The POWER of LEAVING...

Time.... The casino's most prized asset...

The one thing that most Players will agree on about craps is over TIME, craps is a negative expectation game..

So I have 2 questions

1) So with all the the data collected, has anyone ran a time exposure simulation? Or perhaps an average amount of time that elapsed on winning sessions versus losing sessions...

2) What is the house edge on a player who has the POWER to leave??

What do you guys think???



"In a casino, the cardinal rule is to keep them playing, and keep them coming back.. In time, we'll always get your money."

The house edge won't change - regardless of whether a player has the power to leave or not

Looking at average length if winning streaks to determine when to leave is part of the gambler's fallacy that leads gamblers to believe events in the past can affect events in the future - akin to Roulette players and Baccarat players who think a certain 'play' can become overdue based on a streak.

Each throw of the dice is an independent trial.

Better question, albeit rhetorical, would be: what is the prospective house edge against a player who determines to stop gambling and through will power chooses never to gamble again?

Or, to quote the Bard: "What fools these mortals be."

Lol. Perfect

Quote: MrV

Better question, albeit rhetorical, would be: what is the prospective house edge against a player who determines to stop gambling and through will power chooses never to gamble again?

Or, to quote the Bard: "What fools these mortals be."

I understand the the house edge of the game itself "is what it IS" but what I'm asking is their a direct coorelation to a person's will to continue playing versus the person who can simply leave... The math is theoretical, can time exposure not be theoretical as well?

And when did leaving a casino fall under the gambler's fallacy?

Quote: TheWolf713

I understand the the house edge of the game itself "is what it IS" but what I'm asking is their a direct coorelation to a person's will to continue playing versus the person who can simply leave... The math is theoretical, can time exposure not be theoretical as well?

It obviously says more about the player than the game. He is not delusional about his luck and is not willing to have a higher aggregate play in a session. You're just going to see him play less in a lifetime.

Craps: how to master the art of loitering to enjoy $3 drinks for $1.

My drink of choice now at the Silverton is "blueberry red bull."

Sometimes I ask for redberry blue bulls ...

Quote: Ahigh

Craps: how to master the art of loitering to enjoy $3 drinks for $1.

My drink of choice now at the Silverton is "blueberry red bull."

Sometimes I ask for redberry blue bulls ...

Lol...

Quote: TheWolf713

And when did leaving a casino fall under the gambler's fallacy?

It doesn't. The nature of your question regarding the average length of streaks and how leaving would affect the house edge - does.

Quote: TheWolf713

And when did leaving a casino fall under the gambler's fallacy?

Are you talking about leaving and never ever gambling again? If so, we can talk. If not, then it doesn't matter when you end each gaming session...

You are talking about strict adherence to win goals and loss limits and when a shooter has a hot roll you bolt out of there with your winnings and don't give it back.

In craps, players bolt. Haven't we all colored up and left after a hot roll?

But if you raise this point in a discussion with "advantage players" in video poker they will tell you when you come and go makes no difference because you always have an advantage with a positive expectation game... so they reject the idea of win goals. (I don't even think they have such a thing as a loss limit because they are playing a positive expectation game!!)

Quote: rdw4potus

Are you talking about leaving and never ever gambling again? If so, we can talk. If not, then it doesn't matter when you end each gaming session...

So leaving does not effect if you " win" on a session... At all..

And time has absolutely no bearing on a win or loss..

Would this be something you agree with?? Im trying to understand the logic.

Quote: AlanMendelson

You are talking about strict adherence to win goals and loss limits and when a shooter has a hot roll you bolt out of there with your winnings and don't give it back.

In craps, players bolt. Haven't we all colored up and left after a hot roll?

But if you raise this point in a discussion with "advantage players" in video poker they will tell you when you come and go makes no difference because you always have an advantage with a positive expectation game... so they reject the idea of win goals. (I don't even think they have such a thing as a loss limit because they are playing a positive expectation game!!)

So do you believe it is possible to make this an advantage in a negative expectation game?

deleted

Absolutely I believe in win goals and loss limits. And I believe that you have to be at the table to catch the lightning when it hits.

I guess I was too cryptic in what I wrote. If you mentioned win goals and loss limits in a discussion forum involving advantage video poker players on their positive machines they would tell you -- and me --- that we're crazy. They would say that with a positive game they win on every hand played... or some crazy talk like that.

By the way, I started to use my new system of pass line with fire bet just so that I would be there when the lightning hits, but limit my losses when it doesnt. Unfortunately it takes a lot of discipline to stand there with a passline bet and watch the numbers go by.

