I was wondering, when do you decide that you need to switch machines or just quit for the day?
When do you decide that a machine just isn't gonna pop?
When I start getting bored, I stop playing. That's when I start making mistakes.
Matthew
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "truushot1" <acptconstruction@...> wrote:
I was wondering, when do you decide that you need to switch machines or just quit for the day?
You asked:
1. (in your subject) "Re: When do you decide that a machine just isn't gonna pop?"
and
2. "when do you decide that you need to switch machines or just quit for the day?"
I will answer in two parts.
Part A: If you believe the random number generator in the machine is fair, then the answer to your questions is: you don't. The odds on the next hand are exactly the same as the odds on the previous hand. Streaks do occur, but can only be recognized in hindsight -- they have no predictive value in terms of influencing the outcome of future events.
The only reason to get up, switch machines, etc. are purely external: you have to go the bathroom, you're meeting someone for lunch, you're getting bored, you're getting tired, you see a hot chick/dude at the other end of the bar and want to move to a closer machine, the jerk next to you is smoking or farting too much or not enough, etc.
It is perfectly fine to switch for psychological reasons: if you just can't stand losing hand after hand on a machine, go ahead and switch. If you think your machine is "cold" and another one is "hot" or "due" then go ahead and switch. Just realize that all you're doing is making yourself feel better (the value of this should not be discounted!) but you aren't changing the odds one whit.
Part B: If you believe the RNG in the machine is *not* fair, then why are you playing it at all?
I switch machines when that little voice starts whispering in my ear about a hot machine that's close.....or is it that tingly feeling in my fingers....or maybe the mysterious magnetic draw to another nearby machine.
Or maybe...I only change machines due to sticky buttons, glare or a nearby person emitting toxic gas, err, cigarette smoke.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "truushot1" <acptconstruction@...> wrote:
I was wondering, when do you decide that you need to switch machines >or just quit for the day?
I switch machines when that little voice starts whispering in my ear about a hot machine that's close.....or is it that tingly feeling in my fingers....or maybe the mysterious magnetic draw to another nearby machine.
Or maybe...I only change machines due to sticky buttons, glare or a nearby person emitting toxic gas, err, cigarette smoke.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "truushot1" <acptconstruction@...> wrote:
I was wondering, when do you decide that you need to switch machines >or just quit for the day?
Everybody should have a fixed stop loss limit before they start the play. The amount of the limit is up to you, could be $1, or $5, or $100, or more. But at some point you either decide to walk away or that decision is made for you (out of funds). Sure you could get lucky and hit a jackpot that also puts you ahead, instead of a sucker jackpot that only returns some of your loses, but you really shouldn't count on it, unless you really know what you are doing. Of course, if you knew what you were doing, you would understand exactly the implications (risk of ruin) of your beforehand chosen stop loss limit. Any gamble involves some risk of ruin, except in the unusual case where any result returns at least your original bet.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "truushot1" <acptconstruction@...> wrote:
I was wondering, when do you decide that you need to switch machines or just quit for the day?
NOTI, interesting post. The stop loss limit has been discussed in the past. There are some conditions where that makes sense ( not from a math standpoint but from a perception standpoint). If you have $1000 total for a 4 day trip and losing $250 each day is 'acceptable' to you and possibly losing $1000 in one day is not, then stop loss of $250 makes sense. Now if you are well funded and have a positive play with a good expected return, playing the $1000 the first day, even if it all goes, makes sense since a) the play might disappear and b) you are playing to make money and playing 4 hours today is no different than playing 2 hours today and 2 hours tomorrow.
Stop loss makes sense if you are playing a negative game.
Now, the sucker jackpot is a new term. I assume this refers to hitting a straight flush on $ Jacks or better when you are down $700.
