It occurs to me that ...

[RS]

Depends how much VP you play, as well as game type (JOB, DW, DDB, JW, etc.) and how many lines you play (single, 3/5/10 play, 50 or 100 play). On JOB, you should hit a RF every 40K hands, or about every 40 hours (at 1000 HPH). But if you play 10-play, your variance goes way down and now you're looking at a RF cycle of about 5 hours (800 HPH on 10-play). And if you're playing something that is actually playable, you shouldn't be worrying about running bad on RF's, since your edge should well exceed the RF payback (about 2%). When you hit a RF, it feels more like bonus money, not "Now I'm finally ahead!" or "I'm back to even or -0.5%".

Being at 6M coin in, being down $250K of EV, given the "and still no royal" comment, I'd have to guess he's playing $25 DDB AND running bad on bonus 4oaks.

[Three]

I don't play a lot of VP as it is hard to get an edge on the game. I do play it whenever I can with an edge. I have hit one royal on a 1 line machine and 1 royal on the first line of a multi-line machine which right or wrong I equate to hitting a royal on a 1 line machine. For the game I usually play, JOB, I expect to hit a royal about every 40390 hands. I am sure I have played many many time that. The thing about rare events like this is some will never hit them while others will hit them much more often than expected. That is the nature of rare events. I have no clue when you are expected to approach expectation on the royal payout, like a royal n0, but it is much much much higher than 40390 hands.

I play a game with a side bet where there is a max payout that occurs about once every 347,000 bets made and I have hit it more than once. Most players never hit this payout in their lifetime. I have never encounter another player that has hit it. At 1000 hours per year and the typical game speed it would take about 6 years to get to where you have played the 347,000 hands. I hit mine inside of 6 months of play. This is the nature of rare events. Some are going to get way more than their share of the payouts and many others will languish never hitting it so things will balance out to expectation in all players in aggregate.

Assuming you are not going to hit the payout is poor stats but a reasonable assumption in the short run.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"Since when is emotional attachment to money a bad thing."

Not exactly a recent notion. Since the Dawn of Recorded History.

"The Love of Money is the Root of all Evil."

Does that sound at all familiar to you ?

[shorty 2]

Not exactly a recent notion. Since the Dawn of Recorded History.

"The Love of Money is the Root of all Evil."

Does that sound at all familiar to you ?

yes my mother used to say that to us.
another thinker is this,
In this world there is good and evil,no in-between

[marriedputter]

This reminds me of prospect theory:

Option A: You have an 80% chance of winning $4,000, but a 20% chance you win nothing.


Option B: You have a 100% chance of winning $3,000.


Which would you choose and why?


Option A: You have an 80% chance of losing $4,000, but a 20% chance that you lose nothing.


Option B: You lose $3,000 for sure.

The answer is "A" in the first set and "B" in the second set. Most people reverse them though, especially choosing "A" in the second set.

[Freightman]

This reminds me of prospect theory:

Option A: You have an 80% chance of winning $4,000, but a 20% chance you win nothing.


Option B: You have a 100% chance of winning $3,000.


Which would you choose and why?


Option A: You have an 80% chance of losing $4,000, but a 20% chance that you lose nothing.


Option B: You lose $3,000 for sure.

The answer is "A" in the first set and "B" in the second set. Most people reverse them though, especially choosing "A" in the second set.

With multiple kicks at the cat, and with more and more kicks at the cat, your correct answers are proper. However, with only 1 kick at the cat, what would the risk averse person do?

[marriedputter]

With multiple kicks at the cat, and with more and more kicks at the cat, your correct answers are proper. However, with only 1 kick at the cat, what would the risk averse person do?

I suppose I should have given the background of this experiment.

In March, 1979, two Israeli psychologists published an article that rocked the field of economics. Previously, economists assumed that humans were, for the most part, rational beings who weighed value and probability to maximize their "utility." The two psychologists suggested that this was not just overly simplistic, but was simply wrong. Humans were not always rational. In fact, they were predictably irrational. Instead of deliberating within the laws of logic, people consistently use mental shortcuts, or "heuristics," which lead to systematic biases in how we make decisions under uncertainty.