But it did work for me at Rincon where I hit the fire bet for 5 numbers, $1250, and started it all with only $5 on the passline. Later I added a couple of numbers, but never went above $5 pass and $5 on the place bets.

deleted

Quote: TheWolf713

So leaving does not effect if you " win" on a session... At all..

And time has absolutely no bearing on a win or loss..

Would this be something you agree with?? Im trying to understand the logic.

If you "win" on a sesson and leave only to return later, then leaving has no effect other than to allow you to temporarily hold onto the money a bit longer before eventually losing it back. It's just like pushing a "pause" button.

How would time have a bearing on a single win or loss? You get a super duper hunch that the next spin will be black, so you only bet then?

Quote: rdw4potus

If you "win" on a sesson and leave only to return later, then leaving has no effect other than to allow you to temporarily hold onto the money a bit longer before eventually losing it back. It's just like pushing a "pause" button.

How would time have a bearing on a single win or loss? You get a super duper hunch that the next spin will be black, so you only bet then?

And it all comes back to the gambler's fallacy

Quote: Transender46

And it all comes back to the gambler's fallacy

Once again with gambler fallacy... How does it all come back to that???
Are the "wins" not independent of each other? Where's the fallacy?

The old time Vegas gamblers had a saying: Get in,
get it done, get out.

I'm a huge believer in this for table games. If you
have an advantage, you have a goal for every session.
Get in, make your goal, and leave.

The reasons for this are many. The smallest footprint
as possible in any one casino. You aren't there to have
fun, you're there to make money. And the smaller the
amount of the BR you expose to variance, the better.

Quote: TheWolf713

Are the "wins" not independent of each other?

Rob, is that you?

Quote: AlanMendelson

Rob, is that you?

Hahaha... I know I sound crazy, I'm just trying to get another perspective.. As EvenBob said, I "get in and get out".

Quote: TheWolf713

Hahaha... I know I sound crazy.

Getting in and getting out isn't crazy. A lot of
people don't understand the concept of goals
in gambling. You have goals in every other facet
of life, but not gambling. When you get in your
car, you have a goal. When you eat dinner, do you
just eat and eat and eat? You have a goal. At work,
do you stay there for 15 hours or do you have a
set schedule. At night, do you just sleep and sleep
and get up when you want? No. Yet in gambling,
goals are laughed at, just stay and play and play,
be a good little casino drone..

Commonly heard on every casino floor: "Should'a quit while I was ahead."

deleted

Quote: EvenBob

Getting in and getting out isn't crazy. A lot of
people don't understand the concept of goals
in gambling.

Quote: Sabretom2

Commonly heard on every casino floor: "Should'a quit while I was ahead."

This discussion is about to blow up. I am sure that already the "advantage players" who have their "positive expectation games" are grinding their teeth and saying anyone preaching a win goal has no idea about what they are talking about.

I am starting the countdown, now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7LTQKSszKw

Quote: EvenBob

Getting in and getting out isn't crazy. A lot of
people don't understand the concept of goals
in gambling. You have goals in every other facet
of life, but not gambling. When you get in your
car, you have a goal. When you eat dinner, do you
just eat and eat and eat? You have a goal. At work,
do you stay there for 15 hours or do you have a
set schedule. At night, do you just sleep and sleep
and get up when you want? No. Yet in gambling,
goals are laughed at, just stay and play and play,
be a good little casino drone..

You are definitely correct... I still don't understand how people stay so long... And that's why I posed the question...

But I think some of the "math guys" don't want to associate with that concept of "time of play" because it would create a synthesis with the "betting strategy" guys..

And for the gambler's fallacy addicts (I loathe the phrase) how is it that you can agree with houses edge on dice and not agree with the concept of "time on a table" or "leaving"...It follows the same guidelines...

deleted

There was a guy om FOXNEWS this morning, Claims to have hit the lottery 7 times. Said, "Luck has nothing to do with it". To understand the system, all you need to do is buy his book.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I am sure that already the "advantage players" who have their "positive expectation games" are grinding their teeth and saying anyone preaching a win goal has no idea about what they are talking about.

Depends on the AP. In BJ you have such a thin edge
you're compelled to play as many hands as possible
or the variance will eat your lunch. Other AP's can
set a goal. Yes, there are other AP's besides BJ and
VP.

deleted

Quote: AlanMendelson

This discussion is about to blow up. I am sure that already the "advantage players" who have their "positive expectation games" are grinding their teeth and saying anyone preaching a win goal has no idea about what they are talking about.

