Measuring Change

Welcome to this months VP related thought provoking data accumulating post.

As I'm sure we are all aware there are many different viewpoints going around in the world of gambling in general and video poker specifically. It is relevant to my current projects to get a measure of the ability for VP information to effect change in people's opinions. My current research would seem to indicate that information order is the single largest determiner of opinion and belief. In other words, whatever a person is exposed to first (and believes) accounts for an 85% chance they will still believe that after being exposed to different information later. In the studies done on this, the accuracy of the information had almost no effect to the final belief statistics. If exposed to false information first and accurate information second 85% believed what they were told first. If exposed to accurate information first and false info second, again the belief rates were still 85% believing whatever came first.

Obviously, this has far reaching application to a discussion on VP strategy. If you see the connection great. If you don't, I can't state it here or I'll bias the results of this fact finding mission.

So here's the challenge: If your opinions, playing strategy, or beliefs on casinos or anything VP related have changed in anyway as a result of reading books or being a member of a VP forum like this one, please state:

1.What belief has changed?
2.What was the primary factor in your change of opinion?

I ask that we keep this thread free from negative comments about what people currently believe. The point of this is to find out if changing beliefs about VP is possible...NOT WHAT THOSE BELIEFS ARE OR ARE NOT.

It is not relevant to this discussion what you believe about VP, only whether your beliefs have ever changed due to new information.

Frank,

I don't think my answer will fit in the boxes that you have defined, but I will respond in with how my understanding of VP has evolved over time. I can remember having a couple of beliefs that I no longer have early in my journey of learning about VP.

I was convinced at one point that in FPDW when choosing a pair to keep in a dealt two pair hand that the positions of the pairs must make one of the pairs a better odds hold. My flawed reasoning was that pairs on the left were better, because they were the first out of the deck. I came to understand that it makes no difference, but I let go of that misconception easily as I was a newbie and knew that there was much for me yet to learn.

The other belief was that stopping play prior to dropping a certain amount on an individual session or cashing out when reaching a certain win level would have an impact on my outcome. The primary factor in both cases was the realization that there was a whole heck of a lot more to learn than I had learned so far. I basically knew that I didn't know much.

Your assumption that the order of presentation of beliefs is highly determinative of ones current view is something I would have to be convinced of with more data. I think that many will be like me, in that early on in an area of study one has a realization of how much they don't know and are fairly willing to question their own beliefs and accept new ones.

P.S. I enjoyed your interview along with Bob of George Maloof. You two certainly didn't pull any punches, I almost felt sorry for George at the time of the interview. I feel more sorry for him now with the recent inventory changes, it seems the new owners think they know better and are going to meddle in areas that he at least thought would still be under his control. I wonder how many decision over-rides it will take before he gets mad enough to just walk away from the place he put his heart and soal into building.

This first reply is perfect.

As far as the information order being the prime determiner to belief, that was not my opinion. I was regurgitating info on information order effects and other knowledge in the book I recommended to the forum last month, "The Believing Brain". I also recommend a book called, "The Drunkards Walk". You can also just look-up "information order effects" on the Internet...but don't believe the first thing you read I have no opinion on the subject, but apparently a lot of research has been done. One study I read was into how people eat spaghetti. I forget the source, sorry.

Short answer:
First I had no beliefs.
Then I sought out beliefs.
Now I have locked in those beliefs with a reluctance to ever change them.

Long answer:
On my first couple of casino visits I dabbled with a couple of games including VP with no idea other than common sense on how to play them. Once a couple of games sparked my interest, I then researched those games and strategy using online resources, reading books, and writing simulation software. I went so far as to create my own Pai-Gow strategy card as none exists in the casino gift shops. Once the research was complete I was done with the scientific study phase of the hobby. I stick to the same games and same pay tables. I feel no need to redo any research and too lazy to bother researching any new games.

The only strategy changes I've done over the years are in the area of money management. Those changes are to artificially shorten the length of my sessions rather than the win/loss of the sessions in order to make me get up and move around more often to keep the circulation flowing.

When I started gambling, I believed in the "tendency to deviate toward the mean," in a way that was unfounded. So I believed that if I had a bad session, sooner or later I'd have a good session that would wipe away the bad one.

I even believed that if my overall expectation was positive, then that good session would be even better than the bad session was bad. So bad sessions wouldn't get to me, because I could feel, "Well, now I'm owed one." I would now look forward to recovering the loss.

Over time, I have changed that belief, and no longer believe things will even out. A loss is a loss is a loss.

Alright, now this is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.

The science of belief predicts that you would only have changed your opinion on this type of deeply rooted idea if faced with:
1. prolonged conflicting evidence (or failure of view to be predictive)
2. An emotional imperative to alter you previously established views
3. And lastly, only if new information resulted in a self reevaluation

The key word in #3 is "self". People will rarely alter their opinion based on something someone tells them, especially if they don't understand the logic behind the conclusion. More effective is new information that gives people the ability to come to new conclusions on their own.

You said, "over time". Can you elaborate on the events that occurred during this period?

Alright...it appears that this thread has run it's course after only 3 replies. About what I expected, and exactly what the science predicts.

The rarity of paradigm shifts in well established beliefs is an important factor in my current evaluation of the efficacy of the RS system.

Your mission, if you'd like to kick the can around a bit is to deduce why???

Here's a clue: One of the first things GA teaches patients is that it is impossible to beat the casino, no matter what they do. This is excepted, even by the medical community, as being completely false. That being said, it is an effective treatment strategy for gambling addiction.

The rarity of paradigm shifts in well established beliefs is an important factor in my current evaluation of the efficacy of the RS system.

Your mission, if you'd like to kick the can around a bit is to deduce why???

My kick at the can is you know that you are predisposed to be biased in your evaluation. Some of the components of the RS system flies in the face of your long held beliefs. Am I in the right zip code?

That's a good guess, but no this is not about me.

I'll let a couple more people guess and then I'll post another clue.

RS system is not what we were first taught. Therefore, we hate it. Similar to other religions. Many people are vehement followers of their religion basically just because it was the first and only religion taught to them by their parents.