John Grochowski writes about money management.

[Alan Mendelson]

Why? Because your analogy about traffic lights makes no sense. That's why.

[regnis]

You could have explained that traffic lights are not random but are in fact controlled by traffic control thru computer generated reports to try (but fail) to regulate the traffic flow. You see Arci, traffic lights here are not random. An AD--advantage driver- could obtain the feed and know the timing of the lights.

Now--how about a real example worth discussing.

[arcimede$]

You could have explained that traffic lights are not random but are in fact controlled by traffic control thru computer generated reports to try (but fail) to regulate the traffic flow. You see Arci, traffic lights here are not random. An AD--advantage driver- could obtain the feed and know the timing of the lights.

Now--how about a real example worth discussing.

What part of "not synchronized" didn't you understand?

[arcimede$]

Why? Because your analogy about traffic lights makes no sense. That's why.

And neither do win/loss goals. At least you're beginning to understand.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, please forgive me for being so stubborn. So let me now correct all of my errors and allow me to say this about win goals and loss limits.

About win goals: If going to a casino and cashing out with a profit doesn't make sense to you, then don't do it. Keep playing as long as you think you have an advantage and the odds of winning more are on your side.

And about loss limits: If going to a casino and losing more than you want to because you think you still have an advantage then please -- go to the ATM and take out more money and keep playing because you feel the odds are you will come back from your losses.

And about those of us who do have win goals and loss limits: Please have pity on us poor chicken sh--s who don't know any better and are happy to walk with a small profit and leave the pot of gold undisturbed under the rainbow, and also don't have the guts to stick it out to reach the promised land, because we're just poor, gutless, ignorant saps who have no business stepping into a casino in the first place.

My apologies.

[arcimede$]

Alan, why do you avoid trying to understand the situation? As I've already stated umpteen times, it's not about whether a person wants to use win/loss goals. My point has always been that over time they make no difference. Same as changing machines, rubbing screens, praying to the gambling gods, etc. I have no problem with people practicing these meaningless rituals. If it makes you feel good that is just fine. Go ahead and do it. All I have been trying to do is demonstrate it really makes no difference over time.

So, please quit with the emotional nonsense. You stated you wanted me to explain why they don't make a difference, why now do you resist understanding this fact?

[Alan Mendelson]

My point has always been that over time they make no difference.

They DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. We're not discussing "theoretical dollars" when we play in casinos. We are betting REAL MONEY. In theory I would find a machine with a positive pay table and I would sit there for hours and hours and cash out the credits like it was my personal ATM. But in the real world things don't always happen like they're supposed to.

What you and redietz promote is hazardous to everyone's wealth. Gambling is gambling. Even when you think you have an advantage it is still a gamble. To tell people to play more or to keep playing because they have an advantage over the casino is pretty much stupid. If you have to take this kind of risk for $8 an hour, get a part time job for the $8 an hour that has no risk.

[arcimede$]

They DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. We're not discussing "theoretical dollars" when we play in casinos. We are betting REAL MONEY. In theory I would find a machine with a positive pay table and I would sit there for hours and hours and cash out the credits like it was my personal ATM. But in the real world things don't always happen like they're supposed to.

Nope, they make no difference. Your play from the point you stop is no different than your play when you return. No magic happens. You are just as likely to win or lose when you return as you were if you had stayed.

What you and redietz promote is hazardous to everyone's wealth. Gambling is gambling. Even when you think you have an advantage it is still a gamble. To tell people to play more or to keep playing because they have an advantage over the casino is pretty much stupid. If you have to take this kind of risk for $8 an hour, get a part time job for the $8 an hour that has no risk.

No one is saying people should play hours and hours. All that is being said is any reason to quit is good when playing a negative machine. The stop watch method works just as well. Or, you would flip a coin each time you get a quad. It doesn't matter. You keep trying to make this an either or situation. Stop or play forever hours and hours. That is nonsense.

[slingshot]

They DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. We're not discussing "theoretical dollars" when we play in casinos. We are betting REAL MONEY. In theory I would find a machine with a positive pay table and I would sit there for hours and hours and cash out the credits like it was my personal ATM. But in the real world things don't always happen like they're supposed to.

What you and redietz promote is hazardous to everyone's wealth. Gambling is gambling. Even when you think you have an advantage it is still a gamble. To tell people to play more or to keep playing because they have an advantage over the casino is pretty much stupid. If you have to take this kind of risk for $8 an hour, get a part time job for the $8 an hour that has no risk.

Careful, Alan. Rob may have to delete your comments.

[Alan Mendelson]

All that is being said is any reason to quit is good when playing a negative machine.

And what you won't accept is that quitting when you are ahead on a positive machine is also good.

[arcimede$]

And what you won't accept is that quitting when you are ahead on a positive machine is also good.

It isn't good or bad. It makes no difference.