Why would an AP care if people want to donate money to the house?

If occasional small wins help someone feel better about having lifetime losses, so be it.

Quote: Sabretom2

There was a guy om FOXNEWS this morning, Claims to have hit the lottery 7 times. Said, "Luck has nothing to do with it". To understand the system, all you need to do is buy his book.

I saw a guy wearing a t-shirt that said that in a casino the other day. I wanted to ask him where he got it.

Quote: RogerKint

Why would an AP care if people want to donate money to the house?

If occasional small wins help someone feel better about having lifetime losses, so be it.

I don't understand this. Are you saying that someone who has small wins is auomatically a lifetime loser? What am I missing? Thanks.

You're not missing anything. I'm sorry for interrupting.

deleted

Back to back, best two posts of the day! Thanks.

Quote: TheWolf713

Once again with gambler fallacy... How does it all come back to that???
Are the "wins" not independent of each other? Where's the fallacy?

I think the point is that leaving the casino on one day, then coming back some later date and playing again, is no different mathematically from just sticking around. Between the two sessions, your results will be exactly like one longer session, and so on.

You can quit while you're ahead, sure - but the problem is that sooner or later, you just won't get ahead, and if you're determined to, what'll happen is you'll lose all your money. (And of course, you won't know which session that is until it's over - it's entirely possible you could go from one unit above your stoploss to your goal, or from one unit short of your goal to your stoploss.) Because of that eventuality, the house edge is exactly the same.

Mathematically that's correct... if you're a professional gambler. But I'm a recreational gambler, so I truly value leaving with a win and enjoying it.

I played a little video poker tonight and I'm sick about what I did.

I started with $1500... playing 8/5 Aces and Faces. Lost the first $500 pretty quickly, but with the second $500 on the machine I hit a few quads: 6s then 8s, then 8s again, then 9s twice. (Not in rapid order, of course.) But before I knew it the machine was spitting out tickets because I had reached the $1200 meter maximum. At my highest point I had about $2800. I should have gone home... but I thought about "the math" and reasoned "it makes no sense to go home... the royal could just as easily happen on the next play."

Except it didnt. And I lost all the profit... and then my original $1500 too.

And it's happened like that more times than I can count... which is why I started to use win goals. And damn't Im sorry I didn't stick to my win goals tonight.

Screw the math. (LOL)

Psychology is an important part of it. You should leave if you feel like you are going on tilt or can no longer make proper, informed decisions. Leaving after a jackpot is often a good move, too. (Although many times I've continued playing after hitting a JP. How else could one get 2 royals in 35 minutes? :) )

One thing about leaving a winner is if you come back during another month and lose them, you're often better off for offers than if you stayed and played them back the month before.

deleted

Quote: AlanMendelson

Mathematically that's correct... if you're a professional gambler. But I'm a recreational gambler, so I truly value leaving with a win and enjoying it.

Mathematically, it's true for everyone. It's nice to win, but keep in mind, whatever your strategy, the more likely you are to win, the more you'll lose when you finally do. Sure, if you'd kept to your goal this time, you'd have won, but what if instead of exceeding your goal, your goal had been a tiny bit higher? Whatever it is, the protection afforded comes at a price.

What it certainly doesn't do is change the edge.

Quote: AlanMendelson

At my highest point I had about $2800. I should have gone home... but I thought about "the math" and reasoned "it makes no sense to go home... the royal could just as easily happen on the next play."

Thats the greed the casino depends on. The coolest
cucumber of a player is my sister in law. If she gets
$75 ahead, she quits. She says she likes having $75
and doesn't want to risk losing it with another spin.

Casinos hate her and have contracts out on her life..

(They don't care.)

(They're probably not huge fans of her low volume, but they don't need her to lose every time, as long as she, taken with similar bettors, is losing overall.)

(And she is.)

Quote: 24Bingo

(They don't care.)

(They're probably not huge fans of her low volume, but they don't need her to lose every time, as long as she, taken with similar bettors, is losing overall.)

(And she is.)

So everyone is a lifetime loser.... Come on man.... Close the theoretical book and come into a casino..

You know whats funny about "negative expectation", its nothing more than a slope on a chart.... All it takes is someone to go on a tangent a few times and it becomes just another line on a graph... Do buy too much into the math... It's just as wrong as buying into DI..

