100xOdds
100xOdds
  • Threads: 638
  • Posts: 4256
Joined: Feb 5, 2012
August 7th, 2012 at 5:39:54 PM permalink
I have $2000. stop limits: +600/-1000

it takes me 1hr each way to get to the casino (2hr round trip). i want to play at least an hr to make it worth the drive.

if I win $600 in 30min i will probably keep playing.

Why do i lack discipline?!
How to develop the discipline of sticking to my stop limits??
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice). Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
konceptum
konceptum
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 790
Joined: Mar 25, 2010
August 7th, 2012 at 5:45:21 PM permalink
I recommend aversion therapy. I'll go with you to casino. If you stop at your stop limit, everything is fine. If you don't, I take whatever money you have. Enough times of that, and you'll stick to your limit.

On a more serious note, you indicate, in the exact same post, that you have no desire to stick to your stop limit. "i want to play at least an hr". You need to get rid of that mentality FIRST, because it is overriding your stop limit. You have to decide for yourself if winning $600 is worth the drive, because, apparently, right now, it's not.
Ayecarumba
Ayecarumba
  • Threads: 236
  • Posts: 6763
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
August 7th, 2012 at 5:56:35 PM permalink
Quote: 100xOdds

I have $2000. stop limits: +600/-1000

it takes me 1hr each way to get to the casino (2hr round trip). i want to play at least an hr to make it worth the drive.

if I win $600 in 30min i will probably keep playing.

Why do i lack discipline?!
How to develop the discipline of sticking to my stop limits??



There is a conflict in your goals:
A) You want to play for a minimum of one hour.
B) You want to keep at least $600 profit, or lose no more than $1,000.

Unfortunately, you can realize goal B in a matter of minutes, but goal A appears to be more important.

If you genuinely want to make B the primary goal, my first suggestion is to bring someone along who will hold you accountable (and maybe hold your bankroll). Apparently, the guy you have been trusting up to this point (the man in the mirror) has not been doing a very good job, since he loves the action rather than the profit.

Another suggestion would be to have a goal for using the profit. Perhaps a new TV or a trip to Vegas. In other words, see the money as... money rather than gaming cheques. It might help you say, "No" to the rush of having it all on the line for a fleeting moment of glory.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28575
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
August 7th, 2012 at 6:00:05 PM permalink
Quote: 100xOdds



Why do i lack discipline?!
How to develop the discipline of sticking to my stop limits??



Just do it. I sometimes hit my goal in 20min. I thank god
that I can leave the casino and do something else. If you
love play, find an internet casino thats lets you play for free.
If there needs to be money involved, you have a gambling
problem.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
7craps
7craps
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 1977
Joined: Jan 23, 2010
August 7th, 2012 at 6:06:30 PM permalink
Without knowing your exact betting progression when you are winning,
but laying the 345X odds one can get close on a few simulations.
Your success rate to hit $600 is about the same with all flat bet amounts at 60%
The number of average bets increase as you lower the flat bet.


With $20 average DP flat bets
You have about a 60.224% chance of winning $600 before losing the $1000
Average number of bets to make = 69

With $15 average DP flat bets
You have about a 60.023% chance of winning $600 before losing the $1000
Average number of bets to make = 118.22

With $10 average DP flat bets
You have about a 59.581% chance of winning $600 before losing the $1000
Average number of bets to make = 255.42

That really should hold you over for most session trips.
Once you do hit $600 too fast, just lower your bets to the minimum and you will not give it all back so fast and you can play longer.
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
August 7th, 2012 at 6:47:00 PM permalink
100xOdds

Great posts in this whole thread.

I suppose the first thing that I would say, in direct response to the OP, that was not addressed (that I can tell) is that I fail to see how $600 isn't worth a two-hour drive unless you are only getting in the neighborhood of two miles to the gallon, or something.

I would just do away with any concerns about time whatsoever, especially if they are going to impact the amount that you are going to win. The only unit of time that is of any concern to me at the casino is a, "Firm," stop time. If I hit my firm stop time, wherever I am at, I immediately stop. That can actually save you money because you may take a walk ahead, (but less than $600) or you may take a walk behind (but less than $1,000).

I also don't know why you have $2,000 if $1,000 is your loss limit.

If you're really determined to make it about that hour, which I do not recommend, then forget the $600/-$1,000 and simply play for an hour (quitting if you're ahead by anything) and for a maximum of three hours (quitting at the three-hour mark, period). If you find yourself even or better between the one hour and three hour points, quit.

There is one other alternative. Do not make any bets that would give you exactly +$600, make sure you are a little bit over that. If it has only been a half hour, or what have you, make a bet when you are close to +$600 that would make you +$650 (or something like that) and then take the off amount and play some Slots, VP or Video Keno if you want to stay there longer.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Konceptum

Agreed.

AyeCarumba

I think a goal for the profit is a very good idea.

EvenBob

I doubt if he has a gambling problem because he mentioned that he has $2,000 to take there with him. If there's one thing I have noticed about (most) compulsive gamblers I have known, they don't often have $2,000.

For many people, the casino is as much about atmosphere as it is about the game, so Internet games are not a good substitute. I'm perfectly happy with the WOO games, personally, because I like many of the games just for the sake of the games, but sometimes atmosphere must go along with it...for many.

7Craps

Loved the Math angle!
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28575
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
August 7th, 2012 at 7:10:56 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

the casino is as much about atmosphere as it is about the game, so Internet games are not a good substitute.!



I detest the casino atmosphere, so playing at home
is great. Whats there to love about the casino atmosphere,
please expain.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
bigpete88
bigpete88
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 351
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
August 7th, 2012 at 8:02:19 PM permalink
After learinng the hard way, without proper instruction, I now have limits before stepping foot in a casino.

However, I do not limit my win, but my daily loss at blackjack is 15 units. Very little table time some days. I am there to win a lot or lose a little. It has worked well for my last 100 trips to the casino.

Set your goals and stops per day.
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
August 7th, 2012 at 9:06:42 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

I detest the casino atmosphere, so playing at home
is great. Whats there to love about the casino atmosphere,
please expain.



Comraderie, Social Environment, etc...

As stated, I just like the games, but casino slots are FAR more exciting than an on-line game.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28575
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
August 7th, 2012 at 9:17:23 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146


but casino slots are FAR more exciting than an on-line game.



I haven't put money in a slot in 12 years, I can't
beat them. How do you do it? How do you stay
ahead?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
August 7th, 2012 at 10:00:29 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

I haven't put money in a slot in 12 years, I can't
beat them. How do you do it? How do you stay
ahead?



You don't.

Barring a ridiculously huge jackpot, I will most assuredly fall behind eventually, but that 4k Jackpot probably staved that off for a couple of years, at least.

I guess the best advice that I can give people is set a relatively low, "Walk-Away," point, which is, in my case, 100% of whatever I bring in for the day. I've fully detailed this before, so in short, if I bring in $50, I win in multiples of $50. IOW, if I hit $125, I either gamble it up to $150+ or down to exactly $100. If I hit $160, same thing, but with $150 or $200+.

If I have a spin that puts me up to $412, then it's either $400 or $450+, it never changes.

I think that the biggest problem most people have with slots is that they are looking for that Jackpot and only that Jackpot will satisfy them. I've only hit two jackpots in my life, and loved every second of each of them, but my goal is to (attempt to) maximize my wins by not necessarily stopping when I hit $100 (Unless it just happens to be exactly $100) and minimizing my losses by going in with a small amount.

I think the formula is pretty simple. I could go in there with $500 and say that I will quit when I am up $100 or I will lose $500, but I just don't think that's a good strategy. For one thing, your win goal is only 20% of cash-in, so you're going to hit that and quite possibly be unwilling to walk away because it's just not that big of a win compared to the amount in. The second reason I don't like it is because I don't like setting a maximum tolerable loss higher than the minimum win.

