John Grochowski writes about money management.

[redietz]

I will point out the obvious one final time. I have never said win goals and loss limits are a bad thing for people who play negative expectation games. If they reduce number of hands played, they will save you money. If they lead to playing more hands, they will cost you money. If you play the same number of hands, they have no effect. For people who play positive expectation games and are sufficiently bankrolled, they are irrelevant. I feel stupid using the phrase "sufficiently bankrolled," because that should be a given, but evidently many people get some sort of "thrill" out of having a bankroll too small for their denomination.

Alan's use of language has changed somewhat. He now says win goals and loss limits allow him to "control his losses." That much can be true. If you are unable to control your losses by setting the alarm on your watch or deciding you want to see a show, then loss limits help you.

On the other hand, Alan also is using the curious phrase "maximize my wins." This is, I believe, incorrect, as one never knows what the final outcome of x number of hours of play will be. So shutting down a session because you have won a certain number of dollars does not necessarily "maximize one's wins." In fact, it actually limits one's wins. Just as loss limits set a floor, win goals set a ceiling. They do not "maximize one's wins."

[slingshot]

Well, set up some parameters for arci to run a simulation on your game of choice. Would that satisfy you?

Here's the problem with what you guys are asking. If you ran a simulation at home or whereever, YOU would be having to continually load the machines and would thus lose. In a casino, OTHERS are playing and loading the machines over a period of time and YES it will make a difference at different times and YES, because of this, win goals and loss limits DO work. It's NOT about the math, or level of skill, or whatever-it's all about timing- being at the right place at the right time. For the life of me I can't see why anyone can't comprehend this simple concept. I guess it's like one of my co-workers said to me last night- "You can't teach common sense-you either have it or you don't."

[redietz]

Slingshot, I have no idea what you're talking about, but is your problem solved if, say, on Thursday afternoons you let your mother-in-law play the machine on her dime? Then maybe your brother-in-law on Sundays? Do you actually think your win goal/loss limit stuff would then work?

[Alan Mendelson]

Slingshot... I think you're right. It's all about common sense.

I am still waiting for the math that win goals and loss limits are bad. Still no one has presented it.

[Alan Mendelson]

I will point out the obvious one final time. I have never said win goals and loss limits are a bad thing for people who play negative expectation games

Question for redietz and this just might wrap it up for me:

If win goals and loss limits are OK for negative expectation games why aren't they OK or used for positive expectation games? Please be specific. I would like you to add some explanation to this, and Arc can also contribute:

For people who play positive expectation games and are sufficiently bankrolled, they are irrelevant.

Question: are win goals and loss limits "irrelevant" because you expect to win? Please be specific: do you expect to win when you play positive expectation games? How much are you willing to lose knowing that you expect to win? What is the sufficient bankroll to give you the confidence that you expect to win?

Have you ever had a losing session on a positive expectation game?
Have you ever had more than one losing session on a positive expectation game?
What was your biggest loss at a session playing a positive expectation game and what was you biggest session win at a positive expectation game?
Can you bank on winning when you play a positive expectation game with 100% assurance?

I don't know of any positive expectation paytables that remains positive without hitting a royal flush. So, how many royals have you hit and what is your hit frequency for royals? Is it 1/40,000 hands. Please be specific. And an additional question for Arc: what is your longest drought between royals? And what was your net profit on your positive expectation games during that royal flush drought?

And I do want to clarify how I play in response to this statement by redietz:

Alan also is using the curious phrase "maximize my wins." This is, I believe, incorrect, as one never knows what the final outcome of x number of hours of play will be. So shutting down a session because you have won a certain number of dollars does not necessarily "maximize one's wins." In fact, it actually limits one's wins. Just as loss limits set a floor, win goals set a ceiling. They do not "maximize one's wins."

You might have missed my discussion about how I don't have a "fixed" win goal but use a system of increasing stop losses when I have a profit. This allows me to "keep winning" if I am getting lucky. In fact, this strategy of increasing stop losses is what I was using when I hit both of the $20K royals a few months ago. You might not recall but each of those royals were preceded by getting quad aces twice ($2,000 for each quad aces and I had quad aces two times before each of those royals) and with profits that were already well above $3,000 at each session I raised my "stop loss" which kept me playing and then the royals hit.

So, while a loss limit is fixed (the session budget) the win goal is not fixed but is flexible to allow for additional wins over and above a target amount. Raising stop losses, as you know, is commonly used in various forms of investing because you want to let your profits run while limiting your downside exposure.

[a2a3dseddie]

Here's the problem with what you guys are asking. If you ran a simulation at home or whereever, YOU would be having to continually load the machines and would thus lose. In a casino, OTHERS are playing and loading the machines over a period of time and YES it will make a difference at different times and YES, because of this, win goals and loss limits DO work. It's NOT about the math, or level of skill, or whatever-it's all about timing- being at the right place at the right time. For the life of me I can't see why anyone can't comprehend this simple concept. I guess it's like one of my co-workers said to me last night- "You can't teach common sense-you either have it or you don't."

