John Grochowski writes about money management.

[Alan Mendelson]

Well, thus far in my life, my actual return has matched theoretical almost exactly. I take it yours has as well, Alan?

No, I've been lucky at video poker over the last year and a half, since my royal flush drought ended (16 royals since the 180,000 hands without a royal). I actually have a profit at video poker. But I lost money playing craps. Unfortunately, I lost too much money playing craps. Which is why this year I have significantly cut back on playing craps, and if I remain lucky at video poker for the first time in my life I might have a profit gambling.

Regarding positive expectation machines at $1 or higher? State Line Primm casinos (the last time I was there) had them at $1 and $5, which is about 35 minutes south of Vegas. While I played some of them I didn't get lucky on them. At Caesars they do have Jacks or Better at 99.54% and Bonus at 99.16% at denominations going up to $100. While these are "full pay games" they are not games that return more than 100% such as 100.17%. But I've been pretty lucky at 99.16% and a little money management skill seems to offset the casino's 0.84% edge (less comps) pretty well.

However, I don't think sitting down at a positive expectation machine will automatically make you a winner. I think it helps your chances, but sitting at a positive expectation game is still gambling. I think it is always wise to play the best pay table available.

(Special note for the "math guys." There are two even money machines at Caesars. Both of them are in the Forum Shops and are labeled as "Bank of America" machines. There is no house edge for BofA account holders.)

[a2a3dseddie]

But I lost money playing craps. Unfortunately, I lost too much money playing craps. Which is why this year I have significantly cut back on playing craps, and if I remain lucky at video poker for the first time in my life I might have a profit gambling.

Why don't you apply your win goals and loss limits to craps? Isn't the house edge on craps (if you take full odds) sometimes better than some VP machines?

[Alan Mendelson]

Taking full odds is what killed me playing craps. Betting full odds at craps might help lower the theoretical edge that the house has, but it doesn't make the dice deliver winning numbers.

I have a friend who played at the Riviera when it had 1000X odds and he called it the golden opportunity of a lifetime. He admits to losing $50,000 on his trip but I suspect he lost more than a hundred thousand because he hasn't been to Vegas since.

I've told the story about another friend who played 100X odds at Casino Royale and he dumped 20-thousand in a couple of hours making $5 flat bets and $500 odds.

Why don't I use loss limits and win goals? Well there is another thread here about my new way of playing craps which is passline with the fire bet just in case a shooter gets lucky.

And over the years I did use win/loss goals but unfortunately craps is different from video poker.

At video poker you play one hand at a time and you either win or lose that single bet. With craps you can have multiple bets on the table but you can lose them all with one roll of the dice while you only can win one at a time (if you are a right way player).

And to answer your question specifically -- YES craps players use win goals and loss limits. It is not uncommon to see players cash out after a "hot roll" or leave the table if the table is "cold." Of course this goes against the practice of advantage play video poker players who seem to think the math will always bail them out.

[regnis]

a2a--loss limits and win goals are more important in craps because of the volitility of the game. But you also need bankroll. In a "double odds" game, the house edge for a Pass line bet with double odds is .00606. Many games in Vegas have 3-4-5 times odds. There , the edge is .00374. In Chicago, our games have 100 x odds---the edge is a mere .00021. However, without bankroll and loss limits, you will go broke before you can take advantage of the minimal edge. The seven still comes 1 of 6, so no matter what the house edge may be, the reality is that you have to hit and run, or limit your losses. And for those that mistakenly believe that betting the "don't" is betting with the house, the odds of pass or don't pass are the same, and you now eliminate any "fun" factor from the game.

[regnis]

And to answer your question specifically -- YES craps players use win goals and loss limits. It is not uncommon to see players cash out after a "hot roll" or leave the table if the table is "cold." Of course this goes against the practice of advantage play video poker players who seem to think the math will always bail them out.

Math is great in the classroom. but the damn dice flunked out years ago.

[Alan Mendelson]

regnis I can already imagine what the "math guys" are going to post.... "but craps is a negative expectation game blah blah blah..."

[a2a3dseddie]

So Alan,

You may find this hard to believe, but I do use loss limits and win goals. I have a certain amount in my wallet for a session that I'm willing to put at risk and if that's gone, the session is done. I don't need to lose it all before I'll quit, nor do I need to hit a predetermined win goal. I use other "triggers" more often than win goals or loss limits. Shows, dinner reservations, shopping outings etc.

The thing is you keep stating conflicting things about win goals and loss limits. First you state they won't help you win, then you say they help your bottom line. Then you say they don't change the ER of the machine, but will change your own pER. I somewhat agree with this IF YOU DON'T PLAY EVER AGAIN AFTER A BIG WIN. But wouldn't you agree that the longer you play, your pER will come closer to the machines ER?