In my experience, you will double before you lose the $50 between 30-40% of the time. However, playing it my way, you will do more than double some of those times which will hopefully compensate for the higher loss percentage.

It's worked so far, but should eventually stop working. I am positive-for-life right now, but should approach the ER which is negative, barring a huge jackpot. God knows I have fun, though, and would never gamble an amount that would actually hurt me!!!

I also have a hard stop time...sometimes.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28575
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
August 7th, 2012 at 10:16:19 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

I will most assuredly fall behind eventually, .



Yes indeed.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
August 7th, 2012 at 11:30:05 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Yes indeed.



It's a question of frequency vs. winning, though, which is why I qualified, "Barring a huge jackpot." If cash-in average is $50/week and I were to hit for $20,000, at some point, I'd have to do nothing but lose for 7.69 years to be back at the even point. The 4k is good for 1.54 years at that average cash-in, and I've already won more money since then, so I could theoretically reach a point where I can no longer lose (all else remaining equal) on my, "Lifetime session."

The ER rules just don't apply, sometimes. Like the $39,000,000 Megabucks jackpot in March of 2003 at Excalibur in LV. I don't think the winner will ever have cash-in of $39,000,000 in his/her life, and doing that with nothing but losing is the even point...based just on the jackpot. If I were to hit that and continue to play at my current rate, I would have to do nothing but lose for 15,000 years to give that amount back.

The other thing you have to do is look at the ER of 90% on the slots. If I go with $50/week cash-in, just against the $4,000, then you get:

$4,000 = $3,600 (1.54 years)

$3,600 = $3,240 (1.38 years)

$3,240 = $2,916 (1.25 years)

$2,916 = $2624.4 (1.12 years)

$2624.4 = $2361.96 (1.01 years)

$2361.96 = $2,125.76 (.91 years)

$2,125.76 = $1913.18 (.82 years)

$1913.18 = $1721.86 (.74 years)

$1721.86 = $1549.67 (.66 years)

$1549.67 = $1394.70 (.60 years)

$1394.70 = $1255.23 (.54 years)

$1255.23 = $1129.71 (.48 years)

$1129.71 = $1016.74 (.43 years)

$1016.74 = $915.07 (.39 years)

$915.07 = $823.56 (.35 years)

$823.56 = $741.20 (.32 years)

$741.20 = $667.08 (.29 years)

$667.08 = $600.37 (.26 years)

$600.37 = $540.33 (.23 years)

$540.33 = $486.30 (.21 years)

$486.30 = $437.67 (.19 years)

$437.67 = $393.90 (.17 years)

$393.90 = $354.51 (.15 years)

$354.51 = $319.06 (.14 years)

$319.06 = $287.15 (.12 years)

$287.15 = $258.44 (.11 years)

$258.44 = $232.60 (.10 years)

$232.60 = $209.34 (.09 years)

$209.34 = $188.41 (.08 years)

$188.41 = $169.57 (.07 years)

$169.57 = $152.61 (.07 years)

$152.61 = $137.35 (.06 years)

$137.35 = $123.62 (.05 years)

$123.62 = $111.26 (.05 years)

$111.26 = $100.13 (.04 years)

$100.13 = $90.12 (.04 years)

$90.12 = $81.11 (.03 years)

$81.11 = $73.00 (.03 years)

$73.00 = $65.70 (.03 years)

$65.70 = $59.13 (.03 years)

$59.13 = $53.22 (.02 years)

$53.22 = $47.90 (.02 years) (End)

In short, I should last (all other things equal) 15.22 years, or 791.44 weeks, approximately, until they have me even just on that $4,000.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
  • Threads: 326
  • Posts: 9557
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
August 8th, 2012 at 12:19:32 AM permalink
100x, you have discovered one of the ways the casinos get ya. All of us have this problem one way or the other, otherwise we would lay the entire bankroll on one hand, as the odds are better for us that way.

Personally, I can successfully change my betting parameters. At craps, I can go to 2x odds for a while, which drops the HE below 1% but drops the variance greatly as well. If betting other-than-the-line [that wouldnt be me] then bet only on the line.

If you say you can't change gears like that, I understand, it's just something I can do.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!”   She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
ahiromu
ahiromu
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 2107
Joined: Jan 15, 2010
August 8th, 2012 at 1:07:01 AM permalink
Yup, it's all about controlling your variance or "limiting your exposure" as Alan said on the other thread. Try and get some enjoyment out of only having $30 on the table rather than a few hundred.
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"
100xOdds
100xOdds
  • Threads: 638
  • Posts: 4256
Joined: Feb 5, 2012
August 8th, 2012 at 1:35:04 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

100xOdds

Great posts in this whole thread.

I suppose the first thing that I would say, in direct response to the OP, that was not addressed (that I can tell) is that I fail to see how $600 isn't worth a two-hour drive unless you are only getting in the neighborhood of two miles to the gallon, or something.

I would just do away with any concerns about time whatsoever, especially if they are going to impact the amount that you are going to win. The only unit of time that is of any concern to me at the casino is a, "Firm," stop time. If I hit my firm stop time, wherever I am at, I immediately stop. That can actually save you money because you may take a walk ahead, (but less than $600) or you may take a walk behind (but less than $1,000).

I also don't know why you have $2,000 if $1,000 is your loss limit.

If you're really determined to make it about that hour, which I do not recommend, then forget the $600/-$1,000 and simply play for an hour (quitting if you're ahead by anything) and for a maximum of three hours (quitting at the three-hour mark, period). If you find yourself even or better between the one hour and three hour points, quit.

There is one other alternative. Do not make any bets that would give you exactly +$600, make sure you are a little bit over that. If it has only been a half hour, or what have you, make a bet when you are close to +$600 that would make you +$650 (or something like that) and then take the off amount and play some Slots, VP or Video Keno if you want to stay there longer.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Konceptum

Agreed.

AyeCarumba

I think a goal for the profit is a very good idea.

EvenBob

I doubt if he has a gambling problem because he mentioned that he has $2,000 to take there with him. If there's one thing I have noticed about (most) compulsive gamblers I have known, they don't often have $2,000.

For many people, the casino is as much about atmosphere as it is about the game, so Internet games are not a good substitute. I'm perfectly happy with the WOO games, personally, because I like many of the games just for the sake of the games, but sometimes atmosphere must go along with it...for many.

7Craps

Loved the Math angle!



"I fail to see how $600 isn't worth a two-hour drive"
um.. wow.. never thought of this before.. thats $300/hr.
i see your point. so will eliminate the time limit.

"I also don't know why you have $2,000 if $1,000 is your loss limit. "
dont want to play scared. much less fun when you're down to your last $100 than when you have $1100 and quitting at $1000.
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice). Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
August 8th, 2012 at 5:50:46 AM permalink
Just get rid of the "stop limit", and problem is solved :) It is meaningless anyway.

$600 for a two-hour drive is not $300/hr, you were right before, wrong now. It would be if you never had a losing session, or a long session with fewer money won. As it is, you have to factor in the losses too. You need to get used to the idea, that you are playing a negative expectation game, so, trying to think of it in terms of profit per hour is pointless - it will always be negative as long as you calculate it correctly, and do not cheat.

It is obvious, that the value for any sane person going to casino to play negative expectation games is in entertainment, not profit. And therefore, the benefit you are getting out of it should be measured in hours, not in dollars. That is the reason you think than less than an hour of play is not worth of two hour drive, regardless of the "profit", and you are right.

Keeping it in mind, just ignore the amount, and stick to the time limit you set for yourself. For example, play for two hours, and then leave, win or lose. Unless, of course, you happen to loose the whole $2000 before that time - then just leave, nothing else to do anyway.
Or, use a combination criteria, if you are set so much on counting your winnings. For example, play for an hour, then leave if you are down more than 1000 or up more than 600, otherwise play for another hour, etc.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
August 8th, 2012 at 10:36:13 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Just get rid of the "stop limit", and problem is solved :) It is meaningless anyway.