If you always want to have a straight flush get you back to at least even, you should never be down more than $250 at dollar jacks. There will be a lot of short sessions with that criteria.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "truushot1" <acptconstruction@> wrote:
> I was wondering, when do you decide that you need to switch machines or just quit for the day?Everybody should have a fixed stop loss limit before they start the play. The amount of the limit is up to you, could be $1, or $5, or $100, or more. But at some point you either decide to walk away or that decision is made for you (out of funds). Sure you could get lucky and hit a jackpot that also puts you ahead, instead of a sucker jackpot that only returns some of your loses, but you really shouldn't count on it, unless you really know what you are doing. Of course, if you knew what you were doing, you would understand exactly the implications (risk of ruin) of your beforehand chosen stop loss limit. Any gamble involves some risk of ruin, except in the unusual case where any result returns at least your original bet.
Stop loss is a mathematical reality, even for "so-called" positive gambling. Ignore it at your peril.
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Bank.htm
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/qna.html
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "johnnyzee48127" <greeklandjohnny@...> wrote:
Stop loss makes sense if you are playing a negative game.
Stop loss applies even to so-called "positive gambling" and it is based in math. Ignore the concept at your peril.
Any gamble (even so-called "positive gambling") involves some risk of ruin, except in the unusual case where any result returns at least your original bet, in which case you cannot lose money.
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Bank.htm
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/qna.html
http://www.lotspiech.com/poker/GamblersRuin.html
"The calculator tells you what your probability is of being in each winnings range (including "retired" and "busted"), for the number of hands shown. You enter your initial stake, and at what point you will be willing to walk away a winner. (I hope this is not a completely foreign concept for you.)"
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "johnnyzee48127" <greeklandjohnny@...> wrote:
Stop loss makes sense if you are playing a negative game.
I couldn't agree more, NOTI. That's why my carried bankroll
exactly equals what I'm prepared to lose on that day or trip.
I do allow myself a generous per diem. Many times, when I've
thought that all was lost, I've popped a few great hands and
come back to recouping my losses or even winning a bit.
But I NEVER deviate from my basic premise; when my pre-determined
loss limit has been reached, I'm done for that session/day/visit.
~Babe~
···
===================================================
In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" wrote:
Stop loss is a mathematical reality, even for "so-called" positive gambling. Ignore it at your peril.
I want to make sure that "stop loss" isn't being confused with
risk-of-ruin. ROR is definitely real if you are under-capitalized. If you
bang a $1 machine with all of $50 to your name, then the ROR is very high,
no matter how good the game is. So this is a question of bankroll sizing,
not a machine "not popping"
BUT, if you are playing a positive EV game, with a proper bankroll (ie low
ROR) then there should be NO stop-loss. In theory, you should play the game
forever until you no longer have an edge (tiredness, hunger, lack of focus,
etc). But if the positive edge is still there, then having a stop-loss or
some predetermined stopping point is just silly
···
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:10 AM, nightoftheiguana2000 < nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>,
"johnnyzee48127" <greeklandjohnny@...> wrote:
> Stop loss makes sense if you are playing a negative game.Stop loss is a mathematical reality, even for "so-called" positive
gambling. Ignore it at your peril.http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Bank.htm
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/qna.html
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Unless you have an unlimited bankroll, there is always a stop-loss. Either you set it beforehand or it will be set for you by the game. There is no such thing as a "proper bankroll" that eliminates all risk of ruin. Even a so-called "positive gamble" can wipe out any so-called "proper bankroll". Even Kelly betting, which avoids complete risk of ruin, still risks a certain amount of your bankroll.
http://www.jazbo.com/videopoker/kelly.html
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Salguero <salguero@...> wrote:
BUT, if you are playing a positive EV game, with a proper bankroll (ie low
ROR) then there should be NO stop-loss.
There's no nice way to say this: you're completely wrong.
You're telling me that if I have a game with a 105% EV that there is no
proper bankroll for that? Come on now!
Besides, you're not understanding Kelly. The whole point of the Kelly
Criterion is to size your bet accordingly to both maximize gains AND avoid
being bankrupt.
This is all basic stuff here . . .
