John Grochowski writes about money management.

[Alan Mendelson]

I thought the reason for fora like this was to share information with others. If all you care about is your own personal results then I can't see why anyone would join. It does nothing to help them understand the best approach to VP.

I think everyone who comes to a discussion about casinos is looking for information that will help them personally. The theory is all well and good, but it's the practical advice and information that is what each of us really cares about. I don't care about the "long term macro economics of casino gambling." I care whether or not I am going to win -- or get wiped out. What you are talking about is the long term macro economics of casino play. Rob's advice actually relates more to me, and I think this is why he has his followers.

The reality is that even on a positive expectation game you can't win all the time. And that's really the #1 practical tip people should get along with take the money and run when you are ahead. However, your long term macro economics says that's wrong.

Do you see and appreciate the conflict here? Im not a long term macro piece of the puzzle. Nor can I think or behave like one.

[arcimede$]

I think everyone who comes to a discussion about casinos is looking for information that will help them personally. The theory is all well and good, but it's the practical advice and information that is what each of us really cares about. I don't care about the "long term macro economics of casino gambling." I care whether or not I am going to win -- or get wiped out. What you are talking about is the long term macro economics of casino play.

So, why do you avoid discussing the factors that are important? Recent success or failure is meaningless to anyone unless you can demonstrate that success is built on a solid foundation. As you've said many times ... anyone can get lucky.

Rob's advice actually relates more to me, and I think this is why he has his followers.

His only followers are people who can't do simple arithmetic.

The reality is that even on a positive expectation game you can't win all the time. And that's really the #1 practical tip people should get along with take the money and run when you are ahead. However, your long term macro economics says that's wrong.

No it doesn't. It says it makes no difference. Why are you being dishonest?

Do you see and appreciate the conflict here? Im not a long term macro piece of the puzzle. Nor can I think or behave like one.

Total nonsense. You're results will approach your personal ER over time. There's nothing you can do to stop it whether you believe it or not. So, why do you deny proven facts?

[Alan Mendelson]

... anyone can get lucky.

And in fact, that is what it all comes down to. Even you know that when you play a positive expectation game you can't win all the time. And what is it that makes you win? It's luck.

Now, I concede that the better pay tables will help you "get lucky." Much like the phrase: "the harder I work the luckier I get."

But because you still need luck, and playing a positive expectation game does not guarantee a winning session or even a winning hand, it just makes sense to take the money and run when you have it. Hence, the win goals.

Even John Grochowski recognizes that. Do you, Arc?

[arcimede$]

And in fact, that is what it all comes down to. Even you know that when you play a positive expectation game you can't win all the time. And what is it that makes you win? It's luck.

Only in the very short term. Over time the ER acts much like a magnet and pulls the player toward it.

Now, I concede that the better pay tables will help you "get lucky." Much like the phrase: "the harder I work the luckier I get."

But because you still need luck, and playing a positive expectation game does not guarantee a winning session or even a winning hand, it just makes sense to take the money and run when you have it. Hence, the win goals.

Even John Grochowski recognizes that. Do you, Arc?

No, John clearly stated that if a person has sufficient bankroll then win goals provide no benefit. You don't get to rewrite what he told you. However, this shows just how much you want to defend your silly fantasies. You are becoming more dishonest over time.

The only thing that "makes sense" is the mathematically proven fact that win goals will make no difference. You can try and push your BS to someone else, Alan, but it will never work on me or anyone who understands math. I can only wonder why any rational person would claim a mathematically proven fact is wrong. It is beyond ridiculous. I guess it comes down to lack of intelligence ... that is the only possible explanation.

[Alan Mendelson]

Only in the very short term. Over time the ER acts much like a magnet and pulls the player toward it.

Well, here we go again? the "magical ER" which knows we are playing a 99.54% game and after we hit a couple of royals it is sure to make us lose so that over the long term our actual results are only 99.54% return. What's really funny is that what you say doesn't work for me in reverse... when I go to a casino the magical ER doesn't make sure that at the end of the year I have 99.2% of my original bankroll from playing Aces and Faces or Bonus poker.

