Setting Win Limitations

[Frank Kneeland]

I'd like to get back to discussing goal based play as it applies to advantage play. Rob has accurately made an argument that for some people the knowledge that the more they play, the closer to expectation they are likely to come is a strong incentive to play as much as possible, and that this can lead to abuse. I would define this as dysfunctional advantage play. Rob has further gone on to state that his goal based system is therefore the clear winner because it has more ways to get you out of the casino.

Would it surprise you to know that ALL my advantage play is goal based with even more solid and logical ways to get you out of the casino.

Only dysfunctional AP's play without goals. The functional ones have very clear and omnipresent goals, they are simply different than things like loss limits or win goals.

Here's an example: In advantage play we ignore results in so far as determining whether or not a play is good or bad.

A dysfunctional AP could use that to ignore losses completely and continue to play something for which they were not adequately bankrolled.

A functional AP does not alter their play based on losses, but they would alter their play based on their available bankroll. Therefore in the face of continuous losses they might well alter what they were playing if their bankroll dropped below what was necessary for a given play. It isn't the losses that generate the alteration, it is a logical risk assessment based on math that would and should alter your behavior...and it would be dependent not on how much you had lost but on how much you had left.

One is logical the other is not. The difference is not slight.

Would you like to guess at what some of the other logical goals of functional AP's are???

[Lucky(St)Louis]

I thought goal based play and advantage play were incompatible. Foolish me. However, in a hybrid strategy, as Rob's, it makes sense. No?

[Frank Kneeland]

I thought goal based play and advantage play were incompatible. Foolish me. However, in a hybrid strategy, as Rob's, it makes sense. No?

Goal based play is just as much an indispensable aspect of advantage play as it is in Rob's system. If find it most disturbing that for some reason this isn't well known. I would replace the word "incompatible" with "integral". As I said ALL the AP I do is goal based. I won't even play without a clear goal. These goals are different, but still present. The primary difference is they are not dependent on random variables and remain fixed regardless of whether or not you are up or down in a given period.

As far as goals making sense in Rob's system, the goals he employs are valid in the sense that they give you a reason to leave. They are not as far as I can tell logical, and therefore may come with the additional baggage of illogical thought. It is hard for me to say for sure at this time as I still do not understand his system or how it was derived. I can say that I think goals are a great idea and if the end result of Rob's goals is less gambling I'm for them.

[Alan Mendelson]

After listening to Rob Singer, I'm confused as well about goal based play and advantage play not being compatible.

The way I understand it from Rob, and from what I've read on various newsgroups, the advantage players consider that every single bet is a positive bet because it is made on a positive expectation game with side benefits from comps and cash back and free play and free drinks and whatever else they add in -- and that makes every bet they make a money making bet. Well, that's what they claim, isn't it?

And the way I understand the advantage players -- the only reason they stop playing is because they have to sleep, have to eat, have to use the John and this is because every bet they make is a money maker. In fact, they'll tell you that even when they lose they're still winning because they were playing a positive expectation game with cash back and comps and free play and free food....

So why should an advatange player have any kind of goal that would make them stop playing? They certainly make it sound that the more they bet the more they profit.

[Frank Kneeland]

After listening to Rob Singer, I'm confused as well about goal based play and advantage play not being compatible.

The way I understand it from Rob, and from what I've read on various newsgroups, the advantage players consider that every single bet is a positive bet because it is made on a positive expectation game with side benefits from comps and cash back and free play and free drinks and whatever else they add in -- and that makes every bet they make a money making bet. Well, that's what they claim, isn't it?

And the way I understand the advantage players -- the only reason they stop playing is because they have to sleep, have to eat, have to use the John and this is because every bet they make is a money maker. In fact, they'll tell you that even when they lose they're still winning because they were playing a positive expectation game with cash back and comps and free play and free food....

So why should an advatange player have any kind of goal that would make them stop playing? They certainly make it sound that the more they bet the more they profit.

What you are describing is dysfunctional advantage play. I'll give you a list of better habits later. I'm off to dinner.

