Originally Posted by
regnis
A good analysis A2A. Let me express a little of my thoughts on that. None of us that you named will play only 1 million hands. We all have played more and will continue to do so. But assuming we sit side by side playing perfect strategy (not even considering Rob's special plays), if Alan or I hit quad aces or a royal, we are going to quit or play back only a little. Arci will keep playing. Since we are presumably on a negative game, he will lose some back.
Now assume Alan and I are losing and Arci hits something. I (and I believe Alan) have a loss limit and will go home a moderate loser. Arci will keep playing and lose some back.
If Arci is losing, he nay keep losing because he has no loss limit.
So I believe that on a negative game, all else being equal in terms of perfect play, I prefer win goals and loss limits so that no one bad day will wipe me out, and I do not have to play longer than I desire to try to achieve the expected return. I also believe, as Alan has said, that it pretty much is based on luck--I don't believe that the RNG is a guaranty. All gambling (other than sports and horses) is an attempt to ride brief deviations from the expected results, and that is a short term proposition.
On Arci's positive return games, I don't totally disagree with him but I don't believe it can be done short term and I don't have the time necessary to play that way.