Meaningless? Meaningless, how? Things have the subjective meaning to which we assign them. I often feel as though I am surrounded by gambling Nihilists, here.

Quote:

$600 for a two-hour drive is not $300/hr, you were right before, wrong now. It would be if you never had a losing session, or a long session with fewer money won. As it is, you have to factor in the losses too. You need to get used to the idea, that you are playing a negative expectation game, so, trying to think of it in terms of profit per hour is pointless - it will always be negative as long as you calculate it correctly, and do not cheat.



I agree and disagree. I would say that I agree with you in a strictly technical sense, if you are looking at it from a lifetime standpoint, but when do we measure our lives in this way? It's simply a matter of perspective. I don't pay my water bill on a lifetime basis, I pay it monthly, so the amount that I look at is going to be how much the water bill is this month, as opposed to how much I expect to pay over my entire life.

It seems natural to divide your sessions up into days, or visits, if a single session starts before midnight and ends after midnight. Why would a person not be compelled to take the amount he walks away ahead, if only temporarily, and call it, "Profit," on that session? Why does a company report profits at the end of the year, especially if the expectation is that the industry is going to go downhill within the next few years? It's because we use our perspective to measure the unmeasurable, he doesn't know, now, how many times he will gamble in his life or how much he is going to take in every time, so you simply can't manage things that way. You break things up into sections, and the sections can be immediately quantified and managed. One visit to the casino seems like an immensely manageable section.

By the way, I'm a believer in the Math, but on all of these long-term calculations, does nobody notice the positive deviations? The x/1,000,000 sessions of 10,000 rolls of Craps that actually result in a profit? These tend to get ignored when we look at the -EV. However, the positive deviations are part of the EV within a limited set, they must happen, someone comes out ahead over those 10K rolls, or Resolved Bets, or what have you?

How is it that we are expected to look at the negative overall EV without giving any consideration to the possibility (however remote, and becoming more remote the greater the deviation) that we end up on the positive side? Isn't that the purpose of gambling? The possibility of ending up ahead, whether it be in the long run or short run?

If I'm going to look at every session as nothing more than a lifetime game that I must lose, I would stop gambling and never go again. What would be the point? The appeal is the possibility of profit, is it not? If not, what separates it from any other activity?

Quote:

It is obvious, that the value for any sane person going to casino to play negative expectation games is in entertainment, not profit. And therefore, the benefit you are getting out of it should be measured in hours, not in dollars. That is the reason you think than less than an hour of play is not worth of two hour drive, regardless of the "profit", and you are right.



Winning entertains me just fine. I do like attending concerts, as well, when they are paid for by money that did not come directly from my paycheck.

Another example is my earlier post about the 4K jackpot. Based on EV, I'm good for what, fifteen years now? If you give me just a handful more of those, namely...probably four...and I do not increase my cash-in on a weekly basis, I literally could not finish down.

Theoretically, I could quit right now and forever, nd I have finished ahead. Where is your lifetime -ER then?

Quote:

Keeping it in mind, just ignore the amount, and stick to the time limit you set for yourself. For example, play for two hours, and then leave, win or lose. Unless, of course, you happen to loose the whole $2000 before that time - then just leave, nothing else to do anyway.
Or, use a combination criteria, if you are set so much on counting your winnings. For example, play for an hour, then leave if you are down more than 1000 or up more than 600, otherwise play for another hour, etc.



You're technically right, I want you to know I am not disputing that, but nothing more or less. Your technicalities ignore perception completely.

I think he has been using the combo criteria, it seems that is the thing from which he wants to get away.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
August 8th, 2012 at 11:48:33 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Meaningless? Meaningless, how? Things have the subjective meaning to which we assign them. I often feel as though I am surrounded by gambling Nihilists, here.


Well, it is obvious that it is meaningless subjectively to the OP, since he himself says he did not want to honor it.
I was just saying, that he should not feel guilty about it, because there is no objective meaning to it either.

Quote:

I agree and disagree. I would say that I agree with you in a strictly technical sense, if you are looking at it from a lifetime standpoint, but when do we measure our lives in this way?


The point is you do not go to casino to make money, unless you are either an AP or stupid.
If you are neither of the two, it makes no sense to evaluate your gambling session in terms of dollars per hour.

Quote:

It seems natural to divide your sessions up into days, or visits, if a single session starts before midnight and ends after midnight. Why would a person not be compelled to take the amount he walks away ahead, if only temporarily, and call it, "Profit," on that session?


You can call it whatever you want. Just don't use it as a justification for the time spent driving, or whatever other expenses you incur on the way to make it.

Quote:

Why does a company report profits at the end of the year, especially if the expectation is that the industry is going to go downhill within the next few years?


Because the company's goal is making profits, so it reports how good it was accomplishing it.
Gambler's goal is not making profits (unless he is stupid, which is a whole different story). He goes to the casino to have fun, spends two hours driving, hits a royal on the first draw, and happily drives back because he made $300/hour? Are you saying such behavior actually seems rational to you?

You go there to have fun, and win a large sum of money unexpectedly. Why in the world would you not want to stay and celebrate???


Quote:

How is it that we are expected to look at the negative overall EV without giving any consideration to the possibility (however remote, and becoming more remote the greater the deviation) that we end up on the positive side?


You can end up on the positive side, sure, why not. But the likelihood of that happening has nothing to do with your "discipline", "money management" or "session planning".

Quote:

If I'm going to look at every session as nothing more than a lifetime game that I must lose, I would stop gambling and never go again. What would be the point? The appeal is the possibility of profit, is it not? If not, what separates it from any other activity?


Not to me, it isn't. And I am not sure how to answer the last question. I don't think anything really does separate gambling from any other activity. Some weekends I gamble, some I go to a ballet performance, sometimes to a comedy show, and sometimes to a hookah bar. What separates all those activities from each other - I have no idea. I do know what they have in common - I like to spend my free time doing them, and I don't like driving, so they have to be located close enough and be respectively long enough to be worth my while.
If I go to a concert, and find out that there is a promotion going on, and the tickets are free today, I don't just turn around, and go home thinking how I just made $300 per hour. If I wanted to make money, Id go to work instead.

Quote:

Winning entertains me just fine. I do like attending concerts, as well, when they are paid for by money that did not come directly from my paycheck.


Aha. So, would you consider it worth your while to drive for an hour each way to attend a 10 minutes long concert as long as you do not have to pay for the ticket?

Quote:

Another example is my earlier post about the 4K jackpot. Based on EV, I'm good for what, fifteen years now? If you give me just a handful more of those, namely...probably four...and I do not increase my cash-in on a weekly basis, I literally could not finish down.


That's fine. I am not disputing this. What I don't get is how you view hitting of such a jackpot as a reason to leave early? Why would you want to leave? Unless you intend to never return in order to stay a lifetime winner - that would be kinda sad, but, at least, rational.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
August 8th, 2012 at 12:37:50 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Well, it is obvious that it is meaningless subjectively to the OP, since he himself says he did not want to honor it.
I was just saying, that he should not feel guilty about it, because there is no objective meaning to it either.



It has subjective meaning for him. I took the OP as him saying what he would like to do, but has trouble doing.


Quote:

The point is you do not go to casino to make money, unless you are either an AP or stupid.
If you are neither of the two, it makes no sense to evaluate your gambling session in terms of dollars per hour.



If I go with $50, my expectation is to lose $50, but I go because I COULD win. Is that not why most people who are not AP's go? The only other hobby I had where I could make money was being in a band, but I haven't had that kind of time in years.

