Toonces,
That was the whole point of the post is that NSUD with 0.5% cashback is certainly a positive play, you need a pretty good sized wad of cash to play it. And that's if you play absolutely perfectly. One error due to a sticky button can easily cause you a couple of hundreths of a percent of your coin in for the day.
I think people get a little too hung up on playing 100%+ games without realizing that you can still lose significant amount of money on these plays.
I guess it's a question of what you think the lesson is. You imply
that the lesson is that you should have a big bankroll and play
perfectly, so that you can play games like NSUD with .5% CB. My
lesson would be (and seems to go along with what Jean Scott says
these days) is that the best way to avoid ruin and maximize return is
to not waste any more time than necessary playing such marginally
positive games and should save your strength and bankroll for truly
positive games, like in Vegas.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John.G.Zaroff" <John.G.Zaroff@d...>
wrote:
Toonces,
That was the whole point of the post is that NSUD with 0.5%
cashback is certainly a positive play, you need a pretty good sized
wad of cash to play it. And that's if you play absolutely
perfectly. One error due to a sticky button can easily cause you a
couple of hundreths of a percent of your coin in for the day.
I think people get a little too hung up on playing 100%+ games
without realizing that you can still lose significant amount of money
on these plays.
If your ultimate goal is to win money then I agree completly. But I think I
need to clarify what we are doing.
For us this hobby started as a fun thing to do that wouldn't cost much (or
anything) in the long haul. We have had a ton of fun at virtually zero
cost. Granted if I could always play 101% games I would, BUT it is worth it
to us to be able to do this nearly every weekend just for the free rooms,
food and fun.
By the way our worst results for this year are on the 101% games in Las
Vegas. We are down 2.8% on the "good stuff". This is not to say that we
don't prefer to play the better EV games, merely a statement of what is...
Also I believe bankroll is more than just what you carry in your pocket. It
is the access to playing cash you will have over the life of your entire
play. I do not carry around $17,000 plus in cash which is the 12.5%
bankroll I believe I need to play triple play NSUD with .5 cash back. But I
have it (or will have) during the period of time I will be playing the game.
So I think I am "ok" playing the game. IS there a problem with this logic?
----- Original Message -----
From: "tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar" <tooncessnl@hotmail.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 10:55 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: ROR for NSUD
I guess it's a question of what you think the lesson is. You imply
that the lesson is that you should have a big bankroll and play
perfectly, so that you can play games like NSUD with .5% CB. My
lesson would be (and seems to go along with what Jean Scott says
these days) is that the best way to avoid ruin and maximize return is
to not waste any more time than necessary playing such marginally
positive games and should save your strength and bankroll for truly
positive games, like in Vegas.--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "John.G.Zaroff" <John.G.Zaroff@d...>
wrote:
> Toonces,
>
> That was the whole point of the post is that NSUD with 0.5%
cashback is certainly a positive play, you need a pretty good sized
wad of cash to play it. And that's if you play absolutely
perfectly. One error due to a sticky button can easily cause you a
couple of hundreths of a percent of your coin in for the day.
>
> I think people get a little too hung up on playing 100%+ games
without realizing that you can still lose significant amount of money
on these plays.
OK, these are my thoughts...if the goal is to be able to play 100%
games virtually free every weekend and stay in nice hotels, that's
one thing. My problem with that is that playing at 100% or slightly
over isn't exactly playing for free. It's playing a game that on
average will balance out, but you are taking on risk, and that's not
free. Corporations with tons of money refuse to put their money at
risk without an expectation of a commiserate reward. The higher the
risk, the greater the reward necessary to justify the risk. The same
is true in investments in that investors require a higher expected
return to move from government bonds (3% advantage, so to speak), to
corporate bonds(5%), to junk bonds (8%), to stocks (12%).
[Non-advantage] Gamblers, on the other hand, are not economically
rational people. They are willing to pay a premium (in the form of a
house edge), for the right to risk their own money. They do this
because the risk or the game or the experience is "fun".
Now to choose to play a virtually break-even game when the
alternative is to not play is more rational than the gambler, but
still not entirely economically rational. What you are saying is "I
choose to risk my money, but I will not demand the going rate for
risk, because I would rather risk than not play the game." My family
is the same way when it comes to the stock market. Rather than
diversify their holdings for the same expected return, they would
rather take a shot on a single stock, because the excitement of
hitting the hot stock outweighs the boringness of a mutual fund, even
if the expected return is identical.
For me, at this point in my career, I no longer feel compelled to
gamble for the enjoyment of it. Now, when I play, I weigh the $10 on
gas, $5 in tolls, $10 on wear & tear on my car, the $5.40 hotel tax,
cost of tips, and the hours of lost time in travel and play all in
the equation as to whether a drive to the casino is worthwhile. In
return, I look at expectation of bounce back cash, the actual value
of coupons I already have, the value to me of VIP status, and an
implied cost of risk, when I decide whether to make the trip. The
hotel is nice and all, but it no longer impresses my SO, and frankly,
I'm still more comfortable in my own bed.
