Definition of Winning

[jm002546]

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. I understand it.  A computer is able to consider every possible hand and every possible hold for every hand, and actually compute the expected return for every possibility.  Played perfectly, as the number of hands played approaches infinity, the experienced return will approach the machine payout expectation.

[shadowman]

We all place our definitions within a frame of reference. Without the framework the meaning of words become ambiguous.
 
Winning only has meaning within a framework. Somewhat akin to Einstein's Theory of Relativity this simply means it's all relative. If the Indianapolis Colts win their next game it will not turn it into a winning season. But notice how two different terms are used here. Winning game vs. winning season. Two different frames of reference.
 
Yesterday I had a bad day gambling and lost about $2K. So, does the fact that I have a lifetime win over 6 figures in size mean I did not lose? Hmmmm, I guess I should have felt really good from that session yet I did not walk away bubbling with joy. Must be something wrong with me.
 
Of course, Frank is correct in his statements as long as you use his frame of reference. I think he is simply trying to get people to expand their frames of reference and look at gambling from a larger viewpoint. He recognizes that if people look at it this way they may be influenced to gamble less. That appears to be his objective.

[shadowman]

[QUOTE=brmcc74]
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.

 I understand it.  A computer is able to consider every possible hand and every possible hold for every hand, and actually compute the expected return for every possibility.  Played perfectly, as the number of hands played approaches infinity, the experienced return will approach the machine payout expectation.
[/QUOTE]


 
Correct, that's exactly how a game's return is computed. It is simply the average over all possible deals and draws.
 
However, it's also important to understand that individual results will vary around this average. Almost no one will see the exact average. That is the influence of randomness. As a result you will see people who lose money playing positive games and win money playing negative games.
 
However, MORE people will win if they play games with a higher average return. Since there is little else we can do to influence our future results, then playing the best possible game using the best possible strategy is the only thing we can do to improve our chances of winning.

[royal flush]

like me with live poker which i play more now then vp as few good games and my edge is larger on live poker but more short term variance. like the stock market which 60 minutes further showed the public that it is "rigged". the reality is certain players have an edge members of congress, frontrunning programs et al. the mutual fund investors are playing a negitive expected value game the only edge is writing options naked puts covered calls with a deep enough bankroll to cover the varience, mr Buffett is only talking his own book as "buy and hold" for the public does not yield the returns he has had lately as he is offered terms that no one else can get. like any game find an edge and exploit it

[Frank Kneeland]

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,Gosh you really have a strange way of looking at things and manage to interpret  even good advice in a way that would be self destructive. Ignoring daily results for the purpose of goal setting doesn't mean one should have no goals. And who said anything about playing until you get a jackpot (non-progressive)?One plays until a time limit or points goal is reached, and then leaves for the day to rest.How about 4-6 hours max per day, which keeps it under the average body stress level. Adjust for health issue.Please note that in the event you were playing positive expectancy machines properly bankrolled using your suggested method, one would never exhaust their bankroll. It's 99% probably that they will only increase it, and at the very lest, with proper bankroll it would take you 30x what the human body is capable of playing in a single session to put a dent in it.If there is even a tiny chance of going bust in a single session, you are playing with about 1 100th of the bankroll you should have and playing so far over your head the oxygen must be getting thin. My cool-aid is just a low price beverage favored by kids. Not sure what's in yours.

[Frank Kneeland]

We all place our definitions within a frame of reference. Without the framework the meaning of words become ambiguous.
 
Winning only has meaning within a framework. Somewhat akin to Einstein's Theory of Relativity this simply means it's all relative. If the Indianapolis Colts win their next game it will not turn it into a winning season. But notice how two different terms are used here. Winning game vs. winning season. Two different frames of reference.
 
Yesterday I had a bad day gambling and lost about $2K. So, does the fact that I have a lifetime win over 6 figures in size mean I did not lose? Hmmmm, I guess I should have felt really good from that session yet I did not walk away bubbling with joy. Must be something wrong with me.
 