I asked this question earlier but you ignored it. I too want to win $1 million dollars like Rob. But I don't want to to do it over 10 years. I've got bills to pay! I want to win it over the next couple of months. So is it possible to win my 400 X $2500 winning sessions all in a row? I'll play 10 sessions a day for 40 days.

Instead of hitting a win goal and flying home from Las Vegas, why can't I hit a win goal and then drive to a different casino, switch to a different machine, eat lunch then start again, go to the bathroom then start again, drive home wait 10 minutes and then drive back...you get the idea.

I think the reason you are more civil to Rob, Regnis, Slingshot etc is because they believe what you believe. They aren't challenging your beliefs like arci or redietz. The only time I recall you getting upset with Rob was when he called you a gambling addict.

[Alan Mendelson]

So Alan,

You may find this hard to believe, but I do use loss limits and win goals. I have a certain amount in my wallet for a session that I'm willing to put at risk and if that's gone, the session is done. I don't need to lose it all before I'll quit, nor do I need to hit a predetermined win goal. I use other "triggers" more often than win goals or loss limits. Shows, dinner reservations, shopping outings etc.

Good for you.

The thing is you keep stating conflicting things about win goals and loss limits. First you state they won't help you win, then you say they help your bottom line. Then you say they don't change the ER of the machine, but will change your own pER.

Why are these conflicting? Loss limits and win goals will not help you win -- proper strategy will help you win and so will some luck. Loss limits keep you from going broke so you have a chance to come back and play again. Win goals allow you to stop, take a breath, realize you got lucky, and take the money home.

The expected return of the machine is the expected return. Im not really clear about this pER thingy that Arc created, but yeah, if I play a machine with a 99.2% ER but I decide to stop playing in a session where I have won money (any amount, any profit) then yes my pER has exceeded the machine's ER. Why must your pER = the machine's ER?

I somewhat agree with this IF YOU DON'T PLAY EVER AGAIN AFTER A BIG WIN. But wouldn't you agree that the longer you play, your pER will come closer to the machines ER?

Sure, anything can happen. But why must you keep playing long enough to start losing back what you won? If you win, why not take it home?

And why must you keep playing if you are already losing? I went back to play video poker two times after hitting my last royal at Caesars (the $8k one). Both times I reached my loss limit and left. Sure, I could have gone to the ATM and taken out more money but why? I reached my loss limit and the casino will still be there for me to play another day.

I asked this question earlier but you ignored it. I too want to win $1 million dollars like Rob. But I don't want to to do it over 10 years. I've got bills to pay! I want to win it over the next couple of months. So is it possible to win my 400 X $2500 winning sessions all in a row? I'll play 10 sessions a day for 40 days.

Instead of hitting a win goal and flying home from Las Vegas, why can't I hit a win goal and then drive to a different casino, switch to a different machine, eat lunch then start again, go to the bathroom then start again, drive home wait 10 minutes and then drive back...you get the idea.

The answer is sure it could happen. But I'd like to know what kind of bankroll you have to set a win goal of $2,500 and how much you are willing to lose to reach that win goal? First of all I don't have the bankroll that Rob Singer had, nor am I willing to lose $53,000 to reach a $2,500 win goal using a strategy that says start on $1 machines and move up in denomination until you reach your goal. So I can't tell you to play like Rob plays. I only move up in denomination if I have a big profit at lower denominations and I don't have a set win goal but rather a flexible or "stop loss" win goal. But my loss limits are tighter than Rob's.

I think the reason you are more civil to Rob, Regnis, Slingshot etc is because they believe what you believe. They aren't challenging your beliefs like arci or redietz. The only time I recall you getting upset with Rob was when he called you a gambling addict.

First of all I know Rob personally. I've met him several times, I've spent time with him, we've talked on the phone and while Rob will deny this his "online persona" is not his "real personality." Rob happens to be a nice guy who for some strange, weird reason, likes to act like a jerk on the Internet. And that's the truth.

I think I am civil to everyone but even I blow up at nonsense, for example: the "math" that challenges the use of win goals and loss limits.

There is no friggin' math about win goals and loss limits and their effectiveness or about using them or if they work or don't work or anything else. And I am tired of Arc who keeps saying that he showed me the math and it doesn't exist.

And I think it is absolutely wrong to say to someone not to stop or not to take your profits. So when Arc starts raising silly things such as saying you don't know what will happen if you kept playing it makes my skin burn. It is not smart for anyone to keep playing when they reached their loss limit because the next hand might be a royal. That is only chasing losses. It is smart whenever you cash out a profit-- even if you return to the casino again-- every profit is a profit. This isn't math -- this is common sense.