So, while there's nothing wrong with playing games with paper-thin
edges, it's not exactly free. The "hidden cost" is risk, the chance
that you will have a serious losing streak, and possibly go broke.
Unfortunately, in Ednar's case, the theoretical cost has become a
concrete cost.
If your ultimate goal is to win money then I agree completly. But
I think I
need to clarify what we are doing.
For us this hobby started as a fun thing to do that wouldn't cost
much (or
anything) in the long haul. We have had a ton of fun at virtually
zero
cost. Granted if I could always play 101% games I would, BUT it is
worth it
to us to be able to do this nearly every weekend just for the free
rooms,
food and fun.
By the way our worst results for this year are on the 101% games in
Las
Vegas. We are down 2.8% on the "good stuff". This is not to say
that we
don't prefer to play the better EV games, merely a statement of
what is...
Also I believe bankroll is more than just what you carry in your
pocket. It
is the access to playing cash you will have over the life of your
entire
play. I do not carry around $17,000 plus in cash which is the
12.5%
bankroll I believe I need to play triple play NSUD with .5 cash
back. But I
have it (or will have) during the period of time I will be playing
the game.
So I think I am "ok" playing the game. IS there a problem with
this logic?
From: "tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar" <tooncessnl@h...>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 10:55 AM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: ROR for NSUD> I guess it's a question of what you think the lesson is. You
imply
> that the lesson is that you should have a big bankroll and play
> perfectly, so that you can play games like NSUD with .5% CB. My
> lesson would be (and seems to go along with what Jean Scott says
> these days) is that the best way to avoid ruin and maximize
return is
> to not waste any more time than necessary playing such marginally
> positive games and should save your strength and bankroll for
truly
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Ednar" <ednar@k...> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> positive games, like in Vegas.
>
Ednar wrote (snipped):
If your ultimate goal is to win money then I agree completly. But I
think I need to clarify what we are doing.For us this hobby started as a fun thing to do that wouldn't cost
much (or anything) in the long haul.Also I believe bankroll is more than just what you carry in your
pocket. It is the access to playing cash you will have over the
life of your entire play. I do not carry around $17,000 plus in
cash which is the 12.5% bankroll I believe I need to play triple
play NSUD with .5 cash back. But I have it (or will have) during
the period of time I will be playing the game.
So I think I am "ok" playing the game. IS there a problem with this
logic?
Even if your goal is simply to break-even and enjoy the hobby, clearly
you're working from a strong motivation to keep in the game and not
bust at some point.
Working on a 12.5% (ROR, I assume) bankroll is pretty considerable
risk. One out of 8 players are ultimately going to bust in the "long
run". That "long run" concept may be comforting, but it shouldn't be.
The majority of those who bust will do so in the relatively near
term, when they haven't yet had an opportunity to build a cushion from
the positive return of the game (w/ cb) over time.
And if you look at the percentage of players who are likely to be down
over $8K on your play at some point, I wouldn't be surprised if the
fraction were as high as 50%. Frequently that's going to occur in a
surprisingly swift downturn. You have to ask yourself if you drop $8K
in the course of a handful of months on your play if it isn't going to
slow you WAY down - espeically because that play would now have an
extremely high ROR on your reduced bankroll.
Ednar, I'm not questioning your play choice one bit. I'm just
pointing out some aspects that may not be fully incorporated in your
logic.
------
The bankroll aspect is perhaps the trickiest of all. I think many
rationalize that given all the peripheral comps that being prepared to
risk $20K (or even $30K) on "positive" play is reasonable in the
scheme of things if we have the truly spare resources.
But I know from most recent experience that having lost over half of a
fairly considerable bankroll over the last 9 months, I'm loathe to
risk the balance on the same type of play.
The fact is that your play, with a .2% advantage, on the bankroll the
you're willing to risk may be ultimately be a source for some real
discomfort -- unless you have only limited attachment to the $17K.
In my case I was fortunate to build my bankroll through a combination
of some very generous luck and extraordinary promos in AC, the likes
of which have to be seen in some time. As such, the losses have
mostly been a matter of disappointment since we didn't consider that
bounty "permanent". However, the new found inability to take
advantage of opportunities that have provided over 30 comped LV Strip
nights in the last year and practically all meals (not to mention
numerous AC weekends), has provoked a fair amount of regret.
My hope is to more aggressively manage play on the remaining bankroll
(which is by no means negligible) and with a whole lotta luck, be back
in the position to skim the creme once again. That means that I'll
probably eschew any play with less than a 1/3% advantage for some time.