So, in that thought experiment where the VP machine is moved into your house or if a simulation is run you think that the win and loss limits would not work because other people are not playing the machines? If I read your statement correctly, you believe that math and skill don't matter in VP and that it's all about timing?

So how do you solve this question of timing? Do you know when a machine will pay off? Do you restrict your play on a machine to when it's in a "hot cycle" and then get off it so that all the other gamblers will lose their money on it while it's in a cold cycle? When that hot cycle is about to begin again, do you shove these people off the machine and feed your money into it again? If you really have that ability, why are you playing VP? You should become a professional PowerBall lottery player.

[a2a3dseddie]

Unfortunately redietz I didn't say win goals and loss limits will make me a winner. What I said is that they control losses and allow me to maximize wins.

So are you agreeing with arci and redietz here? You say win goals and loss limits won't make you a winner?

[a2a3dseddie]

I'll try 1 more time. I'm up a significant amount. On the next hand my ER is 99%. Also my ER is 99% on the next 100 hands, 1000 hands, 10,000 hands. So my ER is a loss. But I'm ahead. So if I have met a win goal I can quit. Or, I can adjust my win goal up a little if i want to keep playing for a while. But I will not lose it all back, because I have a loss limit that was also asjusted.

This is bad how??? And Arci keeps double talking that you could win or lose and it makes no difference. But he's the ER guy and the ER is going to cut into my profit. So again, it is bad to take the profit why???

And I guess I should add that I'm not saying I will always be up and that I can't lose. I can and do lose plenty. But again, I may be limiting my losses and maximizing my wins. So I am avoiding the extremes on arcis bell curve.

regnis,

So, let's say I bring $50,000 (or $171 000) to the casino like Rob and set a win goal of $2500. I have him sit beside me and according to his instructions, play exactly the way he wants me to. Let's say I do indeed win $2500. But, I don't want to leave. I don't want to have to wait 10 years in order to win $1 million dollars. I want to shorten that up. So I want to reach 500 X $2500 win goals before I stop. I'll go down or up in denomination whenever I'm told to.

Would that work?

[slingshot]

So, in that thought experiment where the VP machine is moved into your house or if a simulation is run you think that the win and loss limits would not work because other people are not playing the machines? If I read your statement correctly, you believe that math and skill don't matter in VP and that it's all about timing?

So how do you solve this question of timing? Do you know when a machine will pay off? Do you restrict your play on a machine to when it's in a "hot cycle" and then get off it so that all the other gamblers will lose their money on it while it's in a cold cycle? When that hot cycle is about to begin again, do you shove these people off the machine and feed your money into it again? If you really have that ability, why are you playing VP? You should become a professional PowerBall lottery player.

It's called "luck" and so I all of a sudden get up by 20 credits and I change machines-where I lose 100 credits-then the next one gets me back to within 40 credits-then the next one all of a sudden, I'm up by 400 credits. I'm getting some mental and physical exercise,resting my eyes between machines, instead of sitting there like a zombie on one machine. No hocus pocus-just giving each machine a chance to send me home a winner.

[arcimede$]

3. This question is for arcimede$. Why don't you run a simulation using win goals and loss limits for the game Alan plays? Plug in the win goal he tries to hit and the loss limit he'll stop at. Program it play computer perfect. Then provide him with the results. (You know, I know, and everyone else knows that the sum total of the results will be pretty close to the machines' ER.)

I did. It was many months ago (probably last year). I reported the results to Alan on another thread and he ignored them. You take take a man to knowledge but you can't make him learn.

[a2a3dseddie]

I did. It was many months ago (probably last year). I reported the results to Alan on another thread and he ignored them. You take take a man to knowledge but you can't make him learn.

I hear you. Well Alan, do you recall arcimede$ simulation? Is that proof enough for you?

[arcimede$]

I think Arcimedes said he plays for a fixed number of hours. Why play for a fixed number of hours if you won big early in your session? Why play a fixed number of hours if you were losing big from the start?

The simple answers to your questions, Alan, are no one knows what the future holds. I've lost big at the start and ended up winning big. I've also won at the start and kept winning over the entire session. Sure, I've done the opposite but I could not know which would happen. The one thing I did know was I had an advantage on each and every hand I played.

That is not all. It's called using your brain. The freeplay system at the casino I played at was based on "average coin-in". So, if you play a variable amount then you will have less free-play. Every short session reduces your average coin-in. By playing a consistent amount a person maximizes their freeplay. With this approach the freeplay adds .8% to the return of the game. By leaving any time a small win is encountered it would cut the freeplay to maybe .2%. That is a big amount of money to give up for no reason at all. Win/loss goals add nothing to my pER. I'll take the extra .6%.

