Roulette The Stop Loss and Stop Win Fallacies

the 2 biggest gambler's fallacies are that betting based on patterns from the past and/or betting progressions (varying the size of bets) can be used to overcome the house advantage

but the 3rd fallacy is talked about less

it is the stop loss and/or stop win fallacy

first, to be clear, a stop loss and/or a stop win can have value for the recreational player simply because they are playing for less time so they have spent less time exposing themselves to the house advantage.
so a stop loss and/or a stop win can benefit them because in the long run and they will lose less

gamblers with fallacies often say that they're not playing for the long run - that they're only playing for a few hours at a time

but when you add up all the hours from all of those many sessions it can become an amount of time long enough so that their actual loss will be very close in dollars to their expected loss which is based on the total amount wagered and the relative house advantage


first about the stop win:

some gamblers say that stopping after winning a certain amount enables them to overcome the house advantage. this would be true if they never came back again after their first win but that is not their reality. they come back again and again.

so, obviously, the stop win cannot enable them to overcome the house advantage

with the stop loss players believe that they have limited their losses

but this is not true because they come back the next day or whenever

to believe that this is true a person would have to believe that the gambler is more likely to win on a different day then he is if he continued playing on the same day

why would the emboldened statement above be true?

no reason at all. except that gamblers say it is true




these gamblers believe there is a gambling clock and by employing a stop loss and/or a stop win they have stopped the gambling clock and will be better off on a different day



but there is no gambling clock. it is artificial.





the gambling clock exists only inside the gambler's mind

 

Today's word for the day is "fallacy."

Regarding disagreement in general we have the common "group think" fallacy of marginalizing anyone or anything that risks exposing the possibility that it's recipient might not know something. That implication alone implies stupidity and is in fact an insult to them that can't be tolerated. So all disagreement must be quashed. The messenger must be destroyed because there is no way that a possibility for supporting their bizarre needs will ever become known. These type of people are massively needy and tend to act as control freaks. They are easily identifiable as NPD or at least Codependent personality types. With today's acceptance of destroying any opposition messengers by labeling them, they think to protect their fantasy of knowing just about everything. That's where it easily gets identified as some sort of accepted narcissism. So this fear of being discovered is processed by projection, castigation, and another fallacy that they belong to a superior group. It's way easier to label someone in opposition and to then congratulate one's self that the fake life is once again protected from uninvited criticism and ridicule. It's funny to watch as it occurs on a daily basis these days. These perceptions of criticisms and the implication of an ignorance are all fallacies in themselves.

I'm glad I don't need to fake myself out every day.

"first, to be clear, a stop loss and/or a stop win can have value for the recreational player simply because they are playing for less time so they have spent less time exposing themselves to the house advantage.
so a stop loss and/or a stop win can benefit them because in the long run and they will lose less"

This must be disagreed with on the basis of actually discussing it further in detail without any need for labeling it as being deficient in intellect or experience.

My informed experience is that the stop win or stop loss will occur without regard to how long one plays. In a 100 spin session a won session could occur at spin 88 or at spin 22. A lost session could occur at spin 17 or spin 99. In all those sessions the EC bet will probably run on average at the expectation rate of 47 lost spins for every 100 spins. There is no fallacy for anything being due. Whatever happens will be random. But more importantly, there won't be a fallacy of expectation for playing less and therefore exposing less. I can beat any session that has one huge losing streak and one huge winning streak in it. I de-fund the losing streak and fund the win streak. I can do this because of cognitive recognition of conditional awareness and not because of magical beliefs or magical self protection while discussing topics of gambling. I win at the table and I win on forums because I don't take disagreement as a personal criticism. Discussing this topic does not need actual defensive mechanisms. Now, we know even more about your opinion. I suggest you come up with a new word for the day. I deserve a more applicable label. Tempting, isn't it? And I know you didn't actually site me as the cause for this topic. So you always have that easy out to your advantage. Here is a warning for you. I have been discussing and defending the merits of playing trends for more than 14 years on gambling forums. We put to bed gamblers' fallacy more than a decade ago. Just about everyone with experience knows all about faking yourself out. Magical beliefs don't work as straw man, red herring, or muddy the waters tactics in gambling debates. It's considered sophomoric. You are trying to win a straw man argument but have failed to recognize that the topic is actually about coincidence and awareness of changing conditions. I would even go as far as suggesting that you don't even believe in conditions that change. If all you want to do is label others and make your stand on your toadstool then take the safe and easy route. You are living the dream.

 

So let's debate this topic without labeling people:

I suspect that you believe everything you have written about stop losses and stop wins.

This should surprise you too. I agree completely with that. It tends to validate itself in long term aggregation of sessions that the mathematical win rate follows the math perfectly. On EC bets I expect an average 47 wins and 53 losses for every 100 spins. But what I do is not a fallacy. It is a skill to target win streaks. So I'm saying that you can know when you are in a win streak and you can know when you are in anything else other than a win streak. That is the real topic with regards to how I use stop wins and stop losses. These choices are not blind bets. I have proven that a beginner student can get a 2 to 1 win rate in 30 days of training and continue that win rate for another 30 days. I did it just to prove to myself I could teach the world and destroy all table gambling games in casinos in the process, any time I want to. This would end up being a total repudiation of mathematical assumptions. That group-think tactic would crumble. It might even lead to suicides. Perhaps the suggestion to "drop dead" would be considered hate speech. So I'm just floating the idea to get a new trick.

 

in my OP I wrote this and it is erroneous and I apologize for that:



"First, to be clear, a stop loss and/or a stop win can have value for the recreational player simply because they are playing for less time so they have spent less time exposing themselves to the house advantage.
so a stop loss and/or a stop win can benefit them because in the long run they will lose less"


I meant to say that they will lose less than if they had played for the same number of days and played for longer hours on those same days betting the same amount on each spin


their total amount wagered will be less so their expected loss will be less