Definition of Winning

[jm002546]

[QUOTE=jm002546]  When I go to Vegas I intentionally avoid knowing how much money I bring.  I have only run out of money the first time I went and was drinking heavily.  But I know in general how I fared.  Can anyone out-stupid that?

Easily, as long as I'm allowed to include my love life.[/QUOTE]You are hereby allowed.   We want every last detail, say, for the last 6 months. I hope there are some.  If you don't follow up with any then you have our sympathy - there's nothing to report.

[jim18]

Going off topic is something that I find amusing.  Is global warming an illusion or reality?  Is global warming caused by mankind?  Conversely, if we are discussing what winning looks like, either in the short term or the long term, then it hardly seems connected to a suggestion that everyone that gambles go to a psychologist.If Frank thinks that all who read this post need to be tested, then let big government, and his democrat friends pay for this.  Lets see.  How about taxing all casino owners so that everyone that wants a free psychology exam can have one?  This would be a stimulus that actually creates jobs!Thinking of VP results in terms of an arbitrary time frame is completely and always wrong, according to Frank.  Maybe Frank is right.  While Frank I think is a VP expert, does that make him an expert on time as well?  Regardless of who is right in how you define winning, can we all agree that we can make up our own definition of winning to suit the circumstances of our thinking?Imagine a person that wins $250,000 playing a wheel of fortune slot machine.  Would anyone expect that winning player to say, that he did not win anything.  Instead he just reduced his lifetime total losses?  I think it is logical for a person to think about lifetime losses/winnings, but it is completely wrong to tell gamblers that the only way that they can look at gaming is in terms of your entire lifetime.If I were to win the Power Ball lottery for 10 million dollars next week, I would be  able to say that for my lifetime I am a winner at gambling.  However, I would find this statement to be shallow.  For it does not take into account the hundreds of sessions at VP where I lost money.  Even after such a huge win, I would continue to be reminded of my many failures.In my mind the machine that I play next is connected to the session that I have next time I go to the casino.  And that session is tied to sessions that I have at other casinos during the same time span.  And finally, each session is tied to my lifetime session of gaming.  The whole is made up of the sum of its parts.  The whole does not stand alone!

[Frank Kneeland]

heres my take, Sorry if it offends anyone. I got to the casino with 300$ and at a certain point I get to $500. IF I am smart enough to leave up 200 for that session. This is a win. I play vp alot compared to anyone else I know. Ive cycled 125000$ in the last 5 weeks. I am convinced that the only way to win is on sessions. I believe that the more that you play, the more that you will slowly lose. I say practice even more and actually gamble less. I play to win. I dont walk into a casino and disregard the amount of $ I have brought. I go in there looking for the kill. If you want to win, go to a casino. If you want to wash your car, go to  a carwash. Simple. I dont have an unlimited amount of $ either. So it seems that if I did have an unlimited amount of $, then I would be ahead in the long run. I would have my risk of ruin. Everything would be fine, even if I found myself down -20000 credits. Blah, blah blah.
How can we put a percentage on a paytable when vp is RANDOM? If each hand is independent Then where do we get an average? I dont think anyone really understands this question.There is nothing offensive about you sharing your views. You needn't have worried at least where I am concerned. Your view is the more common one. Now here is what you need to ask yourself.It is clear that you perceive VP as occurring in segmented "sessions" and positive results during one of these sessions to be a "win". What is it exactly that signals the beginning and ending of a "session" for you.Is it the act of leaving the casino and reentering? (if so, could one not step one foot outside and back in again to start a new session)Is it the act of driving home and back again? (if so, could one merely drive around the block)Is it the act of sleeping and getting up again? (if so, does one have to sleep in one's own bed, or could they take a nap in their car)Is it a function of our calender and the change in date that occurs at midnight? (could you then count other times zones)Is it cashing out and counting your money? (one can do that as desired) Or is it a combination of these and more?Once you have determined what triggers the magical end and beginning of your definition of "session", then ask yourself if any of those things have anything whatsoever to do with independent random events and if the machine knows you have done them?What you will undoubtedly discover is that thinking about things in terms of "today", "session", "this trip", "this year", etc...are all imposed subjective and very human overlays to something which has no real lines of demarcation.To the VP machine a 1 second pause between hands and a 1 year pause between trips is the same. It is only in the mind of the player that anything changes, and even then it is only how it is perceived that changes, the reality remains the same.No amount of leaving and returning, sleeping and eating, travel in your car, cashing out and counting of your money, passage of time, etc...truly ends your session. Your mind does that, and your mind cannot influence the results of the game.If you have ever looked at a stock track over a three year period, then you must realise that you could go and mark every up swing as a "win" if you ignored the down swings between them. You could further generate more, "wins" by looking at the stock results over ever shorter time intervals. Looking at monthly results would give you only 36 chances for wins. Looking at daily results would give you 30 times more. Of course no matter how you looked at it only the final price the stock was at when you sold it would truly matter. All the rest would be meaningless.Does any of that sink in?You have sessions which begin and end, created solely by your mind. The machines do not, and neither does your play on them ever truly end until you never play again.