[Alan Mendelson]

What you are describing is dysfunctional advantage play. I'll give you a list of better habits later. I'm off to dinner.

Ahhh... dysfunctional advantage play... the same guys who have tormented Singer for years.

[Lucky(St)Louis]

Goal based play is just as much an indispensable aspect of advantage play as it is in Rob's system. If find it most disturbing that for some reason this isn't well known. I would replace the word "incompatible" with "integral". As I said ALL the AP I do is goal based. I won't even play without a clear goal. These goals are different, but still present. The primary difference is they are not dependent on random variables and remain fixed regardless of whether or not you are up or down in a given period.

As far as goals making sense in Rob's system, the goals he employs are valid in the sense that they give you a reason to leave. They are not as far as I can tell logical, and therefore may come with the additional baggage of illogical thought. It is hard for me to say for sure at this time as I still do not understand his system or how it was derived. I can say that I think goals are a great idea and if the end result of Rob's goals is less gambling I'm for them.

My mistake. Of course we all have goals. When I said "goal based play", I was referring to win goals to end a session, as you precisely addressed in your second paragraph. I never intended to say that advantage play and progressive vp advantage play had no goals.

Anyway, discussion has already progressed.....just wanted to clarify for any future confusion.

[Frank Kneeland]

My mistake. Of course we all have goals. When I said "goal based play", I was referring to win goals to end a session, as you precisely addressed in your second paragraph. I never intended to say that advantage play and progressive vp advantage play had no goals.

Anyway, discussion has already progressed.....just wanted to clarify for any future confusion.

Ah..yes that's true. Functional APs don't set win goals, primarily because there really isn't anyway to do so logically. I certainly can't think of any reason why having made a certain amount of money in a given period of time would be a reason to temporarily discontinue play.

I'm too tired tonight to fully reply. Catch you all tomorrow.

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank... after 37 pages viewed nearly 4,000 times, would you mind summing up your point? I'm getting mixed signals about "quitting when ahead" and the "logic" or "lack of logic" of quitting when ahead and does it make sense to quit when ahead if you're a professional or recreational player. Sorry, but too many twists and turns in this discussion for me. Thanks.

[Frank Kneeland]

Frank... after 37 pages viewed nearly 4,000 times, would you mind summing up your point? I'm getting mixed signals about "quitting when ahead" and the "logic" or "lack of logic" of quitting when ahead and does it make sense to quit when ahead if you're a professional or recreational player. Sorry, but too many twists and turns in this discussion for me. Thanks.

This was all covered, re-covered, summed & re-summed by page 10 of this thread. I see no point in reposting what I've already written. I also find it more than passing strange that you see twist and turns where there has been but one unified message. The conclusion is that you are misinterpreting a great deal of what I say and reinterpreting it into what you want to hear, thus providing your own bifurcation in all but the places where I have achieved unambiguity. There are no mixed signals.

"quitting when ahead" is completely and utterly illogical since the only word in the phrase that is used correctly is "when".

People that "'quit' when they are 'ahead'" do not actually "quit" and they don't do it when they are actually "ahead".

If one removes the multiple quotes, it's just bad English. What these people are really saying is:

If I discard all previous results (for no other reason other than I went home and slept in my own bed and because I want to) and only look at how I've done during this completely arbitrary time span, I'm going to take a short break, because during this period of time I have experienced positive fluctuation, which reduces my lifetime losses and that I'm going to define as "winning" because I want to. I am neither truly ahead, nor do I intend to truly quit, but I'm going to disregard all logic and do something that my dysfunctional brain can use to convince myself I don't have a problem...and since this will result in me gambling slightly less, everyone (including myself, who really needs convincing) will hopefully agree that it isn't a bad idea.

Is that clear enough?

If "quitting" when you are "ahead" has any place, it is as a stop-gap-measure-jury-rigged-band-aid for people with potential or current gambling problems.

In order for it to be a good idea, you would have to have current or potential gambling problems, and in that event I cannot say that it wouldn't be a GREAT idea!