In their famous paper, these two psychologists, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, proposed an alternative framework to model human decision-making, which they called "prospect theory." They focused on choices involving uncertainty, some between two possible financial gains, and others between two possible losses. As they wrote, for example, consider which of the following, A or B, would you prefer? Option A involves an 80% chance you win $4,000, but a 20% chance you win nothing. Option B guarantees you win $3,000 for sure.

If you're like the majority of participants in their study, you chose B. When it comes to gaining stuff, you prefer certainty over risk-taking, even if the expected value (e.g., value times probability) of the gamble is slightly higher. Now, consider you were at risk to lose money. Which of the following options, C or D, would you prefer? Option C involves an 80% chance you lose $4,000, but a 20% chance you lose nothing. Option D guarantees you will lose $3,000 for sure.

Although the amount of the losses and gains are the same, like the majority of people, you likely now chose C. Contrary to classical economic theory, our preferences aren't always so consistent: when it comes to losing we prefer risk-taking, but when it comes to winning we prefer certainty.

The original paper has since been cited almost 9,000 times, and Kahenman later won the nobel prize in 2002 for bridging the gap between economics and psychology (Tversky had died of cancer before the award was officially anounced). It also helped spur a tsunami of research, as psychologists and economists worked to elucidate the many other biases in everyday decision making. Today, almost 200 cognitive biases, fallacies, heuristics, effects, and illusions have been elucidated, comprising a whole new sub-field of psychology (which economists call "behavioral economics").

Still, many interesting questions remain in the field. For instance, between the negativity bias, optimism bias, overconfidence, and underconfidence, we tend to have a somewhat distorted view of ourselves. Whereas these biases at times can be useful, recentresearch shows that accurate self-knowledge is important for the quality of relationships. In what other situations is accurate self-perception important? And how can we improve accuracy when we want it?

In addition, although the hot hand fallacy has been studied extensively in sports (i.e., basketball players, for the most part, don't actually get "hot," we just mistakenly see patterns in randomness, particularly when it comes to streaks), few researchers have looked at how a sense of hot or cold hand, or momentum bias, may transfer across different activities or domains. In particular, after a streak of good or bad random events, to what extent do we develop an illusion of self-efficacy or a more generalized hot or cold hand beyond the change in our emotions? And what is stronger, the hot hand or the cold hand fallacy?

I originally read about this question in a paper that was talking about how people approach the stock market, which I am heavily involved in. So this is definitely not a one-time choice, but rather a recurring decision to be made in a constantly moving market. The lesson, in a nutshell, is that you are to "let your winners run" and "stop your losses short." It is meant to change one's investment philosophy which is so often wrong. Most people, as ZMF stated, attach emotion to their investing decisions. The emotion at hand is usually fear. They buy after the stock is already overpriced because they "fear" that they are going to miss out and they get in too late. When the stock inevitably drops, through fear again, they do not want to accept that they are going to lose so they continue to hold onto the stock. They will often however finally proceed to sell at the worst possible time. So "buy low and sell high" becomes "buy high and sell low," which is obviously the opposite of what one should do.
It would be an understatement to say that blackjack is a volatile undertaking. It takes so much trust and self-control. While the stock market is volatile at times, it is more "passive" from most people's point of view. They just "buy it and forget it." With blackjack, it is "active." An AP may have to helplessly watch as their bankroll diminishes week after week in a sudden turn of variance. Self-control is paramount in this situation. They must stick to the plan.
This is why one of my favorite investing weapons is the Married Put (hence my username). I like knowing that my potential gain is infinite while my potential loss is limited. After all, the only thing that I can 100% control in the stock market is how much I can potentially lose. I therefore like choosing investing instruments that give me this option.
I know that you are a smart guy Freightman, so all of this is probably pretty obvious to you. Hopefully my comments will help other readers out there as well though, lurkers included.
To answer your question though, I think it all comes down to preference. If it were a one-time choice, I would still go for the $4,000 win and the $3,000 loss, but that is just me. I like those odds. It would satisfy the part of me that wants to "gamble" while still giving me justification for my choice by knowing that I am still making the correct mathematical decision. However, would I still make the same decision if I added one, two, or more zeros to those numbers? Hmmm.....THAT question is even more fun!

