John Grochowski writes about money management.

[arcimede$]

In fairness to Arci, and because it even gets tiresome screwing with him, his example Alan, with the $4,900 and $5,000 is showing you a return on the total amount wagered, not on your bankroll of $100. So if you are able to wager 5,000 total from your 100 buy in, and when you are done you have lost your 100 bankroll, you had returned 4,900 over the course of that play. You have lost 2% of the total wagered, not 2% of your bankroll. So even tho you lost your $100, and thus your actual loss is 100%, the return based on wagering 5,000 is -2%.

Yup, which could be the ER of the game .... which just happened to be the statement I was responding to.

Of course, only a mathematician would say he only lost 2%. You and I would say we lost 100%. And this is why he looks at a lifetime of play and we look at each session. Only one thing counts to me---how much is in my pocket when I leave the casino. I don't give a crap what my return was or what the ER was, or what the ER says I should have won or lost. And I don't care if I use a Singer special play going for the big hit once or twice a night because it cost me 3 cents over my lifetime.

Like everything in math it gets down to what question was asked. I would also say he lost 100% of his bankroll if that was the question. However, the statement Alan made was that he wouldn't experience the ER of the machine. The ER of a machine is the calculation I made.

And yes, I do get tired of you guys arguing with me when you are 100% wrong.