Again, Arc, there is no magnet that pulls a player to the ER of a game.

No, John clearly stated that if a person has sufficient bankroll then win goals provide no benefit. You don't get to rewrite what he told you. However, this shows just how much you want to defend your silly fantasies. You are becoming more dishonest over time.

The only thing that "makes sense" is the mathematically proven fact that win goals will make no difference. You can try and push your BS to someone else, Alan, but it will never work on me or anyone who understands math. I can only wonder why any rational person would claim a mathematically proven fact is wrong. It is beyond ridiculous. I guess it comes down to lack of intelligence ... that is the only possible explanation.

Arc, did you forget this? Grochowski's second email to me -- originally in post #66. I emphasized the point about the benefits of win goals even for those on positive games. How deep are your pockets, Arc?

Hi Alan,

Sorry this took so long.

Yes, I think there's value in a casual player, even one who has an advantage over the casino, in locking up a percentage of profits.

It's a matter of bankroll. A pro who is sufficiently bankrolled, with tens of thousands of dollars in reserve, probably is just going to play on when he draws a $1,000 royal flush. He has an edge, and continuing to play is pursuit of profit.

But if I go into the casino with $500 and win a $1,000 royal, leaving me with a bankroll of $1,500 minus whatever I'd already invested, I have to be aware that a long losing streak --- which happens to everyone --- can wipe me out. In that situation, I'm probably going to lock up my original $500 plus $500 more.

One advantage casinos have even over players who have an edge on the game is that the casino has more money than you do. They can withstand longer losing streaks than you can. So yes, unless players have very deep pockets, locking up some winnings is a smart way to go.

Best,

John

[arcimede$]

Alan, what part of "It's a matter of bankroll. A pro who is sufficiently bankrolled, with tens of thousands of dollars in reserve, probably is just going to play on when he draws a $1,000 royal flush. He has an edge, and continuing to play is pursuit of profit."

And, this caveat in your highlighted quote ... "unless players have very deep pockets". That's twice he states that sufficient bankroll is the key. Besides, he never says win goals will change your results. In fact, he says the exact opposite in his column.

One of the most important aspects of advantage play is having sufficient bankroll. If you don't have it for the level you are playing then you aren't really an APer.

Finally, there is nothing magical about the ER. The ER is based on the pay table which is why it provides constant pressure to approach the average. No one said you'd end up at exactly 99.2%. What I said is you are pulled in that direction over time. Your whole comment is just more nonsense. When are you going to quit claiming 2+2 = 5?

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, what part of "It's a matter of bankroll. A pro who is sufficiently bankrolled, with tens of thousands of dollars in reserve, probably is just going to play on when he draws a $1,000 royal flush. He has an edge, and continuing to play is pursuit of profit."

And, this caveat in your highlighted quote ... "unless players have very deep pockets". That's twice he states that sufficient bankroll is the key. Besides, he never says win goals will change your results. In fact, he says the exact opposite in his column.

One of the most important aspects of advantage play is having sufficient bankroll. If you don't have it for the level you are playing then you aren't really an APer.

Finally, there is nothing magical about the ER. The ER is based on the pay table which is why it provides constant pressure to approach the average. No one said you'd end up at exactly 99.2%. What I said is you are pulled in that direction over time. Your whole comment is just more nonsense. When are you going to quit claiming 2+2 = 5?

Arc, I really doubt that a professional vp player with a bankroll of tens of thousands of dollars -- sufficient to withstand the ups and downs of video poker -- is going to earn a living playing single line 25-cent poker. Can we get back to talking about reality, please?

[arcimede$]

Arc, I really doubt that a professional vp player with a bankroll of tens of thousands of dollars -- sufficient to withstand the ups and downs of video poker -- is going to earn a living playing single line 25-cent poker. Can we get back to talking about reality, please?

Since I didn't say anything about "25-cent poker" why are you asking me? You are the one who quoted John's statement initiially. As far as reality goes you continue to deny it. You want to live in a fantasy world where 2+2=5. I can almost picture you and Singer with your tin-foil hats on skipping around a casino.