[brmcc74]

For me a session consist of x amount of $ to begin a trip. If I get up to my objective for that session then I stop. The objective will vary depending on original amount taken. If things go bad, then I exhaust the original bkrl and leave. This is a loss.
 
So when you play, DO You jusy randomly play and dont keep track of what you have won or lost?  But you contend to be ahead? Thats interesting to me. How do you win? It would seem to the average Joe that you are comfortable enough that you could careless about reality{losses} and just keep playing positive games with that math backing confidence. If so, I understand that. Im still wondering about my random/average question.

[Frank Kneeland]

For me a session consist of x amount of $ to begin a trip. If I get up to my objective for that session then I stop. The objective will vary depending on original amount taken. If things go bad, then I exhaust the original bkrl and leave. This is a loss.
 
So when you play, DO You jusy randomly play and dont keep track of what you have won or lost?  But you contend to be ahead? Thats interesting to me. How do you win? It would seem to the average Joe that you are comfortable enough that you could careless about reality{losses} and just keep playing positive games with that math backing confidence. If so, I understand that. Im still wondering about my random/average question. This is two part, I'll answer the second part first. I have a lifetime result that is to the positive. Therefore, if I lose in a given day I experience a win reduction. I am still winning, I'm simply winning very slightly less than I was the day before. For tax records it is necessary to keep daily records. I don't put much stock in them beyond that and instead favor lifetime results. I do keep a separate track of different game types in some cases where applicable. (Example: I kept Flush Attack records separate from progressive play records)Because of this thinking, I find it bizarre in the extreme that people who are losing for their life can claim loss reductions as "winning". To be winning one must be ahead on the game, one would think that this would go without saying. As it turns out it says without going. How on earth can you claim to be winning when you are behind on the game? Just because your losses were on the other side of a dateline? When they occurred doesn't matter to me and guess what, it doesn't matter to your wallet either, down is down. Looking at only your most recent trip is sugar coating the ugly truth, nothing more.First Part: So for you a session is based on a starting quota. Except you can set that quota to anything you want. You can then return with a new quota as soon as you want...and none of those things effect your results or change anything other than your perception of your total results by inserting way points to random events.Is your brain structure really so different you can't see how meaningless session results are and more importantly how contrived they are? You could pick anything to mark the beginning and end of a session.Here's my new favorite: I'm going to keep records beginning and ending every time I clean out my belly button fluff. Though it sounds more absurd, it is actually just a valid as using days, trips, or starting quotas. And remember if you "win" during your next period between belly button cleanings, you heard it here first and have me to thank for your "win".Please Note: The IRS does not accept belly button fluff as a valid demarcation for tax records, despite the equal effect on actual results.

[Frank Kneeland]

[QUOTE=Frank Kneeland]
[QUOTE=jm002546]  When I go to Vegas I intentionally avoid knowing how much money I bring.  I have only run out of money the first time I went and was drinking heavily.  But I know in general how I fared.  Can anyone out-stupid that?

Easily, as long as I'm allowed to include my love life.[/QUOTE]You are hereby allowed.   We want every last detail, say, for the last 6 months. I hope there are some.  If you don't follow up with any then you have our sympathy - there's nothing to report.
[/QUOTE]Oh my there are many. If you check out my facebook page you'll see the most recent sources for my life complication. I had really high hopes for a handicapped physical threapist from Phoenix I met at a Ren Faire. The twenty year age difference and distance turned out to be insurmountable. I will miss her very much all my remaining days on this wretched orb. My last four girlfriends before her had been at least 10 years my senior. She asked me for my phone number and as you can imagine I was quite shocked. I knew it had a low probability of success, but as my Mom always used to say, you only really regret the things in life you didn't do, or at least didn't try to do.I'd rather not talk about ongoing situations for fear of souring the grapes.

[Frank Kneeland]