In addition, the cashback is determined by what tier level you attain. The highest level provides 5x point every time you play. The CB is based at .2% so at the highest level I got 1%. So, playing short sessions reduces the overall play given I only played once a week (to collect freeplay). I may not have been able to attain the highest level if I used win/loss goals. So, the return of my play was 100.28+.8+1. If I used win/loss goals I would have reduced that by up to 1% for absolutely no improvement in return. Now, that doesn't sound very bright, does it?

[arcimede$]

Unfortunately redietz I didn't say win goals and loss limits will make me a winner. What I said is that they control losses and allow me to maximize wins.

Now why don't you tell me where the math says i'm wrong?

I am still waiting for an answer.

You've been given the math many times. You just keep denying it applies to you while it clearly does.

There is nothing wrong with using win/loss goals. They simply make no difference over time. At some point Alan will hit a losing streak. He will hit his loss limit over and over again. This will lead to short trips or he will cave and play more despite his preaching. That's when reality will hit him in the face. Driving many hours to LV and back to play for an hour can't possibly be very much fun.

[Alan Mendelson]

So are you agreeing with arci and redietz here? You say win goals and loss limits won't make you a winner?

Win goals and loss limits are a tool, just as using strategy about which cards to hold is a tool, that is part of a formula to win. Let me give you an example:

You are dealt As Ks Qs Js Th what do you hold? Well, I would suggest that all of us would hold the four cards to a royal. But if you lost all of your money on your previous trip you wouldnt have that choice -- because you wouldn't be playing anymore. ;-)

[arcimede$]

I'll try 1 more time. I'm up a significant amount. On the next hand my ER is 99%. Also my ER is 99% on the next 100 hands, 1000 hands, 10,000 hands. So my ER is a loss. But I'm ahead. So if I have met a win goal I can quit. Or, I can adjust my win goal up a little if i want to keep playing for a while. But I will not lose it all back, because I have a loss limit that was also asjusted.

This is bad how??? And Arci keeps double talking that you could win or lose and it makes no difference. But he's the ER guy and the ER is going to cut into my profit. So again, it is bad to take the profit why???

And I guess I should add that I'm not saying I will always be up and that I can't lose. I can and do lose plenty. But again, I may be limiting my losses and maximizing my wins. So I am avoiding the extremes on arcis bell curve.

No, you aren't avoiding anything except reality. Since you have idea how you would have done if you didn't quit after reaching a goal you could be costing yourself money. And, when you return you could lose right away over and over again.

Think about Singer's claims. For him to have won what he claims he must have hit big at higher denominations. The only way to reach those denoms is to lose at the lower ones. But, if you have small win/loss goals you would never have reached those higher levels. You would have quit and lost money. The only reason Singer could reach those levels is because of an enormous loss limit.

[Alan Mendelson]

I hear you. Well Alan, do you recall arcimede$ simulation? Is that proof enough for you?

Um, gee, I don't remember if Arc's simulation was done on a day when I had a $2500 loss limit or it was a day when I had a $500 loss limit. I also don't remember if I was playing Aces and Faces or if I was playing Double Double Bonus. I also don't remember if his simulation was for a fixed $500 win goal or if it was for a flexible win goal where I adjusted a rising stop loss.

But then it doesn't matter. Arc will present a simulation of a negative expectation game, and every simulation of a negative expectation game if played (simulated) long enough will show that you lose. Just as every simulation of a positive expectation game if played (simulated) long enough will show that you win. What is the point of a simulation? It's more of Arc's 2 + 2 does not equal 5.

(Surprise Arc, I agree 2+2 does not equal 5.)

I think I have had enough of you guys challenging me about using win goals and loss limits. I use them. You don't. You play your way, and I'll play my way. The difference is I know in advance when I have lost enough and if I win a nice amount I know I will be able to go home with it and enjoy it and return another to play again. Once again, I ask you to show me the math that says that is wrong? Where is the math?

Where is the math?
Where is the math?
Where is the math?

[arcimede$]

Win goals and loss limits are a tool, just as using strategy about which cards to hold is a tool, that is part of a formula to win. Let me give you an example:

You are dealt As Ks Qs Js Th what do you hold? Well, I would suggest that all of us would hold the four cards to a royal. But if you lost all of your money on your previous trip you wouldnt have that choice -- because you wouldn't be playing anymore. ;-)

However, if you quit having reached a loss limit several trips in a row "you wouldnt have that choice -- because you wouldn't be playing anymore" ... the odds of your scenario and mine are exactly the same.

[Alan Mendelson]

You've been given the math many times. You just keep denying it applies to you while it clearly does.

