John Grochowski writes about money management.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, we're getting close. I agree with this: "Actual means it has already happened. It is in the past. Done. Finished. It has nothing to do with future results."

Now when I said "how a player plays the game" is also means how the player played the game.

So... if a player played the game and quit the session when ahead it doesn't mean that the expected return changed, it means that he profited while playing the game whether it had a positive or a negative pay table. Does that makes sense to you?

If you need a "third term" then please go ahead and use it.

[arcimede$]

No one ever said the expected return is changed by any session results. That not only includes wins but losses as well. You could have a session return of 70% or worse on a 99% game. A session result will rarely match the expected return of a game. That is why it is basically useless in planning for the future. So, the question still stands. Do you believe using win/loss goals change your pER on future play?

[Alan Mendelson]

Okay, getting back to the basic question: yes, win and loss goals can improve your results. I am proving it RIGHT NOW this year. I don't care if you don't believe it. My check book shows me.

edited to add: but you asked about "future results." I don't know what the future holds. I know that each time I play if I play with loss limits I can control my losses, and that's all I can ask and hope to accomplish.

[arcimede$]

Okay, getting back to the basic question: yes, win and loss goals can improve your results. I am proving it RIGHT NOW this year. I don't care if you don't believe it. My check book shows me.

You are proving nothing with a half year's worth of play. I have had years vary by as much as 3% return without doing anything different. Did those 170K hands without a RF mean you were doing something wrong? That is the problem with basing decisions on previous results. If you lose on your next 10 trips will that mean anything at all?

The good thing is that using win/loss goals don't necessarily hurt you unless you start to think they actually have the ability to change your pER. Keep in mind that it has been PROVEN beyond any question that using win/loss goals will not affect your pER. So, it is akin to believing in the tooth fairy, Santa or any other mythical being.

edited to add: but you asked about "future results." I don't know what the future holds. I know that each time I play if I play with loss limits I can control my losses, and that's all I can ask and hope to accomplish.

I've never had a problem with loss limits. While they don't make a difference either they do affect how we feel and losing a great deal of money is never fun.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, you are the only one who somehow needs to put all of this into context with "expected return" whether its "personal" or with the game. The rest of us are talking about personal money management.

If I manage my losses, I will do better. The winners will come when the winners will come.

This argument was all about nothing.

[arcimede$]

Arc, you are the only one who somehow needs to put all of this into context with "expected return" whether its "personal" or with the game. The rest of us are talking about personal money management.

If I manage my losses, I will do better. The winners will come when the winners will come.

This argument was all about nothing.

No Alan, you won't necessarily do better. That is the point of the discussion. By making these false claims you could be leading people astray. While win/loss goals may make you feel better they do nothing for your actual return over time. I'm trying to explain reality to you. Why you resist accepting a proven fact is quite beyond me.

The advantages of win/loss goals have nothing to with your pER. They include things like reducing play (possibly) on negative machines, avoiding large losses that make you feel bad, avoiding putting big winners back into machines which also make you feel bad, etc. It is mainly psychological. However, at the same time you avoid really big days, real short sessions, etc.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc, by telling people to keep gambling -- whether the machine has a positive pay table or not -- is more dangerous.

There is no false claim about setting a loss limit.

The concept that playing a positive expectation game that will bail you out of losing streaks has the danger of enabling addictive behavior.

And by the way, good job creating pER. I hope you are recognized for it at some point.

[redietz]

It's possible, even probable, that setting a loss limit is more "dangerous," to use Alan's word, than not using a loss limit. Having set a loss limit, what percentage of people will stop gambling when halfway to it, or after having lost two-thirds of their "limit?" Not many would be my guess.I think most people would indeed play to their "loss limit."

A loss limit, for many people, would dictate their number of hands played more than fatigue, which is flat out wrong. A loss limit may lead to more hands played than no loss limit, which is wrong for negative expectation games.

Actually, claiming that a loss limit is helpful is a false claim, unsupported by any evidence of which I'm aware.

On top of this, I submit that Alan is simply speculating about whether a loss limit would reduce something called "addictive behavior" as opposed to having no loss limit. I'm unaware of any conclusive research that points in either direction. Alan, if you have evidence to back this up, let people know.

[Alan Mendelson]

redietz do me a favor: do not play with a loss limit. It's not for you. Keep doing whatever you're doing. You'll be fine.

[regnis]

[QUOTE=arcimede$;13752]No Alan, you won't necessarily do better. That is the point of the discussion. By making these false claims you could be leading people astray. While win/loss goals may make you feel better they do nothing for your actual return over time. I'm trying to explain reality to you. Why you resist accepting a proven fact is quite beyond me.

You are not explaining reality--you are explaining the theoretical based upon mathematical probability. The reality is that Alan has cash in the pocket because he was lucky enough to be on the right side of the bell curve, and that because of his win goals and loss limits, he didn't give all the profits back. Now theoretically, without those goals and limits, he could have kept playing. And since his ER is 99%(for sake of example) he would expect to lose. Also, as you have so clearly stated earlier in this thread, the magnet would start to draw him back down to the ER. So you can't have it both ways Arc---yes he may have won more if he kept playing, but the ER---the probability--was that he would lose, so he done good.

