John Grochowski writes about money management.

[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.

[arcimede$]

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.

Silly strawman. No one has said any of that. It's very telling when you misrepresent what is being explained to you so you have something you can argue against. All you do by creating these ridiculous strawmen is make it evident you can't argue against the statements that we have made.

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.

More strawmen. Really, Alan, if you think you can support your claim that win/loss goals will improve your bottom line then provide the evidence. Making up things as you go is seriously dishonest.