Quote:

Because the company's goal is making profits, so it reports how good it was accomplishing it.
Gambler's goal is not making profits (unless he is stupid, which is a whole different story). He goes to the casino to have fun, spends two hours driving, hits a royal on the first draw, and happily drives back because he made $300/hour? Are you saying such behavior actually seems rational to you?



I have to report to the IRS if I was good at profitting from gambling in a given year, so it seems that a year is a pretty reasonable maximum time to consider as a, "Session," considering I have no other choice.

The second part depends on how he gambles. I gamble in multiples of $50, as far as winning goes. If I put $50 in, and hit $600 on my first pull, game over, Mission Accomplished. If I hit $625 on my first pull, then I play down to exactly $600 or up to $650+.

Quote:

You go there to have fun, and win a large sum of money unexpectedly. Why in the world would you not want to stay and celebrate???



You can stay, we're talking about whether or not he should continue to play. If one can literally not be there without playing, then one may want to re-evauate one's hobbies.

Quote:

You can end up on the positive side, sure, why not. But the likelihood of that happening has nothing to do with your "discipline", "money management" or "session planning".



True from a neutral standpoint. If you are already ahead, then it may have everything to do with money management! How long you playt before you are even or down for life depends entirely on what you put into the game. I have fifteen years before I am even against just that jackpot, and even more than that before I am even against what I am ahead for life, based on ER!

Look at that MegaBucks winner from '03. That person could lose $15,000/week for fifty years before he/she is even just with that one hit +/- net gambling results prior to the big hit.


Quote:

Not to me, it isn't. And I am not sure how to answer the last question. I don't think anything really does separate gambling from any other activity. Some weekends I gamble, some I go to a ballet performance, sometimes to a comedy show, and sometimes to a hookah bar. What separates all those activities from each other - I have no idea. I do know what they have in common - I like to spend my free time doing them, and I don't like driving, so they have to be located close enough and be respectively long enough to be worth my while.
If I go to a concert, and find out that there is a promotion going on, and the tickets are free today, I don't just turn around, and go home thinking how I just made $300 per hour. If I wanted to make money, Id go to work instead.



Agree to disagree. The potential to win money separates it, in my opinion. I am entertained, and I may well be compensated for doing something that I enjoy doing, anyway. I already have a job and work hours such that a second job is nearly impossible, and again, I expect to lose...but I COULD win. The AP's (who are often right) and the IDIOTS (who are usually proven wrong) say, "Will win," I am saying, "Could win." That's the difference maker between that and a movie, short of someone dropping a C-Note next to where I accidentally spill my popcorn...who am I kidding...I hate going to the movie theater.

Well, no, to the last part. You didn't make anything cash-wise. You see the show because that is where the value actually is. If the tickets are free and you do not see the show, you have gained nothing.


Quote:

Aha. So, would you consider it worth your while to drive for an hour each way to attend a 10 minutes long concert as long as you do not have to pay for the ticket?



It depends on the band and whether or not they announce what song will be heard. If it was Metallica and, "No Leaf Clover," backed up by a live symphony...absolutely.


Quote:

That's fine. I am not disputing this. What I don't get is how you view hitting of such a jackpot as a reason to leave early? Why would you want to leave? Unless you intend to never return in order to stay a lifetime winner - that would be kinda sad, but, at least, rational.



You have to leave sometime, might as well be on a high note. Besides, I took some more spins while I waited on the handpay. Made a few more bucks, and then had a most delightful time running around the place tossing money at everyone and their Grandmother!
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
August 8th, 2012 at 1:01:55 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

It has subjective meaning for him. I took the OP as him saying what he would like to do, but has trouble doing.


Yes. And the cause of that trouble is that criteria he is trying to follow is meaningless. :)

Quote:


If I go with $50, my expectation is to lose $50, but I go because I COULD win. Is that not why most people who are not AP's go? The only other hobby I had where I could make money was being in a band, but I haven't had that kind of time in years.


There are better, more efficient, more sure ways to make money. If you need money, the last place you want to go to is a casino.


Quote:

I have to report to the IRS if I was good at profitting from gambling in a given year,


I don't know what this has to do with anything. You have to report to IRS if you get married too. It does not mean that you are getting married in order to increase your income.

Quote:

The second part depends on how he gambles. I gamble in multiples of $50, as far as winning goes. If I put $50 in, and hit $600 on my first pull, game over, Mission Accomplished. If I hit $625 on my first pull, then I play down to exactly $600 or up to $650+.


That wasn't the question though.

Quote:


You can stay, we're talking about whether or not he should continue to play.


Right. And the question is, if he likes it, then why the hell not???


Quote:

True from a neutral standpoint. If you are already ahead, then it may have everything to do with money management!



If you goal is to be ahead, than your best strategy is to never play again.
Money management is an illusion.

Quote:

How long you playt before you are even or down for life depends entirely on what you put into the game.


Yes.
If your goal is to play longer, just stick to minimum bets. Again, no money management is necessary.
Especially with this criteria, it makes absolutely no sense to leave early if you are winning. To the contrary, you can now stay longer. You just got some "free" money, that you can bet without affecting your lifetime balance. Go for it!

Quote:

I have fifteen years before I am even against just that jackpot, and even more than that before I am even against what I am ahead for life, based on ER!


Yes. But it does not matter how you "manage your money" during those fifteen years. Only how much you bet in total.


Quote:

Agree to disagree. The potential to win money separates it, in my opinion.


Only in the same sense in which the potential to hear a good joke separates a comedy show ...
Would you consider it a good idea to leave a comedy show before it finishes if it happened to be significantly better than usual, and you were able to hear well more than an average number of good jokes in the first 10 minutes?


Quote:

Well, no, to the last part. You didn't make anything cash-wise.


Ok, fair enough. How about this then?
You go to a concert, expecting to pay $1000 for the tickets. You drive for two hours to get there, and meet a guy at the door, who says that you just won an instant lottery, here is your $600.
Now, you can just take $600, turn around and go home, or you can use that money towards the tickets, so that they only cost you $400, and see the concert.
By your logic, it seems that you should leave. I say, it would be completely irrational.


Quote:

You have to leave sometime, might as well be on a high note.


But why should I leave, if I want to keep playing? You call it "discipline", I say "masochism" :)
Aren't you getting forced enough by other people to do things that you don't want to do, that you want to voluntarily impose this sort of "discipline" on yourself?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28575
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
August 8th, 2012 at 1:54:23 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman



But why should I leave, if I want to keep playing?



You're discussing two different things here.
Some people want to play to win money
and leave. Others just want to play. Neither
is wrong, neither is right. My friend just
likes playing, he sits at the slots for hours,
up or down, he doesn't care. I leave when
I'm ahead. So what.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
August 8th, 2012 at 1:57:57 PM permalink
Paigowdan does not approve of you leaving with the casino's money , Bob SHAME ON YOU !
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
August 8th, 2012 at 2:01:33 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman


Yes. And the cause of that trouble is that criteria he is trying to follow is meaningless. :)



The criteria is subjectively meaningful, and as much so as he makes it. He wants to make the subjective criteria of profit/loss more meaningful to the extent that it overrides the objective (well, if we accept time as objective) criteria of how long he is there. Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am," his existence was subjectively meaningful because his capacity for thought seperated him from those things which potentially do not exist. However, subjective beliefs result in concepts, and it can be said, however abstractly, that concepts have an existence of their own.

In the present case, the objective is to physically leave with more objective pieces of paper (to which we assign a subjective value, just look at stocks!) than you came in with. However, you might leave in less objective time (again, positing the objectivity of time) than we may like. The question then becomes does the subjective value of the additional objective paper overrule the subjective value of the objective time we are, "Losing," or is it better to ensure we spent more objective time doing the activity?

