Setting Win Limitations

I would like to but I'm not finding it. Do you have a thread name?

I did find an interesting thread about Craps being a game where the results are decided ONLY by the action of the player. I have not had time to go through all the posts in that thread to see the resolution.

No.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Rdf0n_Lsg

Well, here's a link to the clip. In the thread, MoneyLA was said to be similar to the character on the right.

OK this is very funny, but I have to disagree. The situation in this clip could never happen in a real discussion. At the first disagreement one could simply have gone to a computer an googled the movie cast and shown the Donkey that Kevin Bacon was indeed in Footloose.

MoneyLA has opinions that may disagree with your viewpoints, but they are not simply related to the information he has at hand. Real world differences in opinion can only be partially explained by different information, and are far more fully explained by how we process that information...or what information we allow to pass our own personal criteria for truth. In this manner some of the information we get exposed to is accepted and the rest is discarded.

If you wish to really resolve this, and not simply argue for arguments sake, you need to examine the decision making process and stop squabbling over conclusions, which only obfuscate the underlying true differences.

You may know WHAT you disagree on, but the better question is WHY!

What is there to resolve?

I'm sorry, I thought if a poster here was being compared to a cartoon donkey that there might be some underlying disagreement. It was just an assumption, nothing more.

Ok. My bad. I thought there was another issue to resolve. Some people are just too disagreeable for me to comprehend.

This is one of those catch-22 type situation. Once a player decides to play a negative game then any win-goal decision to quit is 180° opposite of their decision to start. Hence, it can not be logical in an absolute sense.

However, one can see where accepting a win after playing for awhile is not that difficult to understand. The player has received a certain amount of entertainment value. That value has now been "banked". So, the situation at this time could be considered different. By leaving the player has received entertainment (original goal) and money (extra added benefit). If they continue to play the "entertainment goal" will not increase enough to counter the potential loss of the "added benefit".

THREAD REFRESH

What I need here is the exact thought process that goes into:

A: deciding to play
B: deciding to stop playing
C deciding to play again (when nothing has changed between now, and when you decided to stop playing)

In order for a decision to change, one would expect that the conditions must change, or the number and type of variables being included in the decision must change. Something has to change, or else a person would not come to a different decision.

I have now realized that it may be impossible for most people to give honest answers about this process due to a phenomenon called "illusionary introspection". It is not as comprehensive on the subject as the book I'm reading, but you can get up to speed on the subject at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion

This pretty much nails it.