

[arcimede$]

Arc: I would suggest that any gaming author, strategist, book, program, or system that tells you how to beat a game, or suggests there is a way to beat a game (whether true or not) can lead to or promote gambling problems.

I agree as I indicated in my previous response. If the person really doesn't understand the system at a basic level then they could be induced to gamble more which leads to the potential for gambling problems.

[arcimede$]

BTW, I have had no formal training in psychology. I have studied the brain as part of my work involving neural networks. But, that was around 20 years ago so it is dated.

The rest of my knowledge comes from various sources (like the internet) and who didn't learn a lot by watching Monk

[Frank Kneeland]

BTW, I have had no formal training in psychology. I have studied the brain as part of my work involving neural networks. But, that was around 20 years ago so it is dated.

The rest of my knowledge comes from various sources (like the internet) and who didn't learn a lot by watching Monk

That's about what I expected, though to be honest I would have bet you had some formal training. I forget what they were, but you used a couple of dated terms, which lead me to believe your info was roughly 10 years old. I'll keep this in mind, and if I refer to something that has only recently come to light, try to provide references.

Most of my study of psychology was for book research and is very current. I spent 2.5 years doing nothing but psych research for my three chapters that cover the topic in gamblers.

Monk was great!

[Frank Kneeland]

Since I spent so much time working on that long post, both writing it and getting it looked at by a psychologist and problem gambler to confirm the precepts, I'm going to reuse it and post it on LVA. It will be interesting to see their comments.

Would anyone here like to take the over or under on comprehension???

~FK

[Alan Mendelson]

So far, (as of 7pm Friday Sept 9) the post on LVA titled "Cop fired for having sex on a car" and the post about "Grilled cedar-plank salmon" and the post about "How many members on your ignore list?" and the post about "Breaking News! Singer Drops his Escrow Demand" and the post about "Word Association, Part 4" have a higher response/view rate than your post.

"Cop Fired For Having Sex On A Car" Response/View ratio 5.4%
"Grilled cedar-plank salmon" Response/View Ratio 8.0%
"How many members on your ignore list?" Response/View Ratio 8.7%
"Breaking News! Singer Drops His Escrow Demand" Response/View Ratio 16.3%
"Word Association, Part 4" Response/View Ratio 21.4%
"Winning ???" Response/View Ratio 3.2%

Of course we can't tell how many people actually finished reading your report.

Good luck.

[Alan Mendelson]

Gee, Frank, do you think anyone has really read through your original post yet on LVA?

Well, I did, but since I don't want to get them sidetracked with a discussion about me, so I'll post my comments here.

You wrote: "it is known that nearly 100% of problem gamblers have the "losing less = winning" cognitive distortion, but its prevalence in not known in the general public."

I think what you're missing is that when these recreational gamblers report "winning" when they really are "losing" it is not because they have any "cognitive distortion" as you put it.

No Frank, there's no mental disorder here. They're just fibbing to their friends, embellishing results, and telling (can I use the term) "a white lie."

Come on now, we are a society of embellishers: we drive fancy cars to impress the neighbors, we buy bigger houses to impress the relatives, we wear fancy jewelry to raise our image, and we tell people we earn more than we do and that we win more and lose less in casinos. And when poker players lose it's because of a bad beat and they tell "bad beat stories."

There's no mental disorder here, Frank. It's part of the culture. And as part of the culture I offer two words of cultural advice: Chill out. (LOL)

[Frank Kneeland]

Gee, Frank, do you think anyone has really read through your original post yet on LVA?

Well, I did, but since I don't want to get them sidetracked with a discussion about me, so I'll post my comments here.

You wrote: "it is known that nearly 100% of problem gamblers have the "losing less = winning" cognitive distortion, but its prevalence in not known in the general public."

I think what you're missing is that when these recreational gamblers report "winning" when they really are "losing" it is not because they have any "cognitive distortion" as you put it.

No Frank, there's no mental disorder here. They're just fibbing to their friends, embellishing results, and telling (can I use the term) "a white lie."

Come on now, we are a society of embellishers: we drive fancy cars to impress the neighbors, we buy bigger houses to impress the relatives, we wear fancy jewelry to raise our image, and we tell people we earn more than we do and that we win more and lose less in casinos. And when poker players lose it's because of a bad beat and they tell "bad beat stories."

There's no mental disorder here, Frank. It's part of the culture. And as part of the culture I offer two words of cultural advice: Chill out. (LOL)

Gosh Alan...you have managed to add a lot of unintended meaning to what I was saying.

At no point in time did I say or suggest that people who know they are losing, but lying to their friends to embellish "the story" in any way had this distortion.

Everything I posted was for people that are lying to themselves...NOT lying to other people. I believe you are projecting. If you are completely honest with yourself about your lifetime loss reductions and only portray them as "wins" to others, then nothing in my post was about you.

Given what you have said in the past about leaving the casino and quitting when you are ahead, I thought my post might well be relevant to you. The primary issues are:

1. You cannot leave the casino ahead if you are losing. (Going home and sleeping in your own bed does not count as a result reset)
2. You aren't quitting if you ever play again. (Taking a break is not "quitting" and the duration of break is irrelevant)

~FK

[Alan Mendelson]

Well Frank, I guess this ends the discussion. For me personally, Ive been playing in casinos for about 40 years, and Ive never had an annual win. Every year on my tax return I offset all of my wins with my losses and yes my losses exceed my wins.

But when I have a winning trip -- yes Frank -- I had a winning trip and I enjoyed it.

And over my life time, I lost. By the way, my real name is not Alan but is Augustus, and Caesars named that new tower after me. (LOL)

You are applying all of this knowledge about addicted gamblers to people who play for fun and enjoyment and on vacations and do not play professionally nor do they attempt to play professionally.

Are you projecting Frank?

edited to add:

I just read your post on LVA in which you said this:

For recreational gamblers that are down money gambling overall in their life:
If you enjoy losing a moderate amount of money in return for entertainment value: You have no cognitive distortion.

Yes, Frank, that is pretty much what the rest of us are saying as well. You are discussing problem gambling and addicted gambling with an audience of recreational gamblers.

You are trying to say that recreational gamblers who say they are leaving the casino with a win for the session or the trip are distorting facts. Frank, theyre not distorting anything. They won on their trip.

Now, if you ask them a separate question -- are you up overall for all of your gambling? -- and they lie about it, then they have a problem.

But recreational gamblers can enjoy and pocket the wins from a trip without having a problem.

Like I say to the slot attendants whenever I get a handpay: "Gee, another million dollars and I'll break even!" (that's a joke, Frank.)

[Frank Kneeland]

I'll be signing off this thread and may be away for some time. I have some personal issues which have come up. Specifically medical issues in my adopted family, which require leaving town.

Be well everyone.