The OP demands Philosophy, and it is a combination of your Nihilism/Cynicism/Stoicism vs. my Logical Positivism/Existentialism/Perspectivism combo. A battle for the ages! I hope Wittgenstein is proud of my performance and Diogenes yours.

Quote:

There are better, more efficient, more sure ways to make money. If you need money, the last place you want to go to is a casino.



It is a balance for me. I would like to make money, but enjoy gambling. I do not enjoy it so much that I would go +$600 on a machine and then continue to feed the machine, in that one sitting, until that $600 is gone. I like the feeling of winning, but in my subjective viewpoint, I don't win $600 when the machine says, "Credits: 65,000," I win $600 when I walk out of the place with $650. If I go with $50 twelve consecutive times thereafter and lose, granted, I have neither won nor lost anything...but from my perspective, I have merely lost $50 twelve times. It is the same thing, especially as a pragmatic matter, but perspectively it feels different. I don't feel like I have won $600 if I give it all back that visit and leave with the original $50, I feel as though I have neither won nor lost.

The OP wants to win $600 or lose $1,000. When he gets to +$600, that is his money, if he ends up down $1,000, he is actually -$1,600, which is more than he intended to lose.

Quote:

I don't know what this has to do with anything. You have to report to IRS if you get married too. It does not mean that you are getting married in order to increase your income.



It has to do with sessions. How can I look at it as a lifetime session when I must report every year? It's a built-in dividing point, as is when I leave the casino, at least, to me.


Quote:

Right. And the question is, if he likes it, then why the hell not???



I gather from the OP he doesn't like being +$600 and losing it, so the answer to the question of, "Why the hell not," is implicit.

Quote:

If you goal is to be ahead, than your best strategy is to never play again.
Money management is an illusion.



It is not an illusion. If I play $50/week I can lose for eighty consecutive weeks until the $4,000 is gone. I can therefore go once/week with that specific amount. If I go with $4,000 and say, "Double-or-Nothing," and lose the 4k, then I can go once before I am even on the 4k. Where is the illusion?

Quote:

Yes.
If your goal is to play longer, just stick to minimum bets. Again, no money management is necessary.
Especially with this criteria, it makes absolutely no sense to leave early if you are winning. To the contrary, you can now stay longer. You just got some "free" money, that you can bet without affecting your lifetime balance. Go for it!



How is sticking to minimum bets not a form of money management? Every bet has the potential to affect your lifetime balance.

Quote:

Yes. But it does not matter how you "manage your money" during those fifteen years. Only how much you bet in total.



I enjoy the knowledge that the ER has it that I can perform at expectation for 14+ years and still be ahead.

Quote:

Only in the same sense in which the potential to hear a good joke separates a comedy show ...
Would you consider it a good idea to leave a comedy show before it finishes if it happened to be significantly better than usual, and you were able to hear well more than an average number of good jokes in the first 10 minutes?



No:

1.) If the show has been good thus far, the expectation is positive in that it will continue to be good.

2.) No cash value in leaving. The EV of leaving is always negative because you did not get what you paid for. When you make a bet, you are paying for the time it takes to resolve that bet, irrespective of the amount you are paying for it.



Quote:

Ok, fair enough. How about this then?
You go to a concert, expecting to pay $1000 for the tickets. You drive for two hours to get there, and meet a guy at the door, who says that you just won an instant lottery, here is your $600.
Now, you can just take $600, turn around and go home, or you can use that money towards the tickets, so that they only cost you $400, and see the concert.
By your logic, it seems that you should leave. I say, it would be completely irrational.



That is not my logic because you went there to see the concert. The OP is going to the casino to either win $600, lose $1,000, or be there for at least an hour. He is simply trying to decide which should be a priority, which is what we are discussing, not whether or not you should go to a concert when you left with the intention of going to a concert.

Quote:

But why should I leave, if I want to keep playing? You call it "discipline", I say "masochism" :)
Aren't you getting forced enough by other people to do things that you don't want to do, that you want to voluntarily impose this sort of "discipline" on yourself?



I would say that masochism is somehow putting yourself in a position where you are unhappy about technically losing $600 (leaving with the same amount of money you walked in with) when you could have lost $1,000 and been just fine with it!!!

The OP does not want to lose when he is up $600, but for that all-encompassing 3600 seconds which is no more or less subjective and arbitrary a mandate than winning $600 or losing $1,000!!!
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
August 8th, 2012 at 2:32:49 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

The criteria is subjectively meaningful,


Not to the OP apparently, thus the trouble.

Quote:


In the present case, the objective is to physically leave with more objective pieces of paper (to which we assign a subjective value, just look at stocks!) than you came in with.


And the point is that a casino is an entirely wrong place to be with an objective like this. Thus the trouble.

Quote:


The OP wants to win $600 or lose $1,000. When he gets to +$600, that is his money, if he ends up down $1,000, he is actually -$1,600, which is more than he intended to lose.


He probably lost some money before he won $600 too (unless it was just one long winning streak). So, technically, he already won more than he intended to win too, and should have left earlier (possibly, even, while still down!) if you insist on evaluating it this way.
I think, it is obvious that the only sane meaning of "lose $1000" in this context is "to walk out with $1000 less than you walked in with", not the total amount of bets that you lost.

Quote:

It has to do with sessions. How can I look at it as a lifetime session when I must report every year?


Easily. You don't report "sessions", you report income. IRS does not like you keeping free money for very long.
What if they made a law that every bet must be automatically reported? Would you then insist that every single bet is its own "session"?


Quote:

I gather from the OP he doesn't like being +$600 and losing it, so the answer to the question of, "Why the hell not," is implicit.


If he did not like it, he would not be doing it, would he? Nobody forces him to play, he does it because he wants to more than he dislikes the possibility of losing the 600. So, I renew my question: why the hell not?

Quote:


It is not an illusion. If I play $50/week I can lose for eighty consecutive weeks until the $4,000 is gone. I can therefore go once/week with that specific amount. If I go with $4,000 and say, "Double-or-Nothing," and lose the 4k, then I can go once before I am even on the 4k. Where is the illusion?


Yes, if you lose more than you can afford, you are going to go broke, that is not an illusion.

The illusion is on the other end of the spectrum - that limiting your "sessions" by the amount won is somehow beneficial to you.

Quote:

How is sticking to minimum bets not a form of money management? Every bet has the potential to affect your lifetime balance.


By "money management" I meant forcing oneself to leave after winning "too much". Sizing ones bets appropriately is not "money management" in my book so much as just plain sanity.


Quote:

I enjoy the knowledge that the ER has it that I can perform at expectation for 14+ years and still be ahead.


I get it. But it has nothing to do with your "discipline" of forcing yourself to stop playing after winning some arbitrary amount of money in a given day.


Quote:


No:
1.) If the show has been good thus far, the expectation is positive in that it will continue to be good.


Well, suppose you knew it was going to be good when you were coming in, so the expectation did not change after your hearing those opening jokes. Exactly the same way as the casino expectation has not changed after you won $600. You came there planning to spend an evening, nothing has changed, except that you gained some money, and you are deciding to leave early. Same as with my show example. You come in expecting a good show, gain some laughter in ten minutes ... and leave, because nothing has changed.


Quote:


That is not my logic because you went there to see the concert. The OP is going to the casino to either win $600, lose $1,000, or be there for at least an hour.


That's not what he said, but anyway ... are you seriously suggesting that anybody's reason of going to casino can be formulated as "to lose $1000"? Really? Is that why you gamble? To lose money?

Quote:

He is simply trying to decide which should be a priority, which is what we are discussing, not whether or not you should go to a concert when you left with the intention of going to a concert.


I am not seeing the difference.
You come with the intention to <insert an activity>, get paid $600, and decide to leave.


Quote:


I would say that masochism is somehow putting yourself in a position where you are unhappy about technically losing $600 (leaving with the same amount of money you walked in with) when you could have lost $1,000 and been just fine with it!!!