If you really need a reason to leave the casino, go for it. Just the fact that you would consider such things, probably means you shouldn't be in a casino at all.

This practice and its associated illogical thinking is one of the primary methods by which "recreational" gamblers add "fun" to a net negative experience to relieve their cognitive dissonance though the use of illusory control. Unfortunately, for these people the practice may increase their potential to develop gambling problems later, as the practice comes with a host of biases and cognitive distortions required for it to make sense to them. It's basically like someone that hallucinates a guardian angel to help them make it though a blizzard and reach home...super useful during the blizzard, perhaps not so great when the Angel keeps speaking to them during their normal daily life and they get locked up for schizophrenia.

Therefore, I can only recommend the practice for people who already have, or are in the process of developing gambling problems...and even then, only if all other methods of terminating or reducing their play have failed.

~FK

P.S. I think it might possibly have a place in the treatment of hopeless addicted gamblers. The medical community merely thinks of it as a risk factor for pathological gambling or as a sign you already qualify as a problem gambler.

[Frank Kneeland]

Goals set by Functional Advantage Players:

1. Any well rounded functional person should hopefully have many diverse, productive and enjoyable activities that they engage in, both alone and with their families. If gambling is their source of income, their primary goal is to support their lifestyle. Gambling to live is a fine, living to gamble is a problem. All functional AP's gamble as little as possible to allow more time for the important things in life. A job is just a job.

2. Health is always the most important factor. One should never play beyond what would put a strain on the body. Functional AP's always set daily time limits on their play, and leave when they have reached their daily goal for hours. Since leaving when one has played x number of hours is not dependent on the random fluctuations of the machine this provides a far more stable and predictable method of leaving the casino than "win goals" ever could. Currently, I never play more than 4hrs in a day and not more than 3 days in a week.

3. POINTS: Most casinos now offer mailer rebates that have increasing benefits up to a point, and then drop off with diminishing returns. Functional AP's calculate the precise sweat spot for maximum gain with minimum effort, and make a certain amount of monthly coin-in their goal for each casino. As soon as the coin-in goal is reached they discontinue play until the next month. CI is not dependent on results.

4. Minimum edge and maximum risk: All functional AP's do not look at all plays as equal. They set very specific edge requirements, and maximum risk limits and use mathematical formulas that include their current bankroll to determine what plays qualify as playable. They then pick the best possible thing for them to do and play it as much as possible, up to what would constitute a normal work week without health risk.

5. Progressive: When playing progressives the goal is to play so long as the progressive is up. When it hits you are done.

6. Since functional AP's don't really like gambling and merely consider it a job, they require no special reasons to leave a casino, and usually look for reasons not to enter one, so they can do something fun instead with their ill-gotten gains. Unfortunately, living expenses require that one has to work at least a little.

There are many other goals I haven't mentioned like cover action, tournament entries, etc... all of which require a specific amount of play and no more. Since AP's ignore short term results, these goals are extremely easy to meet and follow. I think it would safe to say that if a functional AP didn't have a goal they wouldn't be playing in the first place.

~FK

[Frank Kneeland]

Case in point. I and my partner went to a brand new casino for the first time yesterday to get on the mailer list. We weren't sure what they were offering for mailer perks, so as soon as we sat down I asked my partner what our goal was. He said he had heard that at least 10,000 points was required for a decent mailer. I got 10,021 points, cashed out and left.

Clear goals that terminate your play at an exact predictable time don't get much better than that.

Does anyone else have some logical AP goals they could share?

[Alan Mendelson]

Case in point. I and my partner went to a brand new casino for the first time yesterday to get on the mailer list. We weren't sure what they were offering for mailer perks, so as soon as we sat down I asked my partner what our goal was. He said he had heard that at least 10,000 points was required for a decent mailer. I got 10,021 points, cashed out and left.

Clear goals that terminate your play at an exact predictable time don't get much better than that.

Does anyone else have some logical AP goals they could share?

Oh Frank, we're begging to know: did you leave with a profit? or did you leave with a loss?