I'm sorry. What math? Would you mind spelling it out one more time? But wait, you don't have to, because you wrote:

There is nothing wrong with using win/loss goals. They simply make no difference over time.

Thank you. All done. If it doesn't hurt than why not? If it allows me to enjoy a win and at the same time limit my losses, why not? If it makes me say at the end of a trip, "okay it was fun and I didn't lose too much," than why not? If it allows me to go home with some extra money so I have the money to return with and play again, why not?

At some point Alan will hit a losing streak. He will hit his loss limit over and over again. This will lead to short trips or he will cave and play more

Yes, this happened before, and I went home talking to the windshield of my car, saying "why didn't I quit when I had planned to quit." Or, after hitting a royal flush and instead of quitting for the trip I put it all back in -- then I would drive home saying to my windshield "damn I had a royal flush and now I have nothing to show for it."

I will concede that to a mathematician "there is nothing wrong with using win/loss goals" and "they simply make no difference over time." But I don't care about "over time" because the time of a mathematician could be millions of hands and years of play. What I care about is that day and that trip.

And finally:

Driving many hours to LV and back to play for an hour can't possibly be very much fun.

This is what makes me laugh. Do you think I make a trip to Las Vegas with a small bankroll that isn't going to last the trip whether it be for two days or four?

And thanks for your explanation about how you play for a certain amount of time to manage your comps. Sorry, I don't play for comps. Comps don't keep me at a machine nor do comps motivate me to play. I thought that was the first rule of "advantage play"? You don't play for comps.

[a2a3dseddie]

Um, gee, I don't remember if Arc's simulation was done on a day when I had a $2500 loss limit or it was a day when I had a $500 loss limit. I also don't remember if I was playing Aces and Faces or if I was playing Double Double Bonus. I also don't remember if his simulation was for a fixed $500 win goal or if it was for a flexible win goal where I adjusted a rising stop loss.

But then it doesn't matter. Arc will present a simulation of a negative expectation game, and every simulation of a negative expectation game if played (simulated) long enough will show that you lose. Just as every simulation of a positive expectation game if played (simulated) long enough will show that you win. What is the point of a simulation? It's more of Arc's 2 + 2 does not equal 5.

(Surprise Arc, I agree 2+2 does not equal 5.)

I think I have had enough of you guys challenging me about using win goals and loss limits. I use them. You don't. You play your way, and I'll play my way. The difference is I know in advance when I have lost enough and if I win a nice amount I know I will be able to go home with it and enjoy it and return another to play again. Once again, I ask you to show me the math that says that is wrong? Where is the math?

Where is the math?
Where is the math?
Where is the math?

Ok, so then you reject VP simulations even though that is exactly what VP manufacturers pitch to casino owners to get them to put their machines into the casinos.

What "math" are you looking for then?

Alan, it's okay to admit you are wrong or have been misguided. I personally hold / give more respect to someone who can admit their mistakes.

[Alan Mendelson]

Ok, so then you reject VP simulations even though that is exactly what VP manufacturers pitch to casino owners to get them to put their machines into the casinos.

Why would I reject a simulation? A simulation is a simulation. I look for the best pay table available when I play because the simulations show that you will do better when you play at a better pay table. I play Aces and Faces or Bonus Poker instead of Double Double Bonus because the simulations show that I will play longer and my money will have a better return at Aces and Faces and Bonus Poker (both 8/5 games) instead of Double Double Bonus which at Rincon is also 8/5.

What "math" are you looking for then?

The math I am looking for is the math that keeps you attacking me for using win/loss goals and limits. Since you follow the math, what is the math that says what I do with win/loss goals and limits is wrong? Come on? Where is the math that says "Alan is wrong." I follow the math. I use correct strategy. I follow Dancer and Grochowski and even the strategy laid out in Scoblete's new book on Casino Poker (which has some very clear and concise strategy tables in it -- well done.) I use the math. I follow the math. Now show me the math that says I shouldn't quit after a big win or adjust my stop loss higher. And show me the math that says I shouldn't quit when I reached my loss limit. I'm waiting to see it.

Alan, it's okay to admit you are wrong or have been misguided. I personally hold / give more respect to someone who can admit their mistakes.

What's wrong? To preach to someone not to follow a loss limit strategy? I would never tell you to keep playing if you lost more than you felt comfortable losing -- because that would be wrong to do. And I would never tell you to keep playing if you wanted to pocket a win, because that would be wrong to do.

How dare you people criticize anyone for saying that they have a budget for a trip and they have a limit to how much they feel comfortable losing. How dare you people criticize anyone for saying they are happy with the profit they made and they want to put that profit in their pocket. Who the F--- do you think any of you are to say "the math" makes you wrong for having a win goal or a loss limit?

Screw all of you.