Quote
Originally posted by: FrankKneelandQuote
Originally posted by: snidely333
A. Using my progressive betting system, I'm willing to risk money (M) to win money (W) with a probability (P) that I will be successful in winning W. As W increases, my probability P to win W goes down. I set W such that P is about 0.85.
B. Going with a higher win rate will lower P and I don't want to lower P.
Therefore, I tempt fate, I win W and then get out of the casino before the law of averages catches up with me. It also prevents me from playing too much and becoming a degenerate gambler addict.
That's a nice description of how you are going to play and why the system you are using includes a win goal, but it fails to explain logically what changes as a result of winning $100 that changes the equation so that discontinuing play is now your decision. The reason it fails to explain it is because at the end of your session the same situation exists that existed at the beginning of your session, nothing has changed, except that you now have $100 more in your pocket to start with.
You are also applying different logic at the end of your play than you did at the beginning of your play. You state, "get out of the casino before the law of averages catches up with me". That situation is just as likely when you walked into the casino as it is when you are leaving. So with the same information and the same thought processes you are coming to two completely opposite conclusions. That should be completely impossible.
We are asking why anyone would logically set a win goal, and your answer is essentially because the system I use has one.
Unless you can explain it better I'm going to have to rule against this as being a logical solution. I agree that in your case setting a goal like this might provide an emotional reason to limit your play (and that might a great idea), but we aren't including emotional reasons in this discussion. The format must be:
A + $0 = A decision to play
A + $100 = A decision not to play
And while we are at it let's define C (choice to continue).
Once we have made the decision to leave what must change for us to play again. For this we will assume that we have just made the choice to leave.
A - C = Discontinuing play
A + C = Resuming play
What transpires between leaving and reentering a casino that reverses our previous decision not to play anymore? The passage of time has not changed the machines, or how much money you have. In fact, for the purposes of argument let's say nothing has changed. Therefore since you have come to two opposite decisions given identical situations, either your decision to leave was wrong, or your decision to resume is wrong. Which is it?
Again, it is entirely possible that people don't make these decisions for logical reasons and THAT'S OK. I would like to know if there is any logic behind these decisions that I'm missing.
