How to combine math and intuition when playing

1) Idea in one paragraph

Intuition is not a substitute for mathematics (RTP/EV, risk, bankroll), but can be a source of hypotheses and fine-tuning within predefined boundaries. You build a framework of strict rules (bet, limits, feet), and intuition allow only micro-corrections that do not worsen risk control and do not cancel stop rules.

2) Two-circuit solution model

Loop A - Rigid (required):

Mathematics base: RTP/EV, volatility, Hit Frequency (if slots), commissions/promo → calculation HE (_\text{eff}).
Bet size: bank share/spin bet or fixed u.
Limiters: stop loss, break profit, time limit, DD drawdown limit.
Procedures: session log, ROI/ σ