- Harry
Intersting to see your perspective. Here's a different approach. To some
extent, this is a "to each his own" type discussion. We are far from going
broke (and only play with the funds we have allocated) and we consider five
years of entertainment, food, rooms,etc. for an average of less than $700
per year a pretty good bargain (although agreed that it is not exactly
free.) Right now it is worth it to us to make these trips. Maybe someday
it will not be.
ALSO just because a game is 101% or 102% there is no guarantee that you will
not hit a bad streak and go broke. Certainly less risk than 100.2%, but
still a risk.
We weigh many factors in our playing decision. ER is one, but not the only
one. I am guessing that is true for you also. The highest ER that I know
of (without other incentives) is the 17/10 Loose Deuces at Fitzgeralds. If
ER was my only concern or fear of bankroll loss I am guessing that I would
always go to Las Vegas and play this machine. While I have given this
"relic" some hours of play it is not my #1 choice of machine to play nor
location for play.
It appears that in your scenario you assume that I equate investment risk
decisions with entertainment decisions. Although I prefer to play the better
games this is NOT a job for me. Nor is it my means of investing. I
consider the gains (if any) derived from this form of entertainment as a
secondary not primary purpose for its pursuit. Winning is desired and a
nice side benefit and is an important part of why we have chosen this form
of entertainment at the present time. It it starts costing me too much
money to pursue playing VP I will weigh that cost against other forms of
entertainment. I do know that so far VP has been cheaper than playing golf
and has far greater "benefits".
We do value our bankroll. We also value our time. We enjoy the limited
risk with potential for reward. But there is a fine line between winning
and losing in VP and primarily to us we view it as entertainment. I can
make far more money doing other things. The day that VP becomes a job or
purely a form of investment is probably the day that I will find something
else to do.
----- Original Message -----
From: "tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar" <tooncessnl@hotmail.com>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:16 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] The rational VP player, was: ROR for NSUD
OK, these are my thoughts...if the goal is to be able to play 100%
games virtually free every weekend and stay in nice hotels, that's
one thing. My problem with that is that playing at 100% or slightly
over isn't exactly playing for free. It's playing a game that on
average will balance out, but you are taking on risk, and that's not
free. Corporations with tons of money refuse to put their money at
risk without an expectation of a commiserate reward. The higher the
risk, the greater the reward necessary to justify the risk. The same
is true in investments in that investors require a higher expected
return to move from government bonds (3% advantage, so to speak), to
corporate bonds(5%), to junk bonds (8%), to stocks (12%).[Non-advantage] Gamblers, on the other hand, are not economically
rational people. They are willing to pay a premium (in the form of a
house edge), for the right to risk their own money. They do this
because the risk or the game or the experience is "fun".Now to choose to play a virtually break-even game when the
alternative is to not play is more rational than the gambler, but
still not entirely economically rational. What you are saying is "I
choose to risk my money, but I will not demand the going rate for
risk, because I would rather risk than not play the game." My family
is the same way when it comes to the stock market. Rather than
diversify their holdings for the same expected return, they would
rather take a shot on a single stock, because the excitement of
hitting the hot stock outweighs the boringness of a mutual fund, even
if the expected return is identical.For me, at this point in my career, I no longer feel compelled to
gamble for the enjoyment of it. Now, when I play, I weigh the $10 on
gas, $5 in tolls, $10 on wear & tear on my car, the $5.40 hotel tax,
cost of tips, and the hours of lost time in travel and play all in
the equation as to whether a drive to the casino is worthwhile. In
return, I look at expectation of bounce back cash, the actual value
of coupons I already have, the value to me of VIP status, and an
implied cost of risk, when I decide whether to make the trip. The
hotel is nice and all, but it no longer impresses my SO, and frankly,
I'm still more comfortable in my own bed.So, while there's nothing wrong with playing games with paper-thin
edges, it's not exactly free. The "hidden cost" is risk, the chance
that you will have a serious losing streak, and possibly go broke.
Unfortunately, in Ednar's case, the theoretical cost has become a
concrete cost.--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Ednar" <ednar@k...> wrote:
> If your ultimate goal is to win money then I agree completly. But
I think I
> need to clarify what we are doing.
>
> For us this hobby started as a fun thing to do that wouldn't cost
much (or
> anything) in the long haul. We have had a ton of fun at virtually
zero
> cost. Granted if I could always play 101% games I would, BUT it is
worth it
> to us to be able to do this nearly every weekend just for the free
rooms,
> food and fun.
>
> By the way our worst results for this year are on the 101% games in
Las
> Vegas. We are down 2.8% on the "good stuff". This is not to say
that we
> don't prefer to play the better EV games, merely a statement of
what is...