A double amputee can run... Higgs boson (nothingness and anti-matter) exists... You might not ever meet a lifetime winner, but it won't be because he doesn't exist, it will be because he doesn't hang around at the casinos..

II'm sorry I'm confused (by your statement) that seems to be saying that we buy too much into the math?

What else are we supposed to "buy into." The fact is the math is accurate. Negative expectation is just that.... And nobody said that everybody is a lifetime loser playing -EV games. Say you go bet a dollar on red on roulette, and it wins. That's very possible. In fact, there's an 18/38 chance that your a life time winner! But that's only if you never play again. The more you play negative expectation games, the more likely you are to be a lifetime loser.

That's what the math tells us, and how many gamblers do you know that play once and never again? And I don't mean a specific game. I'm talking go gamble once and never gamble again. And even if they did, they'd still be more likely to lose than to win.

But the opposite is true of positive expectation games. Take me, as an example. So far, this year, I think ALL of my gambling has been AP (aside from the ver rare lottery ticket - but I never consider that gambling even if it is, b/c it's so rare that I buy one and is so cheap anyway.) I've bought into .25/.50 poker games.... approximately 20 times, with an average of maybe 5 hours of play each time. I've won about 1000 Big blinds at those stakes. I think the players at my 1/2 game were way weaker than at my .25/.50, but I've only played there.... 4 times, averaging about 3-4 hours of play each time. I'm down around 350 BB at that game. So overall, I think I'm playing at a relatively big edge. And if I had played in the 1/2 game many more times, I'd be way more likely to be ahead. Overall, as you can see by the math, I'm about about 500 dollars at .25/50 and down about 700 at 1/2, putting me at a loss for the year. Of course, that really doesn't mean much, b/c my volume of play is pretty ridiculously low. And ANYTHING can occur in the short run.

Obviously, I'm up in EV but that doesn't mean I'm up in actual dollars. I see your point, but any good player knows that it's all about volume. Losing 350 BB over the course of maybe 12 hours of poker play is not outside the norm. That's only about 400-500 hands! And I play pretty loose aggressive, I could say my STD DEV is probably around 120 BB/100 hands, and my EV is probably around 8-12 BB/100. So my play in that game may be two STD DEV off, but that will not last forever.


So to answer your question.... and to get at what you're saying. Setting a stop loss in a negative expectation game (like craps) does improve your EV, but only in the same sense that NEVER playing would improve your EV compared to playing. It doesn't affect the house edge. The only reason it affects EV is b/c in essence, EV is "add-able." If you take a 1 dollar bet with an EV of .99% your value is expected to be -$.01. Play it 100 times? Your EV is now -$1.

EV is simply an AVERAGE. Anybody CAN, and many people will, end up outside of their EV. Keep playing, though, and you're VERY likely to be VERY close to it.






TL;DR

Play at an edge? Play as much volume as possible! To get at what your point is, that's the point for every AP. The very reason you would limit your play is the reason an AP want to play limitless amounts without a loss. The longer you play, the more likely you are to lose. The longer an AP plays, the more likely he or she is to win.

Play against an edge? Play for fun, limit volume, set stop wins/losses only if losing money back after winning it would ruin your day, or if you have more fun with them. Gambling against an edge should ALWAYS be considered an activity someone does for FUN.

Quote: Boney526

Gambling against an edge should ALWAYS be considered an activity someone does for FUN.

It's the power of not starting and re-starting. All else soon leads again and again to such similar problematic stuff found in about 99.999% of the gambling talk. There is just no way to properly handle trouble.

Quote: TheWolf713

So everyone is a lifetime loser.... Come on man.... Close the theoretical book and come into a casino..

Not necessarily. It depends how much you bet, on what, and how often. But the casinos, except the wicked high-end ones, don't charge a penny; that should be a hint. Even if you're ahead all your life, even if you die at a hundred, taken with similar bettors, you're one of a class of losers. You're just one of the ones who got lucky.

I go two or three times a month, but I spend most of my time downstairs. (Honestly, probably playing a losing game, but I've been lucky.)

Quote: TheWolf713

You know whats funny about "negative expectation", its nothing more than a slope on a chart.... All it takes is someone to go on a tangent a few times and it becomes just another line on a graph... Do buy too much into the math... It's just as wrong as buying into DI..

And yet, it's that line on a graph that's an entire industry's whole business model. You might get lucky. You might stay lucky all your life. But you've just been lucky. "The power of leaving," like Martingaling, purchases (albeit slightly less expensively) many small wins for a few large losses, that's all. The house edge, as per your original question, is exactly the same.