Quitting When Ahead -- Revisited

[arcimede$]

The problem I have here is playing with win goals and loss limits does not challenge the math of any game. This is what amazes me. The critics of win goals and loss limits continue to say it is violating some mathematical super rule.

Sorry, but that is not what we've been telling you. And, we've told you many times so getting it wrong is quite astonishing.

Once again, all we are telling you is it does not change the expected return over time. It provides no advantage (or disadvantage). If it leads to playing less on a negative game then that is great, but anything that leads to playing less has the same effect.

[Alan Mendelson]

Once again, all we are telling you is it does not change the expected return over time. It provides no advantage (or disadvantage).

And I've said over and over again it does not change the expected return and it provides no advantage either.

All a win goal and stop loss does -- and this is quite valuable -- is keep you from losing more money than you are comfortable with, and gives you a point where you can say "I've won enough, now let me leave before I lose it back."

[redietz]

If you are prone to do those kinds of things, then great. Recognize, however, that some people aren't prone to do those kinds of things. For those people, win goals and loss limits are silly.

[Alan Mendelson]

For those people, win goals and loss limits are silly.

Yep, there are those whose loss limit is when they can't get any more money out of the ATM. And there are those whose win goal is when they win a million dollars from the casino but will lose everything trying to get there.

[redietz]

Dan plays to fulfill his assignment of earning a determined-in-advance number of points. Some people decide to play a set number of minutes or hands. Those preferences are in no way inferior to deciding to play until you've lost a certain amount or won a certain amount. In fact, they take more discipline because you either do what you decided or you don't, and there are no debates going on in your head while you're playing as to how long you should play.

About 10 years ago, some casinos tried to introduce paying for a set number of hands or set time. You put $20 in the machine, you got x number of hands or x minutes. Customers simply wouldn't do it, and the endeavor ended quickly. People hated having a finite number of hands or minutes assigned to them. They wanted an open ended experience with the machines. I think that's part of the appeal of win goals and stop losses -- it creates an open ended experience and entails an illusion of control, as opposed to playing a certain number of minutes or hands.

I have nothing against stop losses or win goals. I'm just saying they aren't better than point accumulation goals or setting an alarm.

[Alan Mendelson]

If someone wants to play for points regardless of the cost I wish them good luck. If someone wants to play for time regardless of cost I wish them luck.

[Dan Druff]

If someone wants to play for points regardless of the cost I wish them good luck. If someone wants to play for time regardless of cost I wish them luck.

Do you realize that my playing for points is overall +EV?

My expected losses are less than the amount of value I will get from the Seven Stars program.

That's why I play for the optimal number of points per day.

Some years, like 2013, I will lose more than expectation.

Other years, like 2015, I will win.

But I'm playing with an overall edge on the casino, at least when perks (which have real value to me) are considered.

[Alan Mendelson]

Dan I hope you have more years like 2015 than 2013.

[redietz]

If someone wants to play for [session] points regardless of the cost, I salute them for having the proper bankroll for their playing level. If someone wants to play for [session] minutes regardless of the cost, I salute them for having the proper bankroll for their playing level.

If someone wants to play for [session] cost regardless of the points or their schedule, that's not necessarily a good thing.

[arcimede$]

And I've said over and over again it does not change the expected return and it provides no advantage either.

All a win goal and stop loss does -- and this is quite valuable -- is keep you from losing more money than you are comfortable with, and gives you a point where you can say "I've won enough, now let me leave before I lose it back."

Alan, what you have said in the past is that having win goals could overcome the expected return and lead to profits on negative games. Are you now retracting those claims?

[Rob.Singer]

Alan, what you have said in the past is that having win goals could overcome the expected return and lead to profits on negative games. Are you now retracting those claims?

That's what you say and not what anyone who plays to win each session they play says.

To book & theory-driven people like yourself as well as all the armchair theorists who follow that type of illogic, you continually take what someone says about playing a single session and warp it into some kind of required trip into infinity.