Of course, Frank is correct in his statements as long as you use his frame of reference. I think he is simply trying to get people to expand their frames of reference and look at gambling from a larger viewpoint. He recognizes that if people look at it this way they may be influenced to gamble less. That appears to be his objective.Excellent post. Couple of things. My goal is to get people that gamble well to gamble better, and to get people that gamble poorly to gamble less. It would be nice to think that we could get people that gamble poorly to gamble better, but unfortunately time has taught me that this is nearly impossible. People that like to gamble simply have too many cognitive distortions to ever improve in any meaningful way. If it is possible, I have never seen it in 23 years in the biz. The better get better and the worse get worse.Your analogy was spot on about frame of reference, except for the fact that football games do have a beginning and an ending and the rules of the game impose a time limited tally. It is also not a completely random event nor is it independent since seasonal records are calculated on the games of that year.  All frames of reference in gambling other than your lifetime results are imposed and illusory. There is no rule book other than the one people make up in their own heads.As an example one could keep records for their odd and even numbered hands and double their chances of "winning" everyday. They might lose on their odd numbered hands, but book a winner on their even numbered hands. Smoke and mirrors nothing more. Their true results would be a combination of ALL their hands, not merely some of them.Kapish?

[Frank Kneeland]

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.
Very good points and I'm sorry if my posts came off that way. As it happens my outlook on "winning" happens to match with what the psychological community thinks is a functional way of looking at things with a minimum chance for developing pathalogical gambling. The similarity is coincidental, as I thought this way before I read all the recent books I did on psychology and sociology.But the entire reason for this thread was not to tell you what I think. It was to paraphrase information on what the current thinking in the psychological community considers to be serious risk factors for gambling problems.If you think any of this stuff is purely my ideas, then I have failed badly. I have added humor, but not much else. Suggested reading, Best Possible Odds by William G McCown & The Drunkard's Walk--How Randomness Rules Our Lives by Leonard Mlodinow.I am not trying to change how people think. I am just letting them know that for some, their way of thinking on this subject of "winning" is considered a major risk factor for gambling problems. And that's for sure not me saying that. I had no idea that this was an issue before reading up on the subject.And in closing I would also agree with you that posting information on a VP site about what psychologists consider to be a mild form of insanity, that likely the large majority of people there have, would not be popular. Little point in keeping the information to myself, or posting where I would get nothing but agreement. I actually felt that if I had kept this to myself I would have been socially remiss.I will resume posting "how to play VP better" advice...and drop this subject. If you have any more questions, please check out the books I suggested, or any modern psychology book with a large section on pathological gambling risk factors. And sorry for being the messenger, please don't shoot me, or at least not in the face.So it's not about me being right or you being wrong. It's that looking at lifetime records is seen by psychologists as having less potential for abuse and addiction. Primarily this is because it is less fun. In psychology: (gambling + fun = bad).P.S. No, not on any debating team. I really care about people, it's not an act I use to win arguments.

[Frank Kneeland]

We have a vote to drop this subject by jim18. I would like to second that motion and move for a change of subject. Enough has been said for now.If anyone has anymore questions on this topic please direct them to me in an email. Thanks.

[New2vp]

Can we really end this thread withOUT determining conclusively who was WINNING the discussion?  (Feel free to use your favorite definition of "winning" in your adjudication.)

[Frank Kneeland]

Can we really end this thread withOUT determining conclusively who was WINNING the discussion?  (Feel free to use your favorite definition of "winning" in your adjudication.)

Here I would define "winning" as me sharing what the psych community currently has to say on the subject. If anyone read the posts I'm good with that. Sharing information was my only goal, I believe I achieved this. Agreement was never a requirement.Some of the books I read are $100+ for psychologists only tomes, that are likely not on any best selling list. I thought some people might like to know what was being said behind only slightly ajar doors that to most might as well be closed.~FK