If you left with a loss, did you have a profit earlier in the session before you reached your goal of playing for "comp points" ??

And isn't the golden rule NOT to play for comps? And playing to be included on a mailer list is certainly playing for comps.

Please tell.

[Frank Kneeland]

I'm not really sure what my personal result was. To save time I handed my cash-out ticket to my present partner and asked him to take care of the records. I was in a hurry to get home. He's sleeping now so I can't ask him.

No, I did not look at my credits when I cashed-out other than as a passing glance. Whatever my result was would be split 6-ways anyway, so its a bit irrelevant. As far as I know we are ahead on that particular play overall.

I'm not sure what you mean by comp-points. We were playing 99.6 % return machines with about 1.5% extra for a new sign up bonus and cash-back mailer, plus cash-back point value.

The important thing to understand is that I went there with a very specific goal, met it, and left in under an hour feeling satisfied. The edge was fairly large 1.1% and playing $50 a hand that comes to roughly $500 and hour (of course you are limited to about 1 hour for this particular play). Because I don't get excited by "wins" or disheartened by "losses" doesn't mean I have no goals when I play...and because I partner and share plays like this with my team we tend to run very close to expectancy even in short time spans like a month. For an individual it would take half a year or longer to have the same nearly flat fluctuation curve we enjoy.

It is dull and boring, but profitable.

~FK

[Frank Kneeland]

Here's an example play I can tell you the results for: At M, on the dollar Max-Royal progressive, we hit a total of 8 dollar Royals over $14,000. One of our team hit 3 Royals, two of our team hit 2 Royals each, and one hit 1. The remaining two team members hit none. We had about $80,000 in loses to hit $115,000 in Jackpots and cleared around $4,000 in profit a piece. The team members that hit the Royals did slightly better since we give a 5% signing bonus for taxable jackpots off the top.

Prior to playing at M we calculated our edge at around 2% and ran slightly good. When the dust settled we made 2.5% on our total coin-in, which was roughly 1,300,000.

~FK

P.S. I was one of the players that hit no Royals at M. I still made almost exactly what I was supposed to for time served, thanks to the joys of math and partnering.

[Alan Mendelson]

Frank, when you talk to Rob Singer next time... or better yet... the next time Rob reads this thread and posts here... I'd like him to comment about the "formula" you were following. Because I think he'll say it doesn't matter if you were playing a 99.6% return machine with a 1.5% sign up bonus and cash back. Rob, I think, will tell you that the only thing that matters is did you win or lose?

In fact, in one of the video interviews I did with Rob he discussed a case in point where he ignored "the math" to go for "the win." Here it is:



I think Rob will also tell you -- as will many other gambling writers and experts -- that you should never play for comps. And it appears to me that your goal was solely to reach a particular "comp level" by scoring 10,000 points. Does this mean you had no regard whatsoever for your wins or losses? Does this mean you had no loss-limit? And I am sure you never had a win-goal because that would not be logical.

Since you think Rob Singer might be able to help curb gambling addiction, let me quote something from page 73 of his book The Undeniable Truth about Video Poker where he discusses having an $80 win goal:

"How important is knowing when to quit a machine? Let's say it's the single most determining factor for each session you play. You must possess the ability to picture yourself counting that $480 in your wallet or purse in your room or at home, and understand/feel just how wonderful this is in comparison to losing that $400."

Of course you tell us that you play with a team, so that one player's losses can be offset by another team member's wins. Well, I've seen teams play for progressives and the team didn't win, but Sally from San Diego did.

Sorry, I don't buy what you're saying. And I am surprised that someone such as you who talks about addictive gamblers fooling themselves would say such things.

EDITED TO ADD: While I was writing this post, and re-writing, and doing some research by looking through Rob's book again and finding the link to the video, you edited your original post and wrote another post about having some goals. So it appears our posts "crossed" in time.

