John Grochowski writes about money management.

[redietz]

Yes, Alan, you are fooling the machines. I humbly submit that what you claim can be done would be a demonstration of paranormal abilities and, as I did with Rob, I point you to the Randi Foundation Million Dollar Challenge. If you can do what you claim to be able to do, there's a million bucks out there for you.

Or one could test your theory with simulations and we could all go home.
Unless, of course, there's a reason simulations won't duplicate your "actual casino play."

Now Rob keeps in his pocket the fact the "he and only he" knows all the permutations of his various systems, so that's why he claims simulations won't prove anything. But you, on the other hand, appear to have no secrets, so I imagine simulations would demonstrate that what you propose either works or doesn't work.

Yes, you are fooling the machines. You are magic, or you have machine telepathy, or you can foresee the future. Pick one. Pick more than one, if you want.

Or maybe you could admit that you have no idea if your "quit-when-ahead" theory works, but it's what you prefer to do and what you prefer to believe. Same as rabbits' feet.

The test of these things is simply to ask the question, "What evidence would cause you to change your mind?" If the answer is none, just say so, and we can all go home.

[slingshot]

Are the results of randomness changed based on what cards you hold and/or disgard? If you get three aces, for example, would that change how many aces you can get on the next draw? Obviously yes. So would that change the cards or patterns of the cards over time? I think yes. We are still dealing with randomness in the distribution but on the draw the number of certain types of cards would change, meaning fewer of "this card" and more of "those cards." Just some thoughts off the top of my head.

Frank, I like your reasoning on this. Just to make sure I understand let's say you make several 3 or 4 card draws instead of going for an inside straight or flush that only has one high card or even sweeping a hand-then later on down the session wouldn't some of the selections be changed? Thanks.

[arcimede$]

We have a communications problem. You're too smart for me. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Alan, I simplified it for you. Answer my questions on the traffic lights and you might get to that "aha" moment.

[arcimede$]

Frank, I like your reasoning on this. Just to make sure I understand let's say you make several 3 or 4 card draws instead of going for an inside straight or flush that only has one high card or even sweeping a hand-then later on down the session wouldn't some of the selections be changed? Thanks.

No, what you do on any one hand has no effect on the following hands.

I originally avoided this minor detail because I knew it would cause confusion.

[Alan Mendelson]

Do either of you -- Arc or redietz -- understand that it takes a non-random, conscious decision to quit when you are ahead, or quit when you reach a loss limit? And do either of you understand that I already told Arc when and how the expected return could meet the actual return?

The rest of your mathematical double talk is... well, it's double talk.

Win goals and loss limits are personal decisions and making them will limit your losses and can protect your wins. Compute that.

[Alan Mendelson]

No, what you do on any one hand has no effect on the following hands.

I originally avoided this minor detail because I knew it would cause confusion.

Frank has already acknowledged that he is not a video poker player. However, what he talked about does apply to blackjack (he is a BJ player) when a shoe is used.

[redietz]

Alan, if you said, "Can limit your (session) losses and protect your (session) wins," you would be correct. But it still would not change the overall return of the game.

You are using tricky language here, Alan, to create obfuscation. "Limit your losses" refers to discrete sessions. "Protect your wins" refers to discrete sessions.

However, if you refer to WINNING or LOSING (as in overall), then win goals and loss limits do not "Limit your LOSING." They also do not "Protect your WINNING" unless, of course, those win goals and loss limits reduce your overall play on negative games. But anything that reduces play on negative games has the same effect. Win goals and loss limits, if they reduce your play, help your bottom line with negative games. Setting a watch alarm to go off and tell you to cut short your session and quit has the same effect.

[regnis]

I will repeat what I said earlier---$$$ in my pocket is much better that the theoretical $$ I might win over time if the RNG happens to get lucky for me. I will take the former. All this other nonsense about the math and expected return is just theory and probability. I prefer the reality that $$$ in the pocket is a good thing.

And if I may also repeat this, Arci and Red keep telling us that there is no regression to the mean. But they insist that over time you will approach the ER. Well if you are ahead, and you will ultimately hit the ER, then that is a regression and you should have quit while you were ahead. So I see mumble jumble here. Do you regress to the mean and therefore lose your heretofore profits, or not. Do you ultimately achieve or come close to the ER, and thus lose your profits, or not. Sheesh----speaka de English boys.

[redietz]

Regnis, I seriously doubt that I've addressed regression to the mean in any posts here, so try to paraphrase me correctly. You're starting to get Rob's habits -- you know, say that people said things they never said. Bad habit.

C'mon, regnis, 775 posts and I have no mention of regression to the mean. Yet somehow, according to you, I "keep telling us that there is no regression to the mean." Why just make stuff up? Why lie? You talk about "speaka de English boys." How about you just get straight who said what?

