Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

Setting Win Limitations

FrankKneeland
FrankKneeland
Aug 14, 2011
11:54am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: snidely333
Quote
Originally posted by: arcimedes
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".


This pretty much nails it.


I can find no obvious flaw in the logic, but it does not come from a person who employs this logic. I wanted to hear the word on the street and talk to the boys in the trenches to see why they think they do what they do. I wasn't going for an outside opinion. Oh, but thank you Arcimedes for your insight anyway. I think your evaluation could well be spot on, I'd just like to hear more personal feelings on the subject.

I believe Arcimedes answer does satisfy the conditions of the original request for a logical formula for deciding when to stop playing as a result of being up $100. I must also say I'm surprised as I did not think it was solvable.
alanleroy
alanleroy
Aug 14, 2011
11:58am
Block User
Mrs AlanLeroy takes some of my money when I get ahead and won't give it back until we're home. Although it doesn't limit my win, sometimes it guarantees a win. She has no published rules on how much she takes or how much I'm ahead before takes it, so I don't know the formula.
Random
Random
Aug 14, 2011
12:59pm
Block User
Frank,

No fair, Arc cheated. :-)

You stated in your original question this parameter: "Please keep your solutions to this problem free from emotional and subjective variables." It seems to me that "a certain amount of entertainment value" is both and emotional and a subjective variable.

I feel cheated, but it might be a case of illusionary introspection or something I ate.
oobiedoobie
oobiedoobie
Aug 14, 2011
1:03pm
Block User
Arc,you stopped posting at the same time MoneyLA did. I was thinking he was your alter-ego.

alanleroy
alanleroy
Aug 14, 2011
1:18pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Random
Frank,

No fair, Arc cheated. :-)

You stated in your original question this parameter: "Please keep your solutions to this problem free from emotional and subjective variables." It seems to me that "a certain amount of entertainment value" is both and emotional and a subjective variable.

I feel cheated, but it might be a case of illusionary introspection or something I ate.


Oh come on. We all know units of happiness are universal and measurable.
arcimedes
arcimedes
Aug 14, 2011
1:37pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: oobiedoobie
Arc,you stopped posting at the same time MoneyLA did. I was thinking he was your alter-ego.


I didn't stop posting, but I have posted less often and may have been in threads you were not interested in reading.

arcimedes
arcimedes
Aug 14, 2011
1:44pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Random
Frank,

No fair, Arc cheated. :-)

You stated in your original question this parameter: "Please keep your solutions to this problem free from emotional and subjective variables." It seems to me that "a certain amount of entertainment value" is both and emotional and a subjective variable.

I feel cheated, but it might be a case of illusionary introspection or something I ate.



Yeah, I did cheat.

I answered the original question and then added the subjective part. However, even though the "value" is subjective, I think it's also real. As such, it does come into play when making decisions. Another subjective value is being tired. It varies from player to player. So, why is quitting due to being tired any different than having satisfied the entertainment goal? In fact, any decision to quit playing is probably subjective. If we didn't use them we would play forever or until we went broke (or possibly passed out).

FrankKneeland
FrankKneeland
Aug 14, 2011
2:19pm
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Random
Frank,

No fair, Arc cheated. :-)

You stated in your original question this parameter: "Please keep your solutions to this problem free from emotional and subjective variables." It seems to me that "a certain amount of entertainment value" is both and emotional and a subjective variable.

I feel cheated, but it might be a case of illusionary introspection or something I ate.


I considered that this might have been cheating as well, but I am now of the mind that the only way to solve this problem is with a certain amount of quasi-permissible cheating. Think of it like a Kobayashi Maru scenario where the only way to win is to cheat. Arc has provided an answer that leaves it open for someone else to come up with a better answer free from rule flubbing.

Consider the debate still open.
Random
Random
Aug 15, 2011
12:23am
Block User
Despite my playful protest, I think Arc did make a logical case for the setting of a win limit when playing against a house advantage. If you include entertainment as something of value, I don't think you can exclude it as a factor in making this decision. He points out that one can not make a math based logical case for starting play against the odds in the first place. To understand setting a win goal, I think you have to examine what motivations players have gambling against a house edge.

If pressed to examine this decision, my guess is that the vast majority have the expectation that they will lose money, but know that there is a chance of winning money. This hope of beating the odds and walking away a winner provides a motivation in itself. Some relish the underdog role. If you expect to lose and do, the negative experience is mitigated because it was expected. Occasionally winning is viewed as a bonus and provides a positive feedback for playing again in the future. This risk/reward system provides the entertainment which is the motivation. Setting a win limit at which point you will discontinue play, I would expect in part preserves that positive feedback during the interlude between sessions and the win provides rationalization for future play.

The whole mindset is different when playing with an edge and this makes it a foreign concept to those who play with an advantage.
FrankKneeland
FrankKneeland
Aug 15, 2011
3:59am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Random
Despite my playful protest, I think Arc did make a logical case for the setting of a win limit when playing against a house advantage. If you include entertainment as something of value, I don't think you can exclude it as a factor in making this decision. He points out that one can not make a math based logical case for starting play against the odds in the first place. To understand setting a win goal, I think you have to examine what motivations players have gambling against a house edge.

If pressed to examine this decision, my guess is that the vast majority have the expectation that they will lose money, but know that there is a chance of winning money. This hope of beating the odds and walking away a winner provides a motivation in itself. Some relish the underdog role. If you expect to lose and do, the negative experience is mitigated because it was expected. Occasionally winning is viewed as a bonus and provides a positive feedback for playing again in the future. This risk/reward system provides the entertainment which is the motivation. Setting a win limit at which point you will discontinue play, I would expect in part preserves that positive feedback during the interlude between sessions and the win provides rationalization for future play.

The whole mindset is different when playing with an edge and this makes it a foreign concept to those who play with an advantage.


It is not merely foreign, it is neigh incomprehensible.

So the question on the table was: "Is leaving when you are ahead logical?"

The simple answer is no. Because in order to have a logical reason to leave, it would have been necessary to have had a logical reason to arrive, and the people who employee the "leave when you are ahead strategy" do not. (Have I got that right?

The longer answer is: In order to define the thought processes involved in the decision making process of all gamblers it is not possible to exclude emotional reasons and rely purely on logic. One MUST include concepts like "fun" and "recreational potential" which are subjective, individual, and hard to quantify.

Arrgh!!! Should I then include "recreational potential" in my eval of the RS system.

Please say no! (I'll do it if you all want me to, but I don't have to like it)
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now