And my friend redietz can preach all he wants about not using win goals and loss limits when he has a huge bankroll playing 25-cent video poker. I wouldn't be concerned if I were playing 25-cent video poker also -- win goals and loss limits would mean nothing to me even if the machine returned 98%. At a 25 cent game my only concern would be bladder control. But I really wonder if he would have the same opinion at Stateline Primm playing a $5 Double Bonus game with a positive paytable plus comps? At that level he would have to have a whole lot of money not to care about win goals and loss limits because you're still gambling. I played that machine and I lost... positive paytable and all. The sign on the machine says it returns more than 100% but that doesn't mean that you are going to make a profit.

And I recall a few years ago playing 10/7 Double Bonus at the Rio at the $1 level... another "positive" game... and I lost money there too. There is a lot of "preaching" here about what textbooks and "math" say... well, try playing those higher limit games and then tell me about win goals and loss limits.

[regnis]

I am going to add 1 final thought re the math and the ER. I had 1 royal in 8-10 years. So I figure over a million hands. But even if it was 300,000 hands. Should I have started playing $100 VP because the math says I am due a royal? No--the odds on the next spin and every other spin are still approximately 1/40,000. So again, math is fine in theory, but reality is fact. And if you don't get the lucky spin you will lose, math or not. And if I would have chased that royal without loss limits, I'd have exhausted my bankroll. I still am a loser at VP, although this year I am way ahead because I hit a lot of aces and had a few royals. Without loss limits, I wouldn't still be playing to have gotten to this hot streak. That is why I also would not risk what Rob does for 2500 profit, but I have used his increased denomination to my benefit a couple times.

[redietz]

For the record, I do not use win goals or loss limits for any form of gambling. Alan comes across as some sort of gambling snob on this forum. He asks, because I play 25-cent video poker, if I would do anything differently on a $5 machine. In case I haven't made this clear, and I think I have, when it comes to gambling, what I do dwarfs anything Alan does. Evidently he doesn't believe me. He's not required to believe me, so that's fine.

Alan acts as if 25-cent video poker is beneath him. It doesn't give him enough action to be enjoyable. I don't find 25-cent video poker to be beneath me, as long as it's positive expectation. I'm not an action guy.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan acts as if 25-cent video poker is beneath him. It doesn't give him enough action to be enjoyable. I don't find 25-cent video poker to be beneath me, as long as it's positive expectation. I'm not an action guy.

For the record, I play 25-cent video poker. One of my royals this year was on a 25-cent 8/5 double double bonus progressive. On both of my last two trips I played 25-cent Royal Aces Bonus because I like the game but I know that it is a high variance game and I don't have the bankroll to play it at higher denominations.

[a2a3dseddie]

Im not really clear about this pER thingy that Arc created, but yeah, if I play a machine with a 99.2% ER but I decide to stop playing in a session where I have won money (any amount, any profit) then yes my pER has exceeded the machine's ER. Why must your pER = the machine's ER?

Because that is what the machine is programmed to do over time. Yes you can win on a 99.2% machine here and there, but if you continue to play that -EV machine, your pER will approach the ER of the machine. The only way to BEAT the machine is to win on it and then never play it again.

I went back to play video poker two times after hitting my last royal at Caesars (the $8k one). Both times I reached my loss limit and left. Sure, I could have gone to the ATM and taken out more money but why? I reached my loss limit and the casino will still be there for me to play another day.

So don't you think that ALL of your sessions from these machines added together would eventually approximate the ER of the machine you are playing if you continued to play?

You (and arci) often say that the house edge or ER is working for (on +EV machines) or against (-EV machines) you on every VP hand you play. If you truly believe that, then why would WHEN you start or stop playing on a -EV machine matter since every time you do play you are exposing your bankroll to it's negative effects?

But I'd like to know what kind of bankroll you have to set a win goal of $2,500 and how much you are willing to lose to reach that win goal? First of all I don't have the bankroll that Rob Singer had, nor am I willing to lose $53,000 to reach a $2,500 win goal using a strategy that says start on $1 machines and move up in denomination until you reach your goal.

I would have the exact same bankroll as Rob, and do exactly as he preaches. I just want my $1 million in 40 days instead of having to wait 10 years.

There is no friggin' math about win goals and loss limits and their effectiveness or about using them or if they work or don't work or anything else. And I am tired of Arc who keeps saying that he showed me the math and it doesn't exist.

How about a simulation on the machine of your choice, with win goals and loss limits of your choice? If you reach your win goal more often than your loss limit and end up with a profit over 500 sessions (say 1 VP session a week for 10 years) wouldn't that prove win goals and loss limits work?

And I think it is absolutely wrong to say to someone not to stop or not to take your profits.

I've never said that.


And by the way, thank-you for your rersponse.

[Alan Mendelson]

Houston we have a problem: a2a3dseddie said "Because that is what the machine is programmed to do over time."

