In a message dated 7/21/2003 10:28:54 AM Central Daylight Time,
ljboxer@earthlink.net writes:
I think that Bob's approach makes a lot of sense. Maybe we old radio guys
have an insight into gambling that some others do not, possibly due to
living with constant rejection. <g>What Bob is hinting at is the importance of setting win and loss limits and
having the discipline to stick with them. His example of having a
"fallback" position is smart, i.e. playing back a portion of a major win,
but stopping his session when he still has a hefty profit. I'm surprised
that anyone would find fault in that approach.
I do not find fault with the approach. I often employ loss and stop/loss
limits simply because I have session/trip bankroll consideration, I need to take
a break at some point, and it feels darn good to get up from a machine a
winner. If the reasoning behind such a strategy is that it will increase one's
longterm winnings (for reasons of changing machines or whatever), that is where I
would find fault. I suppose in a negative ER situation one could make the
argument that it would limit losses due toa decrease in play, but we all go to
hell in handbaskets of our own design. You old radio guys may weave away:-)
Chandler
"...there is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat,
plausible, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]