Anyone can win on any game in a single session whether it's 95% or 105% on any given day, and they can lose on either one just as well. That usually very tiny % difference almost never means the difference between a win and a loss for the visit. So if a player is savvy--and disciplined--enuf to stop playing for the day when they get to a pre-determined win goal, which is very possible especially with a strategy and money management system designed around being able to do this easily, how is it all the long-term geniuses here happen to know that such a player will lose more sessions than they will win--and lose more money than they win?

Nobody has any support whatsoever for such nonsense, other than to say +EV = a win and -EV = a loss. When any machine on any given day can yield a win because of a normal amount of luck and not something extraordinary, there is no support anywhere that requires the math step in and snatch away all the profits, whenever or wherever. If you can win on a + or -EV machine today then you can win on it tomorrow, and when or if that losing session comes, the player's STOP LOSS LIMIT will keep him or her from tanking overall. This, in contrast to most AP's, who's STOP PLAY LIMIT is when their colorful array of ATM cards will no longer deliver.

[Alan Mendelson]

Alan, what you have said in the past is that having win goals could overcome the expected return and lead to profits on negative games. Are you now retracting those claims?

I never said that. I said it is possible to win when you quit when ahead even at negative expectation games. YOU seem committed to the belief that it is impossible to win at negative expectation games.

I simply said if you cash out with a gain you will be a winner -- even at negative expectation games.

[redietz]

I never said that. I said it is possible to win when you quit when ahead even at negative expectation games. YOU seem committed to the belief that it is impossible to win at negative expectation games.

I simply said if you cash out with a gain you will be a winner -- even at negative expectation games.

My very first cross country coach said something very similar to this after we walked the course for the first time in the pre-season. He said, "Boys, you've got to be ahead at the finish line to win."

We tried to ignore the fact he was smoking Lucky Strikes as we walked the course.

True story, and a pretty good analogy.

[Alan Mendelson]

And did you disagree redietz? It doesn't matter if the winner smoked cigs -- if he beat you by inches he beat you.

If someone plays 8/5 Bonus and loses a hundred dollars, but someone plays 7/5 Bonus and finishes the session with an extra hundred dollars -- who is the winner? It's not "smart player" on the 8/5 game, is it?

[Rob.Singer]

And did you disagree redietz? It doesn't matter if the winner smoked cigs -- if he beat you by inches he beat you.

If someone plays 8/5 Bonus and loses a hundred dollars, but someone plays 7/5 Bonus and finishes the session with an extra hundred dollars -- who is the winner? It's not "smart player" on the 8/5 game, is it?

This is a good lesson in logic. As we all know, the Wizard constantly tells that making a good bet (aka, a +EV bet) is better and more important than WINNING a bet. So Alan, if he is of the belief that playing 8/5 BP (assuming it is theoretically +EV) and losing is much better than winning money on a 7/5 game, then these group of geniuses here HAVE to be right.

(Oops--the Wizard found himself begging for money after his +EV AP nonsense let him down.....)

[Alan Mendelson]

I also have a problem with the Wizard's signature phrase: "It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet."

Sure, it's important to have a good bet, but just having the good bet doesn't mean you will win or you will pay the bills.

To me saying "It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet" is like standing your ground but when you look at the ground you're standing on it might be quicksand.

I'm not a philosopher, and I can't stand my ground on theory. I am a business owner. I have bills to pay and salaries to pay. When it's time to pay, I have to pay. I can't give them some philosophical reason that I did something which was "smarter" but can't pay the bills.

A better phrase might be: You have a better chance of winning if you have a good bet.

[Count Room]

A better phrase might be: You have a better chance of winning if you have a good bet.

Nah, someone could offer me 4-5 odds on a coin flip and I would have a much better chance of winning one flip than being offered 150-1 odds to pick a grey button out of a box of 100 white buttons while I am blindfolded.

The second example is a far superior bet even though my chance of winning a button draw is slim.

[Alan Mendelson]

Do you think the coin flip is an inferior bet to the button bet? For who?

[Count Room]

Do you think the coin flip is an inferior bet to the button bet? For who?

Alan: Are you asking me this question in all seriousness? Is there a subtle sense of humor lurking behind your question (aka "trolling" of some sort)? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as much as I possibly can.

[Alan Mendelson]

I'm seriously asking. Please respond.