No, that's not masochism, that's addiction. If you feel unhappy about losing why in the world do you come near casinos???
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
August 8th, 2012 at 4:28:33 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Not to the OP apparently, thus the trouble.



It is, just one is moreso than the other, and he is trying to examine which criteria should be the most meaningful. If the first criteria had no meaning, we would not be having this most enjoyable discussion.

Quote:

And the point is that a casino is an entirely wrong place to be with an objective like this. Thus the trouble.



If it were the only objective, then I would agree. It's also a somewhat contextual objective, I can think of very few endeavors, particularly hobbies, in which one has a better chance of making say, $600, in an hour, without selling anything, unless one's job already pays that. My Bachelor's in Economics certainly has not made me $50 (or more) in an hour, anywhere.

Actually, that's not strictly true. I used to write research papers for people, if you needed one that day, it could get pretty expensive...The laws of supply and demand work beautifully when the market is literally desperate for the product. ;)


Quote:

He probably lost some money before he won $600 too (unless it was just one long winning streak). So, technically, he already won more than he intended to win too, and should have left earlier (possibly, even, while still down!) if you insist on evaluating it this way.
I think, it is obvious that the only sane meaning of "lose $1000" in this context is "to walk out with $1000 less than you walked in with", not the total amount of bets that you lost.



You're correct, of course, but I evaluate it this way only selectively as part of my betting strategy. That's why I will only bet any amount in excess of the closest multiple of fifty, unless the closest multiple happens to be fifty.


Quote:

Easily. You don't report "sessions", you report income. IRS does not like you keeping free money for very long.
What if they made a law that every bet must be automatically reported? Would you then insist that every single bet is its own "session"?



Yuck. Income taxes have already been paid on that money as it came from a different gambler, there's nothing about it that is free.

My personal view of sessions is walk into the casino, leave the casino = session. You could view every bet as a session if you really wanted to, if it is meaningless, as you have maintained, what would the difference be in viewing every bet as a session?

Quote:

If he did not like it, he would not be doing it, would he? Nobody forces him to play, he does it because he wants to more than he dislikes the possibility of losing the 600. So, I renew my question: why the hell not?



He only wants to more in the context of already being at the casino and already being at the table. He then loses some amount of money, probably less than the overall tolerable loss of $1,000, and regrets it...as he has made clear. Alternatively, he could have walked in, lost $1,000, never been ahead, and would have been fine with it as it is not a deviation from his desired betting style. He simply does not enjoy accomplishing his pre-determined goal, and then essentially undoing the accomplishment.

Quote:

Yes, if you lose more than you can afford, you are going to go broke, that is not an illusion.

The illusion is on the other end of the spectrum - that limiting your "sessions" by the amount won is somehow beneficial to you.



It's beneficial if one of your goals is duration without risking an actual loss in terms of how many occasions you go to the casino! How is it not?

Quote:

By "money management" I meant forcing oneself to leave after winning "too much". Sizing ones bets appropriately is not "money management" in my book so much as just plain sanity.



Why? It has been oft-stated that one's best chance to double is to risk it all at once.

Quote:

I get it. But it has nothing to do with your "discipline" of forcing yourself to stop playing after winning some arbitrary amount of money in a given day.



You coulld take discipline out of the quotation marks there, I would suggest. It's better to chase a previous amount won than chase an actual loss, but best not to chase at all.

Quote:

Well, suppose you knew it was going to be good when you were coming in, so the expectation did not change after your hearing those opening jokes. Exactly the same way as the casino expectation has not changed after you won $600. You came there planning to spend an evening, nothing has changed, except that you gained some money, and you are deciding to leave early. Same as with my show example. You come in expecting a good show, gain some laughter in ten minutes ... and leave, because nothing has changed.



Exactly! The expectation was negative in the casino, but now you have defied that negative expectation, so why not leave having defied it by an increment that you deem suitable to be worth leaving? Your show example is a non-sequitur, you have paid to see the whole show regardless of how long you stay. It is always negative EV to leave before the show is over because you are simply not getting what you have paid for. If you end up +$600 in the casino, then you have not paid anything!

Let's reverse this a little bit. You are at the show and you're having a good time. Ten minutes in some guy taps you on the shoulder, he says he will give you $1,600 to leave and produces the cash, you paid $1,000 for your ticket. Would you take the money? I would. This scenario is more comparable to the casino, except, you probably didn't even pay the casino the full $1,000 for your, "Ticket," despite being prepared to.

Quote:

That's not what he said, but anyway ... are you seriously suggesting that anybody's reason of going to casino can be formulated as "to lose $1000"? Really? Is that why you gamble? To lose money?



It's not the desired result, but it is the negative stop point. If you have a firm negative stop point, a firm positive stop point, and a firm time, then you are acknowledging that either a, b or c will happen. How would you not formulate it that way?

Quote:

I am not seeing the difference.
You come with the intention to <insert an activity>, get paid $600, and decide to leave.



If I drive to the concert, it is because I wanted to see the concert. If I can do that for an effective $400 as opposed to $1,000, why would I not see the concert? My goal was to see the concert. If my goal (stop point) is winning $600, why would I not stop when I have won $600?

I either lose $50, win my highest multiple of $50 that I have reached, or hit my hard stop time (if applicable), one way or another one of my objectives is accomplished.

Quote:

No, that's not masochism, that's addiction. If you feel unhappy about losing why in the world do you come near casinos???



I would not feel unhappy about losing, per se, I would feel about being undisciplined and not stopping at such time that I have completed my predetermined objective. If I go in there and lose $50 having never hit $100 (or more) I feel just fine.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
August 8th, 2012 at 5:14:02 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

It is, just one is moreso than the other, and he is trying to examine which criteria should be the most meaningful. If the first criteria had no meaning, we would not be having this most enjoyable discussion.


To the contrary, we would not be having it if it did have meaning, because in that case I would not have much to contribute.

Quote:


If it were the only objective, then I would agree. It's also a somewhat contextual objective, I can think of very few endeavors, particularly hobbies, in which one has a better chance of making say, $600, in an hour, without selling anything, unless one's job already pays that. My Bachelor's in Economics certainly has not made me $50 (or more) in an hour, anywhere.


You are only saying it because you refuse to consider the money lost, and only focus on winnings. We are lucky IRS is not like that.
In reality, almost any hobby I can think of offers better monetary expected value than gambling. You may be the lucky one, who hit the jackpot, but for the most people, who gamble with any regularity, earnings per hour are certainly significantly negative.

Quote:


You're correct, of course, but I evaluate it this way only selectively as part of my betting strategy. That's why I will only bet any amount in excess of the closest multiple of fifty, unless the closest multiple happens to be fifty.



This went right over my head.


Quote:

Yuck. Income taxes have already been paid on that money as it came from a different gambler, there's nothing about it that is free.


That can be said about any money you earn, because it comes from somewhere else.

Quote:


My personal view of sessions is walk into the casino, leave the casino = session. You could view every bet as a session if you really wanted to, if it is meaningless, as you have maintained, what would the difference be in viewing every bet as a session?


There is no difference. That's the point. It is meaningless.


Quote:


He only wants to more in the context of already being at the casino and already being at the table.


Yes. That's the context we are talking about, isn't it?
Myself, if someone offered me to go to a casino (2 hour drive) now to gamble for 15 minutes right now, I would, probably, refuse. However, if I already was at the casino this minute, and someone would suggest to stay for 15 minutes, I would agree. I see nothing wrong with this "context contingency".

Quote:

Alternatively, he could have walked in, lost $1,000, never been ahead, and would have been fine with it as it is not a deviation from his desired betting style. He simply does not enjoy accomplishing his pre-determined goal, and then essentially undoing the accomplishment.