[Alan Mendelson]

regnis don't forget that even positive expectation games have bell curves too, and players who can have wins on positive expectation games can also hit a slump and lose for long stretches. Arc can tell you about his long stretches.

[Rob.Singer]

[QUOTE=regnis;13757]

No Alan, you won't necessarily do better. That is the point of the discussion. By making these false claims you could be leading people astray. While win/loss goals may make you feel better they do nothing for your actual return over time. I'm trying to explain reality to you. Why you resist accepting a proven fact is quite beyond me.

You are not explaining reality--you are explaining the theoretical based upon mathematical probability. The reality is that Alan has cash in the pocket because he was lucky enough to be on the right side of the bell curve, and that because of his win goals and loss limits, he didn't give all the profits back. Now theoretically, without those goals and limits, he could have kept playing. And since his ER is 99%(for sake of example) he would expect to lose. Also, as you have so clearly stated earlier in this thread, the magnet would start to draw him back down to the ER. So you can't have it both ways Arc---yes he may have won more if he kept playing, but the ER---the probability--was that he would lose, so he done good.

As I've been saying for quite a while, Alan's cash-in-hand is arci's thorn-in-his-side....and that's just ONE of the reasons that make him an angry man. Reality is nothing arci wants to have to deal with. His virtual life on the Internet documents that nicely. Nowhere will you ever see him agree that someone playing a 99% machine with win goals and quitting when they're attained could ever do better over time than playing as an AP. It just doesn't fit into his pathological lying factory. But yes, it is the absolute Undeniable Truth.

[Alan Mendelson]

For those of you who don't live by ER... I got a phone call this morning that the progressive $5 DDB game at Rincon is in excess of $42,000 for the royal. It's a lousy 8/5 game, but if you hit the royal for $42,000+ I don't think the 8/5 part of the pay table will matter much.

[regnis]

Just curious what that big of a royal does to the ER. Does it make it positive? Wouldn't matter to me if I were a royal chaser--which I'm not.

[Alan Mendelson]

Just curious what that big of a royal does to the ER. Does it make it positive? Wouldn't matter to me if I were a royal chaser--which I'm not.

A regular 8/5 DDB pay table returns 96.79% and if a royal pays a bit more than double the return is about 99% and still less than traditional 8/5 Bonus or 8/5 Aces and Faces.

But like I said -- if you hit the royal the pay table becomes "academic."

Edited to add: the royal would have to pay about $50,000 for this game to be positive.

[arcimede$]

Arc, by telling people to keep gambling -- whether the machine has a positive pay table or not -- is more dangerous.

No one has told anyone to "keep gambling". This is typical of your dishonest responses. The point has always been that win/loss goals make no difference. If a person wants to use them it should be for reasons not related to their gambling results. It is exactly the same as switching machines. If a person feels better doing it then by all means do. Just don't make the erroneous claim that it will improve your results.

The concept that playing a positive expectation game that will bail you out of losing streaks has the danger of enabling addictive behavior.

What evidence do you have to support his claim? None? That's what I thought. Alan, quit with promoting your beliefs and stick with facts. As I've stated before, win goals may promote a quicker return to the casino which would increase play (ie. "enabling addictive behavior"). However, I would never claim this to be automatically true like you did above.

And by the way, good job creating pER. I hope you are recognized for it at some point.

It's something that should be discussed far more often than it is. The gER is really not that useful. For example, a person playing 9/6 JOB my have a pER of around 99.4% while playing 10/7 DB at 99.1% even though the DB game has a higher gER.

[arcimede$]

You are not explaining reality--you are explaining the theoretical based upon mathematical probability.

No, I am pointing out that it has been mathematically PROVEN that win/loss goals will make no difference. It's not a matter of debate, it is not theory, it has nothing to do with probability. It is a FACT.

[arcimede$]

For those of you who don't live by ER... I got a phone call this morning that the progressive $5 DDB game at Rincon is in excess of $42,000 for the royal. It's a lousy 8/5 game, but if you hit the royal for $42,000+ I don't think the 8/5 part of the pay table will matter much.

And, if you don't hit the RF? What then?

[Alan Mendelson]

No, I am pointing out that it has been mathematically PROVEN that win/loss goals will make no difference. It's not a matter of debate, it is not theory, it has nothing to do with probability. It is a FACT.

As I said to redietz... don't use win/loss goals Arc. They'll never work for you. You won't know how to use them, nor could you use them.

[arcimede$]

As I said to redietz... don't use win/loss goals Arc. They'll never work for you. You won't know how to use them, nor could you use them.

Alan, they won't "work" for anyone if you believe they will increase your pER. I'm not telling you to quit using them as that is your own personal choice. However you should quit promoting them as a method of improving a person's bottom line. That is a proven falsehood. The Alan's Best Buy brand is weakened by claiming a proven mathematically fact can be overcome by voodoo rituals.