If it makes a person feel good then that is fine, it just won't make in difference in their results over time. Exactly like a negative game only with a higher probability of success.

[Alan Mendelson]

it just won't make in difference in their results over time.

Of course this is the big question: can you end more sessions with a profit (by quitting when ahead) and improve your bottom line results over time?

So far this year, it's working for me. Maybe it won't work over the next ten years but I don't care about the next ten years. I care about each session I play and what my net results will be for the week, the month and the year.

The long term? Well, I'm 61 years old. How much of a "long term" do I have to look forward to?

[arcimede$]

Of course this is the big question: can you end more sessions with a profit (by quitting when ahead) and improve your bottom line results over time?

So far this year, it's working for me. Maybe it won't work over the next ten years but I don't care about the next ten years. I care about each session I play and what my net results will be for the week, the month and the year.

You don't know if it is working for you. If you continued to play you might have done even better. In fact, a few times you could have quit with a profit but continued to play and won more money. You simply can't claim you did better when you have no idea how you would have done.

The long term? Well, I'm 61 years old. How much of a "long term" do I have to look forward to?

Well let's see, I'm 67 and in the last 6 years I've played around 2 million hands. I'd say you have a lot to look forward to ... if you choose to.

[Alan Mendelson]

You don't know if it is working for you.

If I have more money than before, then it is working.

[regnis]

If the ER is 99%, and Alan is at 120%, then quitting while ahead of the curve is good, because his ER going forward is only the 99%. Why is that so hard to understand.

[Alan Mendelson]

Because he will make the argument that I might win 125% or 150% had I kept playing... ignoring that I might have lost it all.

edited to add:

What we will get now is the "woulda coulda shoulda" argument or the "what if" argument.

His reasoning is like this: If I didn't marry Shelley, I might have married Stephanie Zimbalist or Angelina Jolie.

[regnis]

Really--he's the one that harps on the ER the ER the ER. So on the one hand he says if you keep playing you will approach the ER. So if you're ahead of it, and if you keep playing you will approach the ER, that means you will lose. What am I missing? Oh yea---2+2=4. That's too advanced for me I guess.

I way exceeded the ER with my wife. Please don't tell her I said so. And that's why I'll never marry again. I'm taking my win and going home.

If I hear anymore of this nonsense I'll wind up in the ER!!

[Rob.Singer]

I'll straighten this out before I hit the sack. The argument that you could or could not end up with a higher session profit is meaningless because it is a supposition based on theory. Yet when put to the test in "advantage play"--as I did for 6-1/2 years--even though I lost around 75% of the sessions I played, I was AHEAD at some point in those sessions at least 80% of the time. Yes, just as all AP's find themselves experiencing.

So what if I had chosen to quit every time I found myself ahead, instead of throwing the wins away in the hope that even bigger profits await? Well, I DID find out what awaited for my lengthy efforts, and it wasn't pretty. Dollar royals hit in the first hour turned into thousand dollar losers. Steadily rising profits after 12 hours of play ended up drained. Yes, there were a few times continued play after getting ahead meant more profits, but not many, and the greed-driven (aka, the MATH-driven) desire to keep on chasing more profits actually meant much higher losses overall.

Finally, this twisted notion that there's nothing that can change the expected return--meaning, the actual return on a -EV machine cannot consistently exceed its pay table theory--has no mathematical basis whatsoever. Once it happens, you can't go on saying it won't happen again tomorrow and it's guaranteed that the theory will catch up with you; that's where AP credibility is shot dead. People are not machines, but they absolutely can and do make decisions that consistently fly in the face of probability theory, on a consistent basis, all the time. You don't like it because you are not capable of doing it, redietz doesn't like it or even understand it because he's afraid he might regress into believing the world is flat, but people who do it know that "over time" there is no theoretical "catching up with" the math because of meaningless tiny percentages for the very short periods of time each session represents. And yes, just as each hand is an individual unrelated event, so is every session you play. Sorry AP's, you can't claim it both ways. But guess what? The machines can!

Guys, get over it. I've done it for years and I'm STILL doing it. Why do you think different personalities keep coming on after I post big winners to claim it just can't be true? I know, I know, it's jealousy first. But the real reason? They can't believe the math could so consistently deceive their narrow beliefs. And their misery continues.

[arcimede$]

If the ER is 99%, and Alan is at 120%, then quitting while ahead of the curve is good, because his ER going forward is only the 99%. Why is that so hard to understand.

Nope, if you have more more than before then you had good fortune. You are doing what is known as incorrect attribution. You are giving credit to something that you have no idea improved your results. It's the same logic that causes people to have favorite machines.

[arcimede$]

If the ER is 99%, and Alan is at 120%, then quitting while ahead of the curve is good, because his ER going forward is only the 99%. Why is that so hard to understand.

Once again, you have no idea whether quitting while ahead improved or hurt his results. Simple logic. If this was a legal defense it would look silly.