Sorry... the machines are not "programmed" to do anything. So, start over. I can't continue the discussion until this point is cleared up.

[a2a3dseddie]

Houston we have a problem: a2a3dseddie said "Because that is what the machine is programmed to do over time."

Sorry... the machines are not "programmed" to do anything. So, start over. I can't continue the discussion until this point is cleared up.

The payback schedule of the machine in the example you gave is set to return 99.2% and retain 0.8% for the casino if optimal play was used.

[Alan Mendelson]

The return is NOT set. The return is an expected theoretical return which might happen. Ask Arc.

[a2a3dseddie]

The return is NOT set. The return is an expected theoretical return which might happen. Ask Arc.

I'm not going to argue wording or semantics with you Alan. You started off by saying

"At Caesars they do have Jacks or Better at 99.54% and Bonus at 99.16% at denominations going up to $100."

What were you referring to here then?

[Alan Mendelson]

At Caesars they have Jacks or Better games with paytables that have a theoretical return of 99.54% with expert play, and they have Bonus games with paytables that have a theoretical return of 99.16% with expert play at denomination going up to $100.

NOTHING is set. Your personal results may vary.

Now if you understand that I will respond to your other comments:

The only way to BEAT the machine is to win on it and then never play it again.

I don't want to "beat the machine" I want to win when I play or play and lose as little as possible. Perhaps you missed my post about a similar discussion on the Wizard of Vegas forum. It ended when someone said that while it is not possible to beat a negative expectation game you can win at a negative expectation game. Even Arc agrees you can win playing a negative expectation game.

So don't you think that ALL of your sessions from these machines added together would eventually approximate the ER of the machine you are playing if you continued to play?

Sure they could. I'll let you know when I stop playing... maybe in another 60 years. I'm 61 now but if you include my spare parts my "blended age" is 29.

You (and arci) often say that the house edge or ER is working for (on +EV machines) or against (-EV machines) you on every VP hand you play. If you truly believe that, then why would WHEN you start or stop playing on a -EV machine matter since every time you do play you are exposing your bankroll to it's negative effects?

Because I am not a professional and I am there for fun and recreation and success for me is going home with a win, and if I don't go home with a win then not losing too much.

I would have the exact same bankroll as Rob, and do exactly as he preaches. I just want my $1 million in 40 days instead of having to wait 10 years.

You're going to have to discuss Rob's system with Rob. I don't follow his system, nor do I play his way, nor do I play the games he plays with the bankroll he has or even his win goals and loss limits.

How about a simulation on the machine of your choice, with win goals and loss limits of your choice? If you reach your win goal more often than your loss limit and end up with a profit over 500 sessions (say 1 VP session a week for 10 years) wouldn't that prove win goals and loss limits work?

I told you I can save you the trouble. Any simulation on a negative expectation machine will show that you will lose. Any simulation on a positive expectation machine will show that you will win. Be my guest. The reality is it is very unlikely that I will play one VP session a week for ten years. You also would have to come up with the game, the bankroll, the number of hands, and exactly what win/loss you'd like to use for your simulation? In my case I play different amounts and have a different win/loss each time I play and sometimes I play different denominations and different games.

All this simulation talk is very academic but doesn't apply to me... or maybe to anyone. It's all theory. And it's all very tiring. Because in theory I should have won a lot of money those times I was playing those advantage machines at Rio and State Line Primm. And in theory I should have lost only pennies playing craps with those "full odds" bets I was making of $75, $100 and $125.

I've never said that.

Your "I've never said that" was in reaction me saying "And I think it is absolutely wrong to say to someone not to stop or not to take your profits."

I didn't mean that you personally said that. I meant it for anyone else who might say it is wrong to say to someone not to stop or not to take your profits.

[Alan Mendelson]

Just to update: John Grochowski used my question and his answer in his newest column. http://grochowski.casinocitytimes.co...-players-62271

[arcimede$]

What a coincidence ... exactly what I have been saying including,

"And advantage players at any game need to be wary of fatigue. Regardless of whether you're a blackjack card counter, dice controller at craps or a video poker player who sticks to expert strategy at the best games, if you play when weary you're going to start making mistakes. Get some rest, and come back to the games refreshed."

This is the main reason APers don't play on and on. We all have our own personal limits. And, at least in my case, I have lots of other activities that I enjoy. More than once a week gets old fast.

[Rob.Singer]

This is the main reason APers don't play on and on. We all have our own personal limits. And, at least in my case, I have lots of other activities that I enjoy. More than once a week gets old fast.

This is so funny. Now he's trying to forget about how his wife's disease became accelerated from his obsession to move to LV, so he could drag her thru the local casinos every day of the week for all those yummy husband-wife multiple points days. Yup....lose the tiny duplex, then nearly lose the wife to endless suffering. That sure did turn out to be the "advantage play" of the century!