Measuring Change

speaking from personal gambling experience, I have a net loss of at least 50K since my first foray into a casino in 1971. I've had a winning streak of 44 gambling sessions. I'm not a VP player. The house edge based on laws of probability is a truth to me. Short term I have won, long term I have a net loss. Casinos are popping up like mushrooms all across the country and they all seem to be thriving.

From what I've read, Gamblers who have a positive return are VP players, sports bettors and poker players. Why don't I play VP? Where I live the casinos have really horrible pay tables. I admit I do have a gambling problem.

One good thing that's happening for me is my company is sending me to Saudi Arabia where I'll be away from the casinos.

cjen3349,

Gambling can become a problem regardless of whether one wins or loses.

There is an interesting book out that explains how our brains become changed by things that give us pleasure. Drugs, alcohol, sex, food, shopping, gambling and many other things that give us pleasure re-wire our brains according to the author who is a professor of neuroscience at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. In moderation these pleasures are not harmful and make for a full life, some are even essential activities. I think understanding how addictions work is helpful in dealing with them.

There is a good review of the book here: The Compass of Pleasure

The Village is a film about a group of people who try to fool another group of people, because they are so desparate to fool themselves.

Let me first say wow! This thread has already exceeded all my expectations for it. There are so many interesting view points an informational tidbits it will actually take me some time to research and inculcate it all.

My very first exposure to the RS system was when one of his fans wrote me to tell me of the huge positive effect it had made in his life. Much of what he was imparting to me seemed to suggest severe cognitive distortion. This person had actually read my book as well and found nothing of use in it, but enjoyed the humor. Rather than attempting to convert him, I had to face the fact that my book will only appeal to people that it resonates with due to their like minded thinking. But what about all the people out there with whom my book does not resonate? Don't they deserve a system as well with the potential to moderate their losses and improve their casino experience? Certainly I could take the "my way or the highway" attitude, but I'm just not that guy.

Therefore, as a part of my current analysis I will be incorporating extra elements beyond mathematical validity and provability. And I believe this is justified as we have certainly made a good case with this thread for the ability of beliefs (true or false) to have a net positive effect in people's lives.

Yes, it would be nice if we could wave a magic wand and instantly abolish all false beliefs, but as we can't, I recommend we go to plan B right away and waste no further time on a Plan A with as much validity as the beliefs we would seek to dispel.

Frank,

I want to say this as tactfully as I can; you seem like a very thoughtful person and an all around good guy. You might say I'm pre-disposed to being on your side and rooting for you to succeed.

I may be off base, but let me play devils advocate. This thread and your last post; seem to signal that even before doing your analysis that you have a result. You are going to determine that despite the math, the RS system has some merits. You are non-confrontational to the point that it does not allow you to be truely objective. I am sure that you will offer enough disclaimers and conditions to your partial endorsement to maintain position on the fence. In bending over backwards to try to please everone; please be careful, if you bend too far you may pull a groin muscle. :-)

I am more of a black and white guy, undoubtedly many times too much so, but there are areas in life where something is right or wrong, good or bad, works or doesn't work. This may have some gray areas as many things do, but math is and results measured by win or lose generally don't have many soft colors.

Sorry if this post comes off as negative feedback, it wasn't meant in that spirit. I do have your book on my to-do list, I enjoyed you very much on the radio show and I respect your intellect and views.

I have in fact made no judgments as to how the RS system rates in the various categories I am picking for my evaluation. I have so far only been trying to determine what those categories should be. If it seems like I have come to any hard permanent conclusions I haven't. As I'm sure you are aware the system I advocate in my book is diametrically opposed to what RS teaches. The only way I can get even a measure of impartiality is for the moment to act like a defense attorney and fight for my client as best I can, and set all my opinions on guilt or innocence to one side.

Had I been for the RS system I would have approached it from the POV of trying to disprove it. As this was not the case I am now tasked with trying to prove its efficacy. It's just like debate class where one had to fight for both sides of the same argument, with the teacher predictably always sticking you on the side you didn't want.

The problem with Singer is not his system. It is his claims. A progression does not change the math as I'm sure you are well aware. However, a progression does increase variance significantly. More big winners and more big losers.

The big problem is that Singer claims people will win using his system and lose playing optimally. He also claims his system will lead to quick wins when the design does not match that claim.

It's all about honesty. Singer doesn't know the meaning of the word.

Random, I really can't take your side against Frank. What I hear him saying is that a system can have value if using it makes the user better off. Even if the system is crazy and irrational, if some people use it and come out ahead (of where they would have been otherwise), then the system had value for them. I think what he's saying is that there are multiple evaluation criteria.

But then, unfortunately, you get into subjective opinions, a morass.

Frank,

I understand that in order to evaluate the RS system you need to take the tact that you are; trying to prove it works or has benefits over other play practices. Some of the statements you made and the direction of this thread suggested to me something beyond that. In a second reading I see that I likely was jumping to a conclusion that is not well supported.

The decisions on what the criteria are to be evaluated are a key to setting up a fair study. This as you suggest does include some criteria beyond the basic math of win or lose. I can envision some that may be difficult to quantify, but already having jumped too far on my last supposition, I will wait to hear what you determine they should be.

It is funny that you used exactly these words to express your beef against Singer, "doesn't know the meaning of the word". I am currently trying to pin down his definition on several words for which his meaning is significantly different than mine. It is without question hampering our communication, but by going slowly I am making headway.

For instance his definition of "edge" includes concepts of standard deviation and implies a finite number of trials. It's hard to explain, but what I'm discovering is that many of the things I thought we disagreed on, we don't, it was just an issue of word definition. To someone with my definition of "edge" his statement that the house always has the edge seemed ridiculous. Once I found out what he actually meant by "edge" I discovered we were nearly in agreement.

It would be fine to sit on a high horse and accuse Rob of butchering the English language by altering and adding meaning to words beyond their dictionary definition, but lets face facts here: how many of us look up common words we already know the meaning of in the dictionary to verify we have them straight. Nobody does that. We only look up words we don't know.

Wasn't it you that corrected me last year when I proudly stated that I was gaining in notoriety (unaware that this was negative publicity and a derivation of the word notorious.)?

There are likely many words that we all use everyday, for which we think we know the meanings, but to other people they mean something different. I have run into a lot of this with Rob, but nothing that isn't understandable and rectifiable.

Look at last months debate over what "today" meant. I got 14 distinct meanings, none of which agreed.

~FK