[regnis]

ok--guess that was just arci--don't want to put words (or anything else) in your mouth. Sorry

[redietz]

Very classy response, there, regnis. If I were a woman, I'd be all over Alan for the misogyny, and I would make it his business since it's his forum. I guess since I'm a straight male, that kind of response is fine for this forum. Right, Alan?

[regnis]

But back to the issue at hand, what about the actual point I was making before I incorrectly attributed it you. Can you help clarify this?

You know what--I have avoided the name calling and other nonsense--so allow me the one bit of attempted humor albeit in bad taste.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, if you said, "Can limit your (session) losses and protect your (session) wins," you would be correct. But it still would not change the overall return of the game.

BREAKING NEWS... REDIETZ BRINGS OUT THE "WOULD NOT CHANGE THE OVERALL RETURN OF THE GAME" CARD. (And we thought this was an Arci exclusive.)

Well, redietz I never said that win goals and loss limits change the return of the game. The return of the game is a theoretical percentage based on the pay table. Arci repeatedly has said that win goals and loss limits do not change the return of the game... and we have all agreed with him. Win goals and loss limits do not change the "return of the game" as that is figured by the pay table.

As you said, what win goals and loss limits do is cap or limit losses and protect wins in a given session. YES. YES. YES. THREE CHEERS FOR REDIETZ!!!!!

[arcimede$]

First let's discuss regression to the mean (RTTM). While there is no such thing in VP it is really irrelevant. Over time we will all have good and bad streaks. At any point in time you could say "I'm ahead and since there is no RTTM I'm good to go". But then what happens? You might hit a losing streak and you could say "Oh no I'm behind and since there is no RTTM I'll never make it up". The real situation is these streaks tend to average out over time not because of RTTM, but because of the ebb and flow of the game. Very few will ever achieve exactly the ER of their play but over time the aggregate of their play will get closer and closer.

Now Alan, remember this?

"Say you are driving and encounter 12 traffic lights. Each traffic light holds the same amount in each direction and are not synchronized. When you drive through these lights you would expect to make 6 light and stop for 6 lights. What you are claiming is ... if you made 4 lights out of the first 6 on one trip you could change drivers and somehow you personally will not see an average of making 50% in the future and you can continue to do this forever.

Were you somehow destined to miss 4 of the next 6 lights if you hadn't stopped? How does switching drivers affect your next trip? Couldn't you miss 4 out of the first 6 lights on that trip? Same holds true if you switch drivers after missing 4 lights in a row. How could that affect your next trip?"

How about answering the questions.

[Alan Mendelson]

How about this, Arc: There are 12 traffic lights, and after 6 traffic lights you park your car and walk.

It doesn't affect your next trip. We play one trip at a time.

[arcimede$]

You're missing out on all the fun Alan. Getting up +2 lights could be your win goal. After that you switch drivers to eliminate the chances of losing this edge. And, -4 lights could be your loss limit. Just think you could make light after light with these goals.

Now, how about answering the questions.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't have to answer your questions, whether they be about traffic lights or flipping coins. Setting win goals and loss limits is a personal decision. You can't tell me I am wrong... nor can (or would) you tell me I am right.

Every player (except you "professionals" or "APs") should play within their own comfort zone, and that includes whether you are playing a positive or negative expectation game. Because there are no guarantees that you will win at a positive expectation game.

[redietz]

Arci, this is why I asked the questions I did. Alan has no response for, "What would it take to demonstrate you're wrong?" He has a belief system -- no evidence, just a belief system. Nothing will prove to him that he's incorrect. It's a religion of sorts.

Now the question is -- would Alan tolerate a similarly silly non-evidenced belief system on his forum regarding other, mathematically-based matters like health care? Probability dictates all health care treatments. But maybe that shouldn't matter -- health care should be a a personal matter. You know, since anyone can recover from anything, as Alan would say, and anyone can die from anything and there are no guarantees.

So maybe we should just start pushing some home-made diabetes remedies in the name of free speech and no guarantees.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz can you give me any evidence that disputes my belief that when you stop playing a session with a profit (more money or credits than what you started with) that you have either:

a. lost money, or
b. did not make a profit in that session?

redietz can you give me any evidence that disputes my belief that when you stop playing after reaching a loss limit that you:

a. are guaranteed that you can come back and win back the money you lost, or
b. that you will not lose more money if you kept playing?

[arcimede$]

I don't have to answer your questions, whether they be about traffic lights or flipping coins. Setting win goals and loss limits is a personal decision. You can't tell me I am wrong... nor can (or would) you tell me I am right.

Every player (except you "professionals" or "APs") should play within their own comfort zone, and that includes whether you are playing a positive or negative expectation game. Because there are no guarantees that you will win at a positive expectation game.

Alan, you were the one that asked me to explain it to you. Now that I try, you run away and avoid hearing the answer. Why is that?