bob Dancer's new column, new question

At tne end of Bob's newest column, he writes:

"Two people have bankrolls of $10,000 and $80,000 respectively. The first person wins $300 today. The second person loses $300. Who's better off bankroll-wise?"

I am sure his point is that the person with the $80,000 bankroll who loses $300 is "better off bankroll-wise."

Sure, the $80,000 bankroll player is now at $79,700 while the $10,000 bankroll player is now at $10,300 and the $79,700 player has more opportunity over the long run to beat the casino at video poker. I am sure that is Dancer's point.

But let me change the question around to this: Who's better gambler, the person who wins $300 with the smaller bankroll or the person who loses $300 with the much larger bankroll?

I think the $300 winner is the true winner here.

Saying that the player with the bigger bankroll is "better off" is like saying "I played a full pay machine with perfect strategy but I still lost to variance." Unfortunately, "variance" can't be deposited into a bank account.

So, I must say that Dancer's analogy or lesson this time around doesnt make much sense to me.

You are of course forgetting what Anthony stated in the discussion about the last Dancer column. At this stage in the game bankrolls simply don't matter hence the question is moot.

However, IMHO the 10k person is better off bankroll wise. Due to the fact that there are now more chances to win. I.E. more money.

chefantwon... did you mispeak? did you mean to say the 10k person is better off than the 80K person??

I misread it. 80k is better.

The only way your question is useful is if the answer can help you predict the better gambler over the long run. Otherwise, you're just musing over someone's good or bad luck.

I thought this was a very strange article. Just very strange. I realize Dancer is a competent writer, but I think he's trying too hard to be a Zen master.

I got much more out of this article than the last one. Its better to see what you ended up doing than how your doing right now. In otherwords, stuff changes, don't worry about it until the end of the day.

I kinda like what redietz wrote. I wish he would stick to strategy.

Since 79,700 > 10,300 the answer to who is better off "bank-roll wise" is simple math. Let me phrase it a little different for moneyla.

Would you rather have $79,700 in your pocket or $10,300?

I think the answer is pretty simple. Now, if a different question was asked the answer might be different. Would rather win $300 today or lose $300 today? Well, of course, we'd all rather win the $300. Two different questions that moneyla is confusing.

This is a key aspect of problem solving that I feel is not taught in our schools very well. One needs to figure out what question is actually being asked. So much of the time people twist the questions around in their mind until they start trying to answer a different question. This is exactly what moneyla did.

In this case the meaning of the article was pretty simple. Don't worry about short term variance. In the long run it really makes no difference.

Strangely, this is exactly what moneyla jumped on. He thinks the short term variance is the MOST important issue. Did I win today is the only measure he seems to be concerned with. For example, I lost money my first 3 casinos trips this year. According to moneyla that overrides anything else. I must be a bad gambler or using a bad strategy. Bob's point is we will all lose sometimes, but that is not important in the long run if we arrive at our destination as planned.