···
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:42 AM, nightoftheiguana2000 < nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>, Dennis
Salguero <salguero@...> wrote:
> BUT, if you are playing a positive EV game, with a proper bankroll (ie
low
> ROR) then there should be NO stop-loss.Unless you have an unlimited bankroll, there is always a stop-loss. Either
you set it beforehand or it will be set for you by the game. There is no
such thing as a "proper bankroll" that eliminates all risk of ruin. Even a
so-called "positive gamble" can wipe out any so-called "proper bankroll".
Even Kelly betting, which avoids complete risk of ruin, still risks a
certain amount of your bankroll.http://www.jazbo.com/videopoker/kelly.html
Messages in this topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/98112;_ylc=X3oDMTM2Ymc5ZzdkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzQ2NDEwMTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NzMyBG1zZ0lkAzk4MTQxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTIzOTEyMjU4OAR0cGNJZAM5ODExMg-->(
13) Reply (via web post)
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZWxwdHNmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzQ2NDEwMTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NzMyBG1zZ0lkAzk4MTQxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTIzOTEyMjU4OA--?act=reply&messageNum=98141>| Start
a new topic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJldTB0aHRsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzQ2NDEwMTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NzMyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTIzOTEyMjU4OA-->
Messages<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOGVyOGk4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzQ2NDEwMTcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NzMyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTIzOTEyMjU4OA-->
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
What is the "proper bankroll" for such a game?
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Dennis Salguero <salguero@...> wrote:
You're telling me that if I have a game with a 105% EV that there is no
proper bankroll for that? Come on now!
NOTI, what does "Stop loss is a mathematical reality" actually mean? If you're trying to say that setting a stop loss on a daily basis can somehow change your overall results on a given game for a given amount of coin in, I'm going to disagree.
Here's an example. I play 9/6 JOB for quarters with a daily stop loss of $100. Day 1, I lose $100 on 800 hands played. Day 2, I lose $100 on 1200 hands played. Day 3 I win $150 on 2000 hands played. Total results for 3 days: lose $50 on 4000 hands played or a 1% loss.
If I played 4000 hands on day one I would expect that my long term results would be worse because I didn't stop after a $100 loss on the first day. I don't understand how that could be.
The actual results will be different but the expected results have to be the same. Otherwise you could take a series of independent events and somehow partition it so that the expected result is different. If that is the case, they really aren't independent events.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "johnnyzee48127" <greeklandjohnny@> wrote:
> Stop loss makes sense if you are playing a negative game.Stop loss is a mathematical reality, even for "so-called" positive gambling. Ignore it at your peril.
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Bank.htm
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/qna.html
NOTI, who argued that risk of ruin doesn't exist? Risk of ruin and stop loss are very different things.
Also, I'd like to find that unusual case where any result returns at least your original bet. If that is true, you aren't gambling because there is no chance of losing.
As far as Lotspiech and his excellent Gambler's Ruin calculator, if you are fixated on session wins and showing a win for the day and locking in profits, your statement makes sense. If you are concerned with overall results, the session score doesn't really matter.
The foreign concept is that only losing $100 one day and losing $100 the second day is somehow better than losing $200 the first day. Play 1000 hands on winpoker. Record each result. Partition however you want to maximize the number of winning and losing sessions. Guess what? The end result is the same. If dividing it into 10 winning sessions and 2 losing sessions makes you feel better, go for it. The end result, that is, the expected value of the total numbers of hands you play, isn't determined by how many sessions make up the total number of hands.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "johnnyzee48127" <greeklandjohnny@> wrote:
> Stop loss makes sense if you are playing a negative game.Stop loss applies even to so-called "positive gambling" and it is based in math. Ignore the concept at your peril.
Any gamble (even so-called "positive gambling") involves some risk of ruin, except in the unusual case where any result returns at least your original bet, in which case you cannot lose money.
http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Bank.htm
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/qna.htmlhttp://www.lotspiech.com/poker/GamblersRuin.html
"The calculator tells you what your probability is of being in each winnings range (including "retired" and "busted"), for the number of hands shown. You enter your initial stake, and at what point you will be willing to walk away a winner. (I hope this is not a completely foreign concept for you.)"