I think it is important that you point out that you do have goals, but I also think it is very important that casino-goers who read your posts understand that you are playing as part of a team and because you play as part of a team your losses can be subsidized by another team member's wins, and likewise, your wins are also shared by other team members. And as you point out above:

"and because I partner and share plays like this with my team we tend to run very close to expectancy even in short time spans like a month. For an individual it would take half a year or longer to have the same nearly flat fluctuation curve we enjoy."

While you are concerned about gambling addiction, I am concerned that Joe Public Casino-goer will read reports of professionals such as yourself and think they can accomplish the same thing without appropriate bankrolls, partners and knowledge -- as well as the positive expectation games that are harder and harder to find as well as the cashbacks and promotions.

My personal example is Caesars Palace which has absolutely lousy pay tables and eliminated cash back about four years ago.

Forgive me for being cynical, but you and other successful players could entice others to play more than they should and ultimately to become addicted.

[arcimede$]

Ahhh... dysfunctional advantage play... the same guys who have tormented Singer for years.

Nope, I don't know any APers who don't follow the methodology Frank has described. Singer simply lies. He asserts what he wants to believe about APers. He doesn't know whether anyone wins or loses, yet he claims they all lose. In a way it is both silly and ridiculous. You should be getting an insight into Singer by now. He is a pathological liar. He can't stand that people win at VP while he has lost. So, he makes up stories to make himself feel better. This is a well known psychological approach by people who are in denial of their own problems.

For example, when I played at SouthPoint they had A and A+ levels of play. My wife an I played to the A level which had a better percentage return. We would play around 10K points every month. It only took a couple of hours and we had to stop by once a week and collect free play and often take in a free meal as well. This is how true advantage play works. I also played at many other casinos and only played to a level that maximized return. I think I played at 8-10 casinos every month.

This type of play provided an edge that was usually over 1%.

While there may be people who simply find a positive machine and play as much as possible, I don't personally know of one. They are a figment of Singer's imagination. Now go back and read Singer's last few posts. You will see they are simply one lie after another. This is how Singer operates and how he will always operate. Do you really want anything to do with type of person?

[arcimede$]

"And it appears to me that your goal was solely to reach a particular "comp level" by scoring 10,000 points."

I suspect that point level leads to CB/BB/Freeplay ... in other words, cash. Singer has tried to claim in the past that things like CB were not real money. I assume you don't believe that malarkey.

"Sorry, I don't buy what you're saying. And I am surprised that someone such as you who talks about addictive gamblers fooling themselves would say such things."

Well Alan, I'm sorry that you can't understand this simple expansion of investment theory. If you could then this would be completely obvious. Have you ever invested in as stock that lost money? Have you made money investing? If the answer to both questions is yes then you are doing exactly what Frank (and most APers) do.

[arcimede$]

"While you are concerned about gambling addiction, I am concerned that Joe Public Casino-goer will read reports of professionals such as yourself and think they can accomplish the same thing without appropriate bankrolls, partners and knowledge -- as well as the positive expectation games that are harder and harder to find as well as the cashbacks and promotions."

And yet you promote Singer's claims that the return of a machine is of little importance. Yup, I can really see your "concern".

[arcimede$]

Alan, reread this statement by Frank:

"If I discard all previous results (for no other reason other than I went home and slept in my own bed and because I want to) and only look at how I've done during this completely arbitrary time span, I'm going to take a short break, because during this period of time I have experienced positive fluctuation, which reduces my lifetime losses and that I'm going to define as "winning" because I want to. I am neither truly ahead, nor do I intend to truly quit, but I'm going to disregard all logic and do something that my dysfunctional brain can use to convince myself I don't have a problem...and since this will result in me gambling slightly less, everyone (including myself, who really needs convincing) will hopefully agree that it isn't a bad idea."

Now consider Singer's system. It promotes doing exactly what Frank has stated, ignoring previous losses and viewing only the current day's results. Alan, you need to state whether you agree or disagree with Frank's description. Otherwise, you will talk in circles forever. It doesn't mean you can't look at a winning day with some satisfaction. It simply means you understand the reality of gambling and the true costs. Because, if you really do understand it, then you understand that Singer's system is just a method of ignoring/avoiding that reality.