And you are suggesting it is better for him to try and alter his behavior and force himself do what he does not want to do, then to adjust his quite arbitrarily pre-determined goal to better match his desires. Make no sense to me whatsoever.

Quote:


It's beneficial if one of your goals is duration without risking an actual loss in terms of how many occasions you go to the casino! How is it not?


Because it cannot be your goal. If it was your goal, you would no show up in the casino to begin with.


Quote:

Why? It has been oft-stated that one's best chance to double is to risk it all at once.


Indeed, it is. But I maintain that coming to a casino with a goal being that of doubling your bankroll is stupid insane, unless you are an AP.

Quote:

It's better to chase a previous amount won than chase an actual loss, but best not to chase at all.


Exactly. Don't chase anything. Just have fun. It has nothing to do with "discipline" or "management" or some such.
You don't practice "discipline" when you go to the movies, do you? Why should this be any different?
The only "discipline" you need is knowing how much you are willing to spend for your entertainment.


Quote:

Exactly! The expectation was negative in the casino, but now you have defied that negative expectation, so why not leave having defied it by an increment that you deem suitable to be worth leaving?


Why not? How about because you still want to play?
Before you came to the casino, the expectation was negative, but you wanted to play, so you came.
Now, after you won, the expectation is still negative, and you still want to play. Nothing changed, except that you are already here, and don't have to drive for an hour to play ... and also have more money now. It looks like all the elements are on your side, and you are leaving? Make no sense.


Quote:

Your show example is a non-sequitur, you have paid to see the whole show regardless of how long you stay. It is always negative EV to leave before the show is over because you are simply not getting what you have paid for. If you end up +$600 in the casino, then you have not paid anything!


You paid with your time of having driven there, and back.
If you did not go at all, you would not have paid anything either, but you chose to go, because you wanted to play (I sure hope, not because you needed money!). You still want to play. Nothing changed, except you now have more money, and do not have to drive for an hour. So, play!

Quote:

Let's reverse this a little bit. You are at the show and you're having a good time. Ten minutes in some guy taps you on the shoulder, he says he will give you $1,600 to leave and produces the cash, you paid $1,000 for your ticket. Would you take the money?


Depends ... Do I like the show? Do I want to stay?
I am thinking, if I like the show enough to have paid a 1000 bucks for it, and it took me two hours to get there ... most probably, I would decline the offer.
$600 may sound like a good chunk of money, but if I was ready to cough up a $1000 to see a show, it's, probably, not a very significant amount for me. Nah, I'd stay, he can keep the money.


Quote:

It's not the desired result, but it is the negative stop point.


Then it is not what he goes there for, is it? I hope, it is also not the winnings that he goes there for either.
That just leaves fun. Have fun already! Don't sweat the money, that you were already willing to spend anyway.
It's the price of entertainment, that's all.


Quote:

If you have a firm negative stop point, a firm positive stop point, and a firm time, then you are acknowledging that either a, b or c will happen. How would you not formulate it that way?


Because there is goal (objective), defining why you went there in the first place, and then there are constraints, that might prevent you from reaching that goal, and you should not mix them up.
For example, my goal could be to have fun. And the constraints might be, for example, that I don't have more than $1000 to spend on this, or that I have to be somewhere else in three hours etc. I just don't see how "having won too much" could fit into either category.


Quote:

If I drive to the concert, it is because I wanted to see the concert. If I can do that for an effective $400 as opposed to $1,000, why would I not see the concert?


Well, I don't know.
If you drive to a casino because you want to gamble, and you can do it for an effective $400 as opposed to $1000 why would you not gamble?

Quote:

My goal was to see the concert. If my goal (stop point) is winning $600, why would I not stop when I have won $600?


Because your goal cannot be to win $600. Not unless you are an AP, or ... you know ...


Quote:

I would not feel unhappy about losing, per se, I would feel about being undisciplined and not stopping at such time that I have completed my predetermined objective. If I go in there and lose $50 having never hit $100 (or more) I feel just fine.


Right. And that's exactly what I called "masochism" earlier - feeling unhappy because you failed to force yourself to do something you did not want to do.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
100xOdds
100xOdds
  • Threads: 638
  • Posts: 4256
Joined: Feb 5, 2012
August 8th, 2012 at 6:26:29 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Just get rid of the "stop limit", and problem is solved :) It is meaningless anyway.

$600 for a two-hour drive is not $300/hr, you were right before, wrong now. It would be if you never had a losing session, or a long session with fewer money won. As it is, you have to factor in the losses too. You need to get used to the idea, that you are playing a negative expectation game, so, trying to think of it in terms of profit per hour is pointless - it will always be negative as long as you calculate it correctly, and do not cheat.

It is obvious, that the value for any sane person going to casino to play negative expectation games is in entertainment, not profit. And therefore, the benefit you are getting out of it should be measured in hours, not in dollars. That is the reason you think than less than an hour of play is not worth of two hour drive, regardless of the "profit", and you are right.

Keeping it in mind, just ignore the amount, and stick to the time limit you set for yourself. For example, play for two hours, and then leave, win or lose. Unless, of course, you happen to loose the whole $2000 before that time - then just leave, nothing else to do anyway.
Or, use a combination criteria, if you are set so much on counting your winnings. For example, play for an hour, then leave if you are down more than 1000 or up more than 600, otherwise play for another hour, etc.



uggg.. this makes sense too.

now i'm back to square one on whether to walk away w/$600 profit in 30min or stay 1hr no matter how much I win.

curiously, i;m VERY ok in leaving if i hit -1000 loss limit in, say, 15min. basically because i'm not having fun when i'm losing. and getting to -1000 puts me out of my misery.
Craps is paradise (Pair of dice). Lets hear it for the SpeedCount Mathletes :)
RaleighCraps
RaleighCraps
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 2501
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
August 8th, 2012 at 7:08:30 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146


He only wants to more in the context of already being at the casino and already being at the table. He then loses some amount of money, probably less than the overall tolerable loss of $1,000, and regrets it...as he has made clear. Alternatively, he could have walked in, lost $1,000, never been ahead, and would have been fine with it as it is not a deviation from his desired betting style. He simply does not enjoy accomplishing his pre-determined goal, and then essentially undoing the accomplishment.



I won't presume to know what the OP feels or wants, but I can say that this is a perfect description of how I feel about it.
My desire when I head to the casino is to play craps, hopefully for 4+ hours a day, and to be ahead when I quit for that day.

If I have been down most of the time, and then end with $200 profit, I am happy.
If I was up $4,000 at any point, and finish the day ahead $1000, I am conflicted. Happy to be ahead, unhappy I had way more in my pocket.
If I was up a small amount, and then end the day in negative territory, I am okay with that. Expected outcome.
If I spent most of the time down, and manage to get back within a few hundred of even that is usually an acceptable outcome.
If I was down big during the session, got back to even, and then end the session down big again, that is when I am the most unhappy. I hate fighting to get it back, and then just hand it back over. I am really trying to convince myself to cash out when I have climbed back to even, thus ending with an acceptable result.

And anybody can say differently, but I do correlate my happiness with the results of each session at a craps table (IOW, from buy in to cash out).

I expect that some sessions, as I have defined them, will allow me to fall within the positive variance as defined within 1 SD. I hope that I have that incredible day where I land closer to the 2 or 3 SD spot, which may happen a few times for me, or I may never have it happen. (I'm pretty certain my $3500 win in 45 minutes, starting with $110 inside, was probably well over 1 SD. Shooter only made 1 point.)
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back ! Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
mustangsally
mustangsally
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 2463
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
August 8th, 2012 at 7:55:11 PM permalink
Quote: RaleighCraps

I won't presume to know what the OP feels or wants, but I can say that this is a perfect description of how I feel about it.
My desire when I head to the casino is to play craps, hopefully for 4+ hours a day, and to be ahead when I quit for that day.

