Setting Win Limitations

If you don't there is really not much to the evaluation. Betting systems cannot increase the return. That is a mathematical fact.

So, without adding in something emotional you won't have much to do. The problem is the emotional evaluation will have many conflicting elements in itself. As such, anything will be based on individual preferences.

Frank,

Well, one of the challenges in the evaluation that you have highlighted through this discussion is that there are two main groups. There are recreational players whose main reason for playing is entertainment and there is the AP crowd who focus on EV and ending up in the black. These two groups do have some overlap, but one is likely to have one mindset or the other.

The AP camp is not likely to factor in any variables that can't be counted or deposited at the bank. That group is likely to already have looked at the main components of the RS system and rejected that it can add EV because the math say's that it can not.

The recreational group may value the subjective variables to a degree that would offset a potential EV loss, but my guess is that in large part they are not likely to be in search of a change in their play style. They often know that the odds are against them and accept that as part of the game.

Alright, so I have to include emotional factors. This complicates things, but I suppose that went without saying.

I also agree that AP's have rejected the RS system as a way to make more money. My already overwhelming task was to try to find out if the RS system appeals to, and would be followed by people that won't accept AP, because of differently structured cognitive processes, and if for these people it is better than what they were doing or not doing before. We've established that something can be helpful without having to be totally factual (many examples such as GA exist). This means that even if the math for the RS system doesn't pan out, one can't offhandedly dismiss the potential for positive change. One cannot confirm it either. In science this is the point at which everyone shouts, "Research is warranted" and tables the debate until the test results are in.

I can honestly tell you that going into this I obviously had some biases and favored the math side. I am now split right down the middle, and have no idea what the research will reveal. I'm expecting the unexpected.

It could be we find out that it does have merit. I could be that it does not, but not for any of the reasons we expected.

I'm really struggling with the experimental design and this added factor of "fun" isn't going to help. I'm not exactly an authority on the subject of "fun" as it pertains to gambling.

I have a meeting in about two weeks with a grad student that can help me in getting a test group. I'll let everyone know when there is word.

GREAT THREAD FOLKS (it was "fun"...I think?)

A completely non-emotional reason to leave a game earlier than planned could be a change in profit expectation. It could be gained knowledge ("Hey,dummy, that isn't an EV+ machine, it barely pays 99%"), it could be mechanical (sticky buttons) or it could be environmental (ear-piercing musiic or overwhelming smoke). A secod point, the statement "the 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." is illogical. With "A" being logical and "B" being illogical, AA,AB,BA and BB are all possible. Also if D always follows C, C doesn't necessarily always precede D.

As a little background I spent 7+ years posting on the paid side of LVA and I was a constant proponent of playing only +EV VP. In fact my handle at the time became synonymous with only playing 100% games and never deviating from optimal strategy. I was outnumbered by the "fun" crowd and did come to at least understand some of their motivations.

I want to be careful in not painting with a broad brush, especially when dealing with the "fun" group. They are very diverse and their degree of understanding and acceptance of the math covers a wide range. There is also a wide range of how much they value the perks and entertainment value of what they play.

For instance, there are some that will only play in venues on the Las Vegas strip. They accept the high house edge and see it as an acceptable cost of their vacation experience. Some trade off a higher cost of play because they want to get "free" rooms and food, without much regard to the real cost of the perks generated. There are players who will only play multi-hand machines, they know the paytables are not good, but single line games are not as fun. I could go on, but you get the idea.

My point with this is that in some ways this group is no more open to "improvements" than the AP group. Some make arguments to rationalize their choices in ways that defy the math or based on common myths. Most are happy with where they are at; this took me a while to understand. I would offer some good reasons for playing 100%+ games, practicing strategy, investing in software and staying places with the best games and they would say; that's not my idea of fun.

Given that you have spent much more time in casinos than I have, you already know that the average tourist VP player, or for that matter, local who plays VP only has a very limited understanding of the game. You can tell by what holds they make and by what they play, you have heard the advice they share. The folks I'm talking about knowing from this chat board are well above that level. Many have made informed choices, some with only partial information, but some know exactly what trade offs they have made.

I'm not sharing this to dissuade you from your quest, only to give you a better feel about the scope of the challenge. Knowing what a big challenge you have will make reaching your goal that much more.... fun. :-)

More information to confuse your logical brain.

I am a recreational player. I strictly play only -EV games.
I am by trade an engineer. As such, I completely understand the math and logic behind AP.
Yet I reject AP and +EV games in favor of -EV games.

There is another variable missing from the equitation that I'll call F.
Game one (G1) has EV of +.05 and F of -5.
Game two (G2) has EV of -.2 and F of +3.
G1 = .05 + -5 = -4.5
G2 = -.2 + 3 = 2.8
G2 > G1, thus, in spite of being -EV, G2 is a better game to play.

So once I apply my subjective value of F to the +EV of games favored by APs, the -EV games are a better play for me.

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)

A is determined by having a game (G1, G2, etc) with a value > 0. An available game with the highest value will be played.
B is determined by the game value dropping below 0.
C occurs when the game value goes positive again.

The value of F gets applied to each of the above decisions. Since F is subjective it can vary over time and even from one bet to the next so I can freely float between the three states with nothing else changing other than the value of F. The amount won/lost during a session can impact the value of F, thus willing $100 can drop the value of F to the point where the game value drops below 0 and a transition from state A (play) to state B (don't play) occurs. An hour later F may start to grow again to the point where a game has a positive value and we enter state C (play again).

Yup.

Excellent, Kaypee

What you say would be spot on had we been testing general reasons for arriving and leaving a casino. We were not. You have come in late I'm afraid. This particular thought experiment was set up only to test leaving as a result of being up $100.

A + $0 = Play
A + $100 = Leave

"A" could be any logical chain of thought the combined with +$0 resulted in a decision to stay and play. But you were not supposed to be able to change condition A to achieve the result to a leave. You also were supposed to exclude emotional and subjective reasons for A. This proved impossible and Arci provided a solution, but only by redefining the parameters a little and including "recreational potential" in A.

For some reason your post reminds me of one of my favorite horror movies about Nosferatu entitled "The Hunger" where they never use or mention the term "vampire" anywhere in the movie.

Are we to assume that "F" = "fun"

Your logic is flawless but incomplete, because we need to know what factors influence the value of F and why it changes over time. The passage of time should not be able to, by itself, alter a logical decision unless during the passage of time your information changes.