It varies among us. But, for many, it's whether to cash out or continue when they reach a logical closure point with a profit that seems less at the moment than it will be later. Everybody know what to do if they go bust. They call it a day and head for the all-you-can-eat buffet.
The dilemma involves the opposite situation. You make some money. By no means sufficient to change your life, but more than a day at your regular job.
Here is a scenario:
You buy in at a $25 BJ table for $1,000. You play perfect and bet by the count and press your bets while wining on positive. Half an hour later, you have $1,500 in front of you. This $500 cash profit is more than you've ever be paid in a day at your regular job.
Some players quit at such junctures. The good part is they keep what they've already won. The bad part is they'll never know what would have happened had they forged on. Even watching the table doesn't provide this insight because the act of leaving affects the flow of the game in indeterminate ways.
Others keeps going, but sets loss limits which still leave them with some profit. Wonderful when winnings soar. But when they sour, realistically, it's tough to stop on the way back down. Remember? Many folks tell themselves they will, then shift gears when they get there and try to regain the past peak maybe successfully, maybe not. As for those who do leave at the lower level, again the verdict is mixed. Some are satisfied at what they keep, others regret earning less than they would not have quit.
Now, "quit when you're ahead," is far easier to say than done. These are highly personal decisions, influenced not only by private goals but also by factors such as duration and frequency of play, swings before reaching a natural break point, and the pain associated with a given loss in contrast to the pleasure afforded by some low level of win.
However, I think it's wise to frame a philosophy in advance, apart from the heat of the action. Will I be happy with a modest profit or am I willing to blow an initial stake or intermediate winnings on a shot at a big return?
Then there's the decision you have to make on the spot. How good will you feel taking home what you've won? How much better would you consider half again or twice as much compared to how much worse you'd regard giving half or more back?
What motivates one bettor isn't necessarily what inspires the next. Some players are aggressive, others are risk averse. My own approach is to play conservatively, looking to grab the money at a break point when I'm ahead by more than a few units. Lots of good gamblers do differently. Who's to decree one or another approach as right or wrong?