Stop loss is a practical approach to gambling. Are you telling me your approach is to say today I will gamble $4,000 coin in and even if I lose $4,000 , I'm ok with that? By the way, even if you are ok with that, you still have a stop loss, that would be $4,000 , and for any given game there is a determinable chance of that happening. Stop loss is always there, it's just a matter of what it is and who sets it, you or the game. In other words, stop loss is a mathematical reality, you can choose to ignore it, but it's always there.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "johnnyzee48127" <greeklandjohnny@...> wrote:
NOTI, what does "Stop loss is a mathematical reality" actually mean? If you're trying to say that setting a stop loss on a daily basis can somehow change your overall results on a given game for a given amount of coin in, I'm going to disagree.
Kind of a silly statement to make. Not much chance of that happening. <smile>
.... bl
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> > > wrote:
I will gamble $4,000 coin in and even if I lose $4,000 , I'm ok with that...
I disagree - I would ABSOLUTELY say this . . . PROVIDED THAT I was playing a
positive EV game.
Look, having an edge doesn't mean you will win every single time you play.
I'm OK with losing because that just expected deviations. But if I'm playing
a +EV game, then I know the long run will take care of me and my winnings.
I played blackjack as an advantage player in the 90s and the swings are just
huge! But you have to plug on and know that life is just one long deck of
cards that will come out the way you need them to when you're playing with
an edge. Same thing applies to VP.
Anyone who disagrees with this, or is unable to make the statement below,
needs to reevaluate their goals with VP and have a better understanding of
statistical deviations and the "long run"
D
···
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:42 PM, bornloser1537 <bornloser1537@yahoo.com>wrote:
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>,
"nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> > > wrote:
>
> I will gamble $4,000 coin in and even if I lose $4,000 , I'm ok with
that...Kind of a silly statement to make. Not much chance of that happening.
<smile>.... bl
--
Thanks,
Dennis
______________________________
Read about my weight-loss journey:
http://www.healthstewards.com/member_detail.php?id=76&selected=1
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
NOTI, so we went from stop loss is a mathematical reality to stop loss is a practical approach to gambling. In your last sentence you say that stop loss is always there. So every gambler uses stop loss ( since it is always there). So every gambler takes a practical approach to gambling?
I still don't get what the mathematical reality is. That if I have $1000 in my pocket and I gamble, I can't lose more than $1000? That is true but it doesn't really tell me anything.
As for my approach, if I had a good enough play and if I had $4000 that I could afford to lose chasing that play and I had the time to do so, I would play until I got tired or the play went away.
If I found a 1% advantage, dollar, single line super aces play, would I play $4000 through as long as the play lasted? Probably not. Too much risk. If I found a 1% advantage, dollar, single line JOB game, would I play? Probably. Less risk.
A couple years ago, Arizona Charlies had a 5 play, quarter FPDW game. I played it for about 6 hours and lost about $800. No deuces, no royal, no big dealt hands. I considered that a good enough play. I took a dinner break, came back and the machines were out of service. Would I have played if they were available? Yes I would. If you think this sort of gambling deserves your reference to gamblers anonymous, then we have fundamentally different views on what is a good gamble and what isn't.
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "johnnyzee48127" <greeklandjohnny@> wrote:
> NOTI, what does "Stop loss is a mathematical reality" actually mean? If you're trying to say that setting a stop loss on a daily basis can somehow change your overall results on a given game for a given amount of coin in, I'm going to disagree.Stop loss is a practical approach to gambling. Are you telling me your approach is to say today I will gamble $4,000 coin in and even if I lose $4,000 , I'm ok with that? By the way, even if you are ok with that, you still have a stop loss, that would be $4,000 , and for any given game there is a determinable chance of that happening. Stop loss is always there, it's just a matter of what it is and who sets it, you or the game. In other words, stop loss is a mathematical reality, you can choose to ignore it, but it's always there.