I could argue that moving machines when it's futile costs the effort
to make it, but that would only distract from the potential greater
cost. Moving machines, assuming they have identical paytables and
work mechanically identically, means that one believes that the recent
losing streak on the first machine means that its expected value is
worse than the second machine. By how much? There's no reason to
limit this difference. What's to stop the player with this
misconception from moving from a 10/7 machine to a 9/7 machine? Is
there any reason to assume that the player believes the "trend" cost
of playing the first machine is less than 1.1%?
rob wrote:
>The reason people have so much difficulty leaving a machine that isn't producing winning hands is because they keep trying to "teach it a lesson". It can never hurt to switch from such machines, and the psychological factor alone is worth the break in the action for most players.
>
>Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone
>
>----- Reply message -----
>From: "Tom Robertson" <007@embarqmail.com>
>To: <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: [vpFREE] Math v. Superstition?
>Date: Tue, Dec 13, 2011 7:05 pm
>armchairpresident wrote:
>
>
>
>>I have not moved from machines that are taking my money
>
>
>
>If you replaced "are taking" with "took," that should eliminate a lot
>
>of misconceptions. The phrase "are taking" is based on an
>
>unsupportable, hopelessly complicated theory.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
