Small winnings

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
It is possible to set a reasonable target each day and cash it out. Some days things will go wrong and you have to learn to accept this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not quit when he is $1 up? The next game he plays is the next game he plays. No matter when he plays it. Setting daily goals like this only limits his hourly rate.

Great prespective. I understand.

I was thinking along the lines of the "quit while you're ahead" mentality of purely chance games like slots, which I assume is about the same odds for below average poker players. I understand the swings, but I was thinking, if I was very conservative, I could get up by at least $20 at some point, assuming the swing goes both ways.

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking along the lines of the "quit while you're ahead" mentality of purely chance games like slots, which I assume is about the same odds for below average poker players. I understand the swings, but I was thinking, if I was very conservative, I could get up by at least $20 at some point, assuming the swing goes both ways.

[/ QUOTE ]
This mentality won't win you money at slots. And it won't work for a lousy poker player.

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking along the lines of the "quit while you're ahead" mentality of purely chance games like slots, which I assume is about the same odds for below average poker players. I understand the swings, but I was thinking, if I was very conservative, I could get up by at least $20 at some point, assuming the swing goes both ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very bad. Quitting while you're ahead doesn't accomplish anything.

[SonnyJay]

Expectation is expectation. If you play enough your results will tend to shift toward your theoretical expected value. "Quitting when you're ahead" doesn't mean anything if you plan on playing every day...your sample size will be huge enough in time that your average will begin to show.

It's true that, when playing a -EV game, the best way to play it (other than to completely avoid it, which is better) is to maximize the standard deviation in some way, but the standard deviation shrinks dramatically as the sample size increases. If you have to play roulette one time, the best thing to do would be to put your entire roll on red or black for one spin rather than sitting at the table for 5 hours and playing every spin. Your expectation is still negative, but your standard deviation for the session will be huge since it's only one spin. However, if you do this every night for a year you'll likely find yourself stuck at the mathematical -EV outcome.

If you're a -EV or slightly +EV player, "quitting while you're up $20" every day will still eventually lead to your EV, due to the fact that there will be days when you're down way more than $20. If you can be a winning player, set aside X number of hours every day and just play. If you don't feel you can do it (or don't feel you can do it to the level where you can make enough $ for you to be satisfied) then I'd probably look elsewhere.

-SonnyJay

[splashpot]

[ QUOTE ]
It's true that, when playing a -EV game, the best way to play it (other than to completely avoid it, which is better) is to maximize the standard deviation in some way, but the standard deviation shrinks dramatically as the sample size increases. If you have to play roulette one time, the best thing to do would be to put your entire roll on red or black for one spin rather than sitting at the table for 5 hours and playing every spin. Your expectation is still negative, but your standard deviation for the session will be huge since it's only one spin. However, if you do this every night for a year you'll likely find yourself stuck at the mathematical -EV outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]
From an EV standpoint, maximizing SD does nothing.

[ghostface]

[ QUOTE ]
How difficult would it be to consistently earn and pull out about $400 per month ($15-20 per day)? What is the best way to accomplish this?

I am a low income guy and I figure if I could get remotely good, I could earn at least what I would make at a minimum wage part time fast food gig.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post in more forums.

[SonnyJay]

Absolutely. You should just not play. But given that you've made the bad decision to play, the fewer hands the better, ie. the best chance to have an up session given that you're betting this amount.

But definitely, don't play at all.

-SonnyJay

[PinkSteel]

[ QUOTE ]
It's true that, when playing a -EV game, the best way to play it (other than to completely avoid it, which is better) is to maximize the standard deviation in some way, but the standard deviation shrinks dramatically as the sample size increases. If you have to play roulette one time, the best thing to do would be to put your entire roll on red or black for one spin rather than sitting at the table for 5 hours and playing every spin. Your expectation is still negative, but your standard deviation for the session will be huge since it's only one spin. However, if you do this every night for a year you'll likely find yourself stuck at the mathematical -EV outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your logic is correct but your conclusion that playing a single time for your roll is always preferable to playing N times for 1/N of your roll is wrong. Which choice is better depends on the individual's preference for specific outcomes, given that both are the same -EV.

If I'm (forced to be) playing roulette with my entire life's savings, I will prefer to make 10,000 small bets, knowing that in the end I'll be down about 5%. But I'll much prefer the near certainty of just dropping 5% than to take the risk of losing everything I have in one go.

On the other hand, if I'm playing for a plane ticket out of Casablanca, and the only acceptable result is that I double up my roll or I can't afford the ticket, then one throw is the way to go. While EV is the same as spinning 1,000 times with 1/1000 of my stake, my chance of realizing a particular outsized gain is maximized by minimizing the number of trials.

Depends on the individual's "utility preference function", as the economists would say.