Going off topic is something that I find amusing.  Is global warming an illusion or reality?  Is global warming caused by mankind?  Conversely, if we are discussing what winning looks like, either in the short term or the long term, then it hardly seems connected to a suggestion that everyone that gambles go to a psychologist.If Frank thinks that all who read this post need to be tested, then let big government, and his democrat friends pay for this.  Lets see.  How about taxing all casino owners so that everyone that wants a free psychology exam can have one?  This would be a stimulus that actually creates jobs!Thinking of VP results in terms of an arbitrary time frame is completely and always wrong, according to Frank.  Maybe Frank is right.  While Frank I think is a VP expert, does that make him an expert on time as well?  Regardless of who is right in how you define winning, can we all agree that we can make up our own definition of winning to suit the circumstances of our thinking?Imagine a person that wins $250,000 playing a wheel of fortune slot machine.  Would anyone expect that winning player to say, that he did not win anything.  Instead he just reduced his lifetime total losses?  I think it is logical for a person to think about lifetime losses/winnings, but it is completely wrong to tell gamblers that the only way that they can look at gaming is in terms of your entire lifetime.If I were to win the Power Ball lottery for 10 million dollars next week, I would be  able to say that for my lifetime I am a winner at gambling.  However, I would find this statement to be shallow.  For it does not take into account the hundreds of sessions at VP where I lost money.  Even after such a huge win, I would continue to be reminded of my many failures.In my mind the machine that I play next is connected to the session that I have next time I go to the casino.  And that session is tied to sessions that I have at other casinos during the same time span.  And finally, each session is tied to my lifetime session of gaming.  The whole is made up of the sum of its parts.  The whole does not stand alone!
There would be little point in sending everyone to psychologists since only those people that want to change would benefit. The suggestion was that if you were concerned you might have a problem and wanted to be sure, then go.You said, "The whole is made up of the sum of its parts.  The whole does not stand alone!". That is interesting because the point I was trying to make was that there are no parts.Looking at any subset of random results that takes less than the full value of total results is called sampling.  Looking at small samples when you could be looking at larger samples is considered a sampling error. Only when the full set of data is not available, is it considered acceptable in statistics to take a sample and hope that it is representational of the whole. A larger sample is always considered more accurate and encouraged.What you are suggesting in your post goes contrary to everything taught in every statistics class in every class room on this planet and probably a few others.All your results will always give you a better idea of what's going on than some of your results. This should be obvious. Why would you choose the less accurate path???

[brmcc74]

Well here is my new strategy. Since I play positive games, Im no longer gonna stop at x amount for a session. Im gonna exhaust the entire bkrl for each session unless I hit a rf. I am a guaranteed winner for life. THX Ive been looking at this the wrong way for a while. Now no matter how much $ I lose in a day, I will eventually get it back. Is that how my brain is supposed to work?  Ill drink the kool aid,

[jim18]

FrankYou are good at disagreeing with others.  Perhaps you were on a debating team in college?It is my understanding that when a woman asks a man what he thinks about a topic, that the woman is guilty of seeking affirmation of her own opinions, due to her feeling insecure over such feelings.  Perhaps a woman reader can make a post, which will explain this in more detail.  Anyway, I am not a woman, and I am not seeking affirmation of my view that I am not addicted to gambling.  However, thank you for your concern for me.The topic that you created, appears to not be a topic of widespread interest.  I have no idea why you brought up the topic.  It appears to me that you have made up your mind about how to define winning.  And that you want the rest of the world to define winning just as you do.What I have tried to do is to show you that I do not want to define winning the same way as you do.  However, if I were in a dialog with you, it would be good if both of us understand how the other was defining winning. Right now, I can say that you have made good points as to why winning is not  just the experiences of one session.  I agree with you, that you can define winning as you wish to.  You must feel that my agreement is not enough.  You are now more like a playground bully than a peer exchanging ideas.While I agree with you, that winning is the sum of the parts (the whole), I also want to pause and relish those parts of the whole that make me feel good about gambling.  Clarifying, I am saying that I can see how you might want to combine many sessions into a life long event.  While I can see the use for doing this, I am also saying that winning is not defined, as you intend it to be defined, by myself or most people.“Does any of that sink in?”    When you ask such a question I think you are saying that logically, your premisses lead you to make the conclusion that you then state.  This works fine for you, but it is not working for me.  I guess that I am saying that you have a logic error.“Because of this thinking, I find it bizarre in the extreme that people who are losing for their life can claim loss reductions as "winning". To be winning one must be ahead on the game, one would think that this would go without saying.”  This is another example of what I am saying politely to you.  You made statements, made a conclusion, and insist that they are absolutely correct, all of the time, in every context of speaking, and so forth.  Another fallacy on your part.Let people define winning how they want to, rather than getting upset when other people think differently that you do.  In other words, why not be more tolerant?  For that is how I am being in this situation.Case in point, according to my dictionary winning is not defined as some lifelong event.  Instead it is a specific event which takes place and the outcome is that someone is a winner.  This is completely opposite of your view of winning.  As far as I am concerned, you are holding a minority, non mainstream view of what winning is.  And you are not happy unless you can get all of us to change our definition of winning to the one you favor.  This is not going to happen.Using statistics to support an argument is great.  Using statistics to define the meaning of words is wrong.  Is 2 + 2 = 4?  Of course it is, except when that is not the case.  I am in the camp that says   the mainstream view,  that winning is what happens today, such as the Pittsburgh Steelers winning their game against the Cincinnati Bengals.  Where as you are in the camp that says that the answer is not 4, as we are using binary numbers, and the number 4 does not exist.Hopefully this will help you to see the error of your thinking.

[jim18]

Brmcc74I agree with you, I think.  You have said in one paragraph what I could not say in ten paragraphs.