Me too.
The problem is, playing for 4 hours and making many many bets, lowers dramatically the chances of showing a profit after 4 hours of play.
And different bets win and lose at different rates so the type of bet really comes into play.

The average Craps player making average bets,
pass/come,
or don't/dc
or place bets with hardways thrown in
has about a 30% chance of lasting 4 hours and showing a profit.

This is an average of course.
Many times it is worse.

Your mileage and winnings will vary somewhat from the 30% level.

Do not think it can be 80%. Too many think this because they won big one time. ( Like me )
At best about 45-50% chance of lasting 4 hours and showing a profit... depending on the number of bets you make.
I Heart Vi Hart
ahiromu
ahiromu
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 2107
Joined: Jan 15, 2010
August 8th, 2012 at 10:54:35 PM permalink
Edit: WoO On ratings&HE
I'm still curious about how pressing is built in and specific examples please.

Can you guys tell me how you're traditionally rated on craps? There have been some posts about this, but I never really got the full gist of it. I know this might take some time and I would appreciate anything you can give me, I play craps very often but my sessions only last 60-90 minutes but I think I'm developing a large enough bankroll to hit that 3-4 hour mark. A few specific questions:

- First off, how do you typically play your game? I do PL+odds and place the 6/8 for $18-30. Low house edge, but I press pretty heavily.

- How do you press and how well is it represented in your rating? As mentioned I press quite often and bring the 6&8 up together... usually something like 18>24>30>42>60 and get paid there for a bit until a seven out.

- Let's say you're rated at $75 per "hand" - is there a standard for "hands per hour" in craps? I think I've heard points resolved in the 15-20 range and rolls in the 60-70 range. Can anyone tell me how detailed ratings are?

- Lastly, can you give a couple of specific examples of how much you play and what it has gotten you in terms of comps. Very personal question, feel free to completely ignore it: I'd appreciate to know what your approximate bankroll.
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
August 9th, 2012 at 8:49:46 PM permalink
First, apologies for the delayed reply, things got really hectic in a real hurry, yesterday.

Quote: weaselman

To the contrary, we would not be having it if it did have meaning, because in that case I would not have much to contribute.



Again, subjective meaning. In this case, you are not the subject, nor am I.

Quote:

You are only saying it because you refuse to consider the money lost, and only focus on winnings. We are lucky IRS is not like that.
In reality, almost any hobby I can think of offers better monetary expected value than gambling. You may be the lucky one, who hit the jackpot, but for the most people, who gamble with any regularity, earnings per hour are certainly significantly negative.[/q[

I do not refuse to consider losses. My objective is to stop when I win y or when I lose x. Either way, it is a predetermined objective. I expect negative earnings. I expect that more sessions will lose than those that will win, but that does not change the objective. If I remain within my objectives, I have had fun regardless of the result, which is the main objective. I happen to be a person that does not enjoy, "Giving it back," as it were. If I find myself up to $100 on $50 cash-in and I end up down $50, I have not had fun. Alternatively, if I never reach that point of $100, but still have $50 cash-in, and lose, I have still had fun.

It sounds like the OP does not have fun, regardless of time-at-table if he is up $600 and, "Gives it back."

Quote:

This went right over my head.



I will attempt to improve my clarity in the future, you have my humble apologies.

Quote:

That can be said about any money you earn, because it comes from somewhere else.



Yeah, but gambling money is discretionary income, or should be. It just feels different to have to pay Uncle Sam from that.


Quote:

Yes. That's the context we are talking about, isn't it?
Myself, if someone offered me to go to a casino (2 hour drive) now to gamble for 15 minutes right now, I would, probably, refuse. However, if I already was at the casino this minute, and someone would suggest to stay for 15 minutes, I would agree. I see nothing wrong with this "context contingency".



It depends. Again, within my betting parameters, if I were exactly ahead by a multiple of $50, I would not continue.


Quote:

And you are suggesting it is better for him to try and alter his behavior and force himself do what he does not want to do, then to adjust his quite arbitrarily pre-determined goal to better match his desires. Make no sense to me whatsoever.



I am suggesting that he do that which he often wishes he would have done, in retrospect.

Quote:

Because it cannot be your goal. If it was your goal, you would no show up in the casino to begin with.



Perhaps, "Goal," is the wrong word. However, considering always the possibility, rather probability, of losing, I think goal is a fair word. Is it fair to say, "My goal is to not lose more than $50, if I am going to lose at all?"

Quote:

eed, it is. But I maintain that coming to a casino with a goal being that of doubling your bankroll is stupid insane, unless you are an AP.



It is a perfectly reasonable goal, depending on bankroll amount, on slots due to variance.

Quote:


Exactly. Don't chase anything. Just have fun. It has nothing to do with "discipline" or "management" or some such.
You don't practice "discipline" when you go to the movies, do you? Why should this be any different?
The only "discipline" you need is knowing how much you are willing to spend for your entertainment.



Not chasing IS a matter of discipline. If you cave in and seek to return to a dollar amount that you once had, continuously making futile bet after futile bet in pursuance of that amount, you have shown a lack of both discipline and impulse control. The farther away you get from a dollar amount, the less mathematically likely you are to return to that amount.

The movies are different because it is a fixed cost, the price of the ticket. I try to make Slots a fixed cost, the most I will lose in a visit is $50, if I lose more than that, I have exercised poor discipline.

Quote:

not? How about because you still want to play?
Before you came to the casino, the expectation was negative, but you wanted to play, so you came.
Now, after you won, the expectation is still negative, and you still want to play. Nothing changed, except that you are already here, and don't have to drive for an hour to play ... and also have more money now. It looks like all the elements are on your side, and you are leaving? Make no sense.



He only wants to play in the context of that moment, outside of that moment, he wishes he had not continued.

Quote:


You paid with your time of having driven there, and back.
If you did not go at all, you would not have paid anything either, but you chose to go, because you wanted to play (I sure hope, not because you needed money!). You still want to play. Nothing changed, except you now have more money, and do not have to drive for an hour. So, play!



You play because of the possibility of winning money, not because you expect to. I would not play Slots, nor Craps, nor anything else if I absolutely KNEW I was going to lose money in that session, I'd play all of the above for free on-line!

Quote:


Depends ... Do I like the show? Do I want to stay?
I am thinking, if I like the show enough to have paid a 1000 bucks for it, and it took me two hours to get there ... most probably, I would decline the offer.
$600 may sound like a good chunk of money, but if I was ready to cough up a $1000 to see a show, it's, probably, not a very significant amount for me. Nah, I'd stay, he can keep the money.



You must really like the show, or alternatively, the process of gambling. I would take a 60% profit any day of the week.

Quote:


Then it is not what he goes there for, is it? I hope, it is also not the winnings that he goes there for either.
That just leaves fun. Have fun already! Don't sweat the money, that you were already willing to spend anyway.
It's the price of entertainment, that's all.



We're talking about fun. He's up $600, leaves down, he has no longer had fun! If having fun is the goal, and winning makes it fun, then he should leave whilst he as had fun.

Quote:


Because there is goal (objective), defining why you went there in the first place, and then there are constraints, that might prevent you from reaching that goal, and you should not mix them up.
For example, my goal could be to have fun. And the constraints might be, for example, that I don't have more than $1000 to spend on this, or that I have to be somewhere else in three hours etc. I just don't see how "having won too much" could fit into either category.



Per the above.

Quote:


Well, I don't know.
If you drive to a casino because you want to gamble, and you can do it for an effective $400 as opposed to $1000 why would you not gamble?



It seems that he may well lose more than the $600, on these occasions.

Quote:


Because your goal cannot be to win $600. Not unless you are an AP, or ... you know ...



The math from earlier says you are more likely to be up $600 than lose $1,000, why can that not be the goal?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
  • Jump to: