<<One can also change strategies depending on the situation.>>
To my surprise, I have followed this long thread with interest,
understanding most of the general concepts and agreeing with most of them.
However, I am worried that newbies - or even experienced VP players - will
take a quote like Steve's above as an excuse to justify going to (or back
to) the human wish to deviate from the max ER strategy because they "want
to hit a royal badly" or they have other "mad" desires. They have every
"right" to their personal goals and personal strategy changes but most of
them lead to financial disaster because the math just doesn't support them.
Ultimately, all players are responsible for their own choices. Those who
are looking for excuses will undoubtedly be able to find them somewhere,
even if only in their own personal "bill of rights."
I may have asked this before, Steve, and I forgot your answer - but I think
it is wise to give a warning to people who may use this thread to justify
strategies that are not based on sound math.
I think those who tend to follow these threads are already sufficiently
interested in the math that they are already trying to find sound strategies.
Those who would tend to use excuses instead of math are unlikely to
follow these posts much at all.
For example, people who talk
about going up in denomination when they are losing so they can have more
winning short-term sessions. You wouldn't say this is okay if that is
their personal goal, would you, without pointing out the fact that the math
shows they will lose more dollars in their few losing sessions than they
won as a total in all their winning sessions?
I would try to find what their _real_ objectives are, rather than trying to
foist a max-ER perspective on them. Depending on their real objectives,
it may be that going up in denomination is correct. There are many myths
that are being perpetuated due to the prevailing max-ER mentality. One
such myth is "progressions are useless". While it is true that progressions
do not alter ER, they do have a significant impact on risk. Players who
play negative-EV games can reduce their risk by using progressions.
Aren't there some goals that
are "impossible" to reach because of the math?
Sure. A few examples:
1) If the max-ER/min-risk/min-cost strategy gives an unfavorable game,
then nothing can make the game favorable for the player.
2) If the max-ER strategy gives an X% return, no other strategy can
give a higher return.
3) If the min-risk strategy says that the required bankroll is N units, no
other strategy can give a smaller required bankroll for the same goal.
4) If the min-cost strategy says you can get C units out of the game,
for every unit pumped in, then no other strategy will give a better
"exchange rate."
5) Ignoring the math won't make it go away.
I think it is important to inject once in a while that these "other"
strategies you are referring to are still based on the math, albeit complex
math calculations that most of us are incapable of doing or even
understanding fully.
Yes, the strategies that I talk about are always based on math. I would
guess that I throw around enough numbers to make that clear, but
it never hurts to plainly state it.
What you are talking about are strategies that have
been VERY carefully thought out using sound math principles but, more
importantly, are for very specific situations and goals that most gamblers
do not have.
Yes and no. It _is_ true that I use very specific situations to illustrate
my claims, but that in no way implies that these principles apply only
to those specific situations. In fact, I've stated a couple of times that
many VP players would ultimately be better served by using a min-risk
strategy for everyday play, rather than a max-ER strategy. A player who
keeps their gambling funds in the bank and uses ATMs to access the
bankroll might quite naturally want to minimize the probability of having
to go back to the ATM, and the min-risk strategy is correct for that very
general objective.
I see the problem like this: most people who say that they never plan to
play long enough to get to the long term want a short-term "modified"
strategy that will allow them to play longer each session but still want to
win most of the time. You can't have it both ways. Max ER strategy takes
extreme patience that many gamblers just don't have so they are always
looking for an easier magic bullet.
You seem to want me to suggest that people just stick with max-ER unless
they have a compelling reason to use an alternate strategy. I can't say
that, because I cannot find any evidence to suggest that optimal strategies
have any kind of ordering amongst themselves.
Any optimal strategy requires discipline. However, part of my message is
that max-ER doesn't belong on an altar (or other special pedestal). It isn't
_the_ best strategy, but only one of a number of strategies which are each
best in their own way. I understand that you're not comfortable with this
concept, as it takes getting used to, but I feel it is a concept that will
eventually become generally accepted.
I'm not saying this thread doesn't belong on this forum. It does. But
most of you who were lost a thousand posts ago shouldn't feel guilty - or
shouldn't feel like you missed some magic bullet that would make you win
more. There is no "other" better strategy for those who want to travel
toward the goal of making more money (or losing less) and have the patience
to keep the faith in Max ER.
I'm sorry, but that is a false notion. Max-ER is not "the mother of all
strategies" and it does not yield the best results from all possible
perspectives, but only from the one specific perspective that is unique
to max-ER.
A player who wishes to minimize the probability of dealing with
the guilt and agony of taking the "walk of shame" to the ATM will
be better off using a min-risk strategy for all of their play. Such
a player will experience a slightly lower bankroll growth rate, but
will achieve a greater likelihood of having their bankroll eventually
reach whatever size they desire.
If you were to take a million max-ER players and start them each with
$1000, and take a million min-risk players and start them each with
$1000, and let all the players play for a very long time, you would
find that the average _surviving_ max-ER player would have more
money than the average surviving min-risk player, but more of the
min-risk player will survive to eventually receive untold wealth. But,
as you say, you can't have it both ways.
Instead of looking for magic bullet
strategies, most people would make more money if they worked on their
self-discipline to play only better pay schedules, searched harder for good
promotions, and practiced more with their VP software to be more accurate
on the Max ER strategies that are the best in most circumstances!!!!!!
Your max-ER bias is showing, and calling this "magic bullet strategies" seems
like an emotional appeal. The fact is, the max-ER promise of "more money"
has a clause hidden in the fine print -- you do get more money, but only if
your bankroll survives. The max-ER strategy does _not_ give you the best
chance for survival.
Searching for better pay schedules and good promotions, and practicing
the (chosen) optimal strategy are all good advice, whether your personal
taste leans toward winning more quickly (but with less confidence) or
toward winning less quickly but with more certainty for success.
I know it is difficult to let go of the idea that max-ER generally does
_everything_ better, but that isn't turning out to be mathematically
correct. There are very real tradeoffs that players should think about
when choosing how to play. At a very fundamental level, players
should at least answer the following question:
Q: Which is more important to you personally, having a higher
"wage" rate in $$$/hour, or having a higher probability of being
allowed to play as long as you wish, having your bankroll grow
without bound?
Those who choose $$$/hour should use max-ER strategy. Those
who chose better probability of getting rich should use min-risk
strategy. And those who said "neither" and have other specific
objectives in mind should choose a strategy that is better tuned
to their particular desires.
···
On Friday 20 February 2004 01:23 pm, Jean Scott wrote:
