There were three nuns waiting to be blessed. The priest asked the first nun, "Have you ever touched a penis?"
She says, "I touched one once with my finger." The priest says, "Put your finger in holy water and say three Hail Mary's." It's now the second nun's turn. The priest asks her the same question, but before she can respond the third nun runs in front of her and says, "I'm not going to gargle that water after she sticks her ass in it!"
A reader sent me a copy of another persons post from another Message Board. I had already seen it, but I hadn't commented on it. It's pretty much my policy that I only respond to post here on Irishsetter's Message Board.
Here's the gist of the e-mail:
"I read on one of the other Craps Message Boards where someone wrote:
'This year I had a 83% win rate with a fair $$ win for the year. Last year I won 87% of my sessions and STILL ended up down a few bucks. Still, for the 5 years I've been tracking these things I'm up substantially (a nice 5 figure number) but WAY below what it would take to support a wife, two kids, and the rest of my bad habits.'
The reader continued:
"That doesn't make any sense. If the house-edge on craps is about 1.5%, and a guy wins about 85% of the time, then how the hell could he still lose money? If someone could be right 85% of the time, they could be rich. What's wrong with that guy?"
I could answer this in one sentence.
He let the losses from 15% of his losing sessions outpace the profits from 85% of the winning ones.
I'll explain a little further. Let's say that you have eight winning sessions for every two losing ones. That would give you an 80% win-rate. That's a great win-to-loss ratio right?
Now let's say that each winning session averaged $80, for a win-total of $640.
Now, let's say that he had a loss-limit of $500 per session, and he reached that limit on his two losing sessions. Those two losing sessions ate up ALL the profit from all those winning session, and for good measure, it also ate away at his bankroll.
When I tell you that I win 19-out-of-20 sessions, it is true.
However, if I didn't have tight loss limits, that ONE single, solitary losing session could eat up all the profit from the nineteen winning ones.
Will I let that happen? Are you insane? Will others let that happen to their bankroll? Sure they will, until they decide to severely limit their losses.
When I talk about iron-willed discipline, do you think that I'm kidding?
Let's say that I knew that my average winning session generated $250 in profit. For nineteen sessions, that would generate $4,750. Now, let's say that I set my loss-limit to a maximum of $500 for that rare losing session. That means that I would net $4,250 for every twenty sessions. That's not a bad profit, and it sure looks a lot better than winning 85% of the sessions, and just breaking-even.
Look, it's not rocket-science when it comes to money-management. It's just common-sense. Figure out what your average winning session generates. Calculate the number of winning to losing sessions. From that point, it isn't too difficult to figure out what a reasonable loss-limit would be.
The most difficult part is sticking to those limits. And that my friend is what will mean the difference between making a decent living, or complaining how profit passed you by. It was there right in front of you. You only have to reach out, grab it, and not give it back to the casino.
Good Luck & Good Skill at the Tables…and in Life.
The Mad Professor