[Bodarc]

Option A involves an 80% chance you win $4,000, but a 20% chance you win nothing. Option B guarantees you win $3,000 for sure

.80X4,000=3,200
1. X3,000=3,000

Difference 200

Would I take a 20% chance of losing it all for a measly $ 200?

If this was a 1 time deal, I would not. If it was a continuing bet, I would.

[marriedputter]

.80X4,000=3,200
1. X3,000=3,000

Difference 200

Would I take a 20% chance of losing it all for a measly $ 200?

If this was a 1 time deal, I would not. If it was a continuing bet, I would.

I still would because the $1000 difference is just not that much to me. I would go for the $4,000. If it were $4,000,000 vs. $3,000,000 though, we would be in agreement.

[Boz]

I don't understand the point of this thread. I hate the implication that an AP doesn't care if he loses his entire bankroll, so long as he had +EV! It's so trite and wrong. I don't care about +EV, I care about actual results. I know there are some people who track their EV--which makes no sense to me. Why? Stats junkie? EV is a math tool used to achieve those positive results. Just like any ploppy, I'd take luck any day. Unfortunately, I have the knowledge that luck has a way of evening out and not actually existing, unless you wanna equate luck with variance.

I've never noticed an attachment to money being an actual handicap to a newbie. It's thinking card counting is a get-rich-quick scheme--that's the handicap. They have a $200 bankroll and they bet $70 per hand, and they don't think perfect basic strategy is important enough to learn because the counting part is what's important. I'd say not being attached enough to the money they have is a handicap. It takes discipline and patience. And that's what the newbie lacks. All these sucky non-"AP's" don't lose money to the casino because they are too attached to their money--it's because they read a paragraph in a book about card counting and pissed away a bunch of their money for no good reason.

[Three]

I know there are some people who track their EV--which makes no sense to me. Why? Stats junkie?

There are lots of reasons. Here are some of the best:
1) To know how close your results are tracking to EV.
2) Tracking how good a day you had concerning wonging etc. All you can do is maximize EV and hope for the best. If you log a low EV consistently you should consider changing your approach to the game.
3) Errors in your play can be flagged by consistently coming in below EV.

That being said playing in the casino has constantly changing dynamics that the sim will never accurately represent. You have varying pen by dealer. Players jumping in and out of the shoe. You have heat considerations. You have game speed considerations. You have dealer error considerations. When wonging out these things are considered but also table availability number of cards left in the shoe. If leaving the casino is the option how far to the next game if your aren't calling it a day. Then you have varying opportunities and table betting restrictions based on time of day and casino procedures like opening new tables and changing cards. They are all dynamic situations with some benefits that can be planned for if you know the casino procedural rhythms and player tends. You can do your best but can't plan accurately knowing all this. You make your best plans to get the best of what you are looking for and make daily adjustments according to what you actually find that day. Such a changing dynamic environment can never be simmed accurately. I sim what I can accurately and if I use my ability to try to maximize adjusting to the dynamics of playing in the casino I know the sim results will be conservative.

So factoring in the dynamics of actual casino play, the plusses of tracking EV get watered down a lot.

[Boz]

So factoring in the dynamics of actual casino play, the plusses of tracking EV get watered down a lot.

Well, I'd think so! And it's impossible to track each hand without some sort of illegal device, so you're guestimating. I think it's absolutely useless and a giant waste of time.

[Stealth]

Well, I'd think so! And it's impossible to track each hand without some sort of illegal device, so you're guestimating. I think it's absolutely useless and a giant waste of time.

If you are a "lone wolf" then certainly you only need to know "actual results", any type of other affiliations such as small or large teams (or a professional, IMO) would be foolish to not track the results for a myriad of valid reasons.

It may be impossible to track every hand but it is not impossible to have a tracing protocol and systems that is accurate enough to make comparisons of your sessions results to model's like cvdata and cvcx.