>
> Also I believe bankroll is more than just what you carry in your
pocket. It
> is the access to playing cash you will have over the life of your
entire
> play. I do not carry around $17,000 plus in cash which is the
12.5%
> bankroll I believe I need to play triple play NSUD with .5 cash
back. But I
> have it (or will have) during the period of time I will be playing
the game.
> So I think I am "ok" playing the game. IS there a problem with
this logic?
Harry. Our bankroll is higher than the 12.5% ROR. I used that for example.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@verizon.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:29 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: ROR for NSUD
Even if your goal is simply to break-even and enjoy the hobby, clearly
you're working from a strong motivation to keep in the game and not
bust at some point.Working on a 12.5% (ROR, I assume) bankroll is pretty considerable
risk. One out of 8 players are ultimately going to bust in the "long
run".
One more thing. Sometimes it is more rational to play a slightly positive
game geographically closer to you than to incur all the expenses (air, car,
travel time etc.) associated with getting to a place with a higher return.
Ednar wrote:
Harry. Our bankroll is higher than the 12.5% ROR. I used that for
example.
Got it, Ednar.
In my post I noted that when you're playing on a thin edge you expect
to build up a cushion against potential losses very slowly. That's
true irrespective of the bankroll you are working with,
In your post, you asked if there was a "problem with your logic" in
deciding that your play is "ok" under the constraints you detailed
(slim edge with the primary goal to enjoy the play and perks).
My point was that there was no problem. However, it should be
anticipated that at some point you can likely expect to incur a series
of losses that cause your bankroll to take a very large and quick hit
that may leave you a little breathless. Without the benefit of a
greater cushion, this can mean that continued play is suddenly at much
greater risk to busting.
In determining whether you have a sufficient bankroll for a play (or,
if you will, whether it's "logical" to play under a set of
circumstances), it's not simply a matter of deciding how large a loss
you're prepared to absorb. It's also a question of whether you have
the stomach to take a large, sudden hit and continue playing with the
same confidence you formerly had.
If there's doubt about the latter question, then a player may not have
nearly the bankroll at their disposal that they perceive they do.
- Harry
<<In determining whether you have a sufficient bankroll for a play (or,
if you will, whether it's "logical" to play under a set of
circumstances), it's not simply a matter of deciding how large a loss
you're prepared to absorb. It's also a question of whether you have
the stomach to take a large, sudden hit and continue playing with the
same confidence you formerly had.
If there's doubt about the latter question, then a player may not have
nearly the bankroll at their disposal that they perceive they do.>>
Same old saw: There are two separate bankroll needs - a financial one and a psychological one. A lot of people I know have a very adequate first one but a very inadequate second one!!!
____________________
Jean $cott - "The Frugal Gambler"
Note new e-mail address
MORE FRUGAL GAMBLING can NOW
be ordered, autographed, at a pre-pub
discount, at http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jean Scott wrote:
Same old saw: There are two separate bankroll needs - a financial one
and a psychological one. A lot of people I know have a very adequate
first one but a very inadequate second one!!!
At the risk of droning on, Jean, I'll own up to this.
I thought I was covered on both fronts. I had the cash and was quite
comfortable with the potential loss, rationalizing that I'll have had
a nice comp ride on the downside if it came to that.
I didn't fully factor in my hesitancy to absorb losses without
altering play if they should be sharp and fast (robbing me of that
comp ride).
The swiftness of the recent losses and the more sizable potential for
completely wiping out a moderately sized bankroll for $1 play in a
year (or modestly more) have given me a firm grasp of just how limited
my psychological bankroll may be.
- Harry
Got it, Harry.
Excellent clarification! Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@verizon.net>
To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 7:53 PM
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: ROR for NSUD
Ednar wrote:
> Harry. Our bankroll is higher than the 12.5% ROR. I used that for
> example.Got it, Ednar.
In my post I noted that when you're playing on a thin edge you expect
to build up a cushion against potential losses very slowly. That's
true irrespective of the bankroll you are working with,In your post, you asked if there was a "problem with your logic" in
deciding that your play is "ok" under the constraints you detailed
(slim edge with the primary goal to enjoy the play and perks).My point was that there was no problem. However, it should be
anticipated that at some point you can likely expect to incur a series
of losses that cause your bankroll to take a very large and quick hit
that may leave you a little breathless. Without the benefit of a
greater cushion, this can mean that continued play is suddenly at much
greater risk to busting.In determining whether you have a sufficient bankroll for a play (or,
if you will, whether it's "logical" to play under a set of
circumstances), it's not simply a matter of deciding how large a loss
you're prepared to absorb. It's also a question of whether you have
the stomach to take a large, sudden hit and continue playing with the
same confidence you formerly had.If there's doubt about the latter question, then a player may not have
nearly the bankroll at their disposal that they perceive they do.- Harry