Quantifying Good & Bad Decisions

Well since you asked. Because they weren't real people.

The hypothetical people in the hypothetical situation were required to play 1 million hypothetical hands in order to have a result, positive or negative. It was a set up for a math problem, like the questions you got on tests in school. You know the ones involving apples and oranges.

Money lost or money won would be identical regardless of who it belonged to.

If person A lost $50,000 during the trial, it is not necessary for that money to belong to person A for the loss to have occurred. Nor is is necessary for the money to belong to person A to be able to ask him or her how they did.

I actually play with other people's money all the time, and I can assure you that the results I experience are identical to what I would experience if the money wagered was mine, because I have it on the best of authority that machines can't tell the difference.

I just needed some hypothetical results, and backing hypothetical people to set up the equations seemed a reasonable way to do it.

Is there a difference between playing with your own money or someone else's money in real life? Well it won't effect your results, but of course it effects the emotional dynamic.

Is there a functional difference in a hypothetical analogy math question set up? Uh, no not really, it's pretty irrelevant.

Keep in mind, you did ask.

Frank, I very much disagree with you here. People tend to take more risks with the money of others than with their own money........So wins could be bigger but they could also be a lot smaller because a player might play hands differently on somebody else's dime. That's why some of your own "friends" gave you "a beating" after they concluded that you've played with other people's money during your whole professional career and didn't play on your own dime.......It's out there, go can find it close to home.

You seem to be looking at this from a non-professional point of view and I am obviously looking at it from a professional point of view and not taking into account how non pros think. I'll take the blame on that one.

Pros play a consistent strategy based on math and do not deviate from it one iota. In fact, if you are playing with someone else's money, not following optimal strategy is a firing offense. On the other hand, if one was playing with their own money they'd be free to take additional risk and play the way they wanted to, since you can't fire yourself. Of course no pros that I know do anything other than follow the math, so it makes no difference either way. Your own money, someone else's, it's all the same and has no effect on play whatsoever.

It disturbs me to hear that you know people who would play differently if the nickel wasn't theirs. That is of course a form of stealing and dishonesty.

In response to your last comments I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. I said in my book and have always said (on my radio show) that I was a manger for a progressive team and have been paid salary for most of my career. It continues to surprise me that anyone is surprised by this, as it is hardly new news. I've quite literally never said anything different. It's also one of the reasons I consider myself to be abnormally impartial about gambling, since I don't experience the ups and downs most have to deal with. I can look with unemotional clarity at the records sheets of myself and many others and pass on what I learn to all of you without any personal entanglement. I consider this a major asset.

Anyway, if you think pros would alter strategy depending on whether or not they were investors or paid players you don't understand my business and we don't know the same people. There would be no motive or opportunity. The investors determine what to play and how we play it, and the only bonuses are for following orders.

None. Carpet is nasty. It out gasses all types of noxious fumes and retains dirt along with other foul stuff. Stick to wood and tile.

Really? What is your basis for this line of thinking? Is it because that is how you'd act?

Personally I won't take any risk with someone else's money. Therefore, based on 100% of my sample size saying "less", I conclude that people take less risks with the money of others than with their own money.

Huh. Does this immutable moral absolute apply in other cases? For example, if I consistently take one route while walking my dog, but consistently take a different route while walking my neighbor's dog, am I abusing my neighbor's trust? Am I abusing his dog?

If I get paid to prepare a tax return, and I take a different position on the client's return than I would on my own return, am I stealing from the client? Am I stealing from the govt.? Are there OTHER FACTORS that need to be considered?

What is your major malfunction?? Why can't you stick to the essential elements of the problem? Are you a smart ass? The carpet in the problem has no out-gas, and there were no dirt, wood, nor tile mentioned. The next time I catch you coloring outside the lines (the very poorly drawn lines), I'm going to take the crayolas away from you.

For example slots: why do people often play higher denominations on freeplay than they would do on their own dime? What's key to the professional VP scene as Frank describes it that a professional player would go for the optimal result (math) within the budget and boundaries his sponsor sets. So yes, it would be appropriate to play optimal strategy. Now, would it be the same if somebody would give you a 1000 bucks and ask you to play with it. Part of the deal is, we'll split the winnings whatever the outcome.......Would that 1000 bucks always be spent on VP playing by the math book for the optimal return, or would there be people running to the HL room playing 50 bucks a spin or more to get a big price? I know vp is different than slots or table games but I also believe vp-players ain't no better than anybody else handling somebody else's money. I don't know much about professional vp-teams but I do wonder how well sponsors are into the math and if they would monitor how the team plays or let it all in the hands of the manager. I personally don't get why a sponsor would trust a team handling his money with gambling.

News flash: some people turn into greedy, dishonoust pigs as soon as money is involved. Especially not their own money. 1000's of law suites every year are proof of that. Reminder: the recent front page story about the person that gave 7 bucks to a co-worker travelling to Vegas to play with? They had an agreement that they would split the jackpot might the co-worker win it. Well lightning struck and he won a jackpot......guess who didn't feel like keeping their end of the deal anymore. I'm actually surprised you didn't get where I'm coming from.

@ Frank, thanks for your reply. From a professional point of view it makes sense. There are people out there that don't consider you much of a professional because there's no risk of hat loss involved since you are playing on somebody else's dime. Not my idea....

That's certainly how I was looking at it. I've had no experience with people who would be less cautious with another's money, and I certainly call none of these people friend.

Basically it's a moot point in my business. There isn't the opportunity or motive to do things which are more or less risky. We have scouts that search casinos for plays, when one is found the team goes and plays it. Basically it's the difference between someone being sent to the store for only milk, or being asked to cook dinner and be creative.

I get sent to the store for milk. Whether I'm buying it with my own dollar or not doesn't really matter.

The most creative part of my job was training the new players and coming up with new ways to teach VP strategy.

~FK

I keep thinking if I can understand why you don't understand such simple concepts I'll be closer to unlocking some great mystery of life. So we'll try again.

No Marcus it doesn't make any difference. If I ask you to add in your head 3 hypothetical apples and 2 hypothetical oranges and then tell me how many fruit you would have, you should be able to deduce that the correct answer is 5, without needing real fruit in front of you to preform the operation. I could even make up a hypothetical fruit like "woojoo berries" and the math would still work in real life.

In part 3 of my post I made a point to state that in real life the actual numbers would vary, but that the basic concepts would still remain valid. Not all people who play with an edge win, and not all those that play without an edge lose. Only the percentages of winners and losers change depending on what types of games you play and how you play them. The hypothetical situation illustrated this just fine and only you seem to be having a problem understanding it.

Perhaps it would help if I told you what originally inspired the post. Someone on VP.com commented that all the posted jackpot pictures they had seem were on bad pay-tables. I know full well that not all Jackpots hit are on these low return games and I sought a plausible explanation for the bias, and why people hitting jackpots on high return machines didn't feel the need to post them or talk about them.

I believe I succeeded in coming up with a plausible explanation. It's not the only possible explanation, but I believe it is the most likely. If you'd like to contribute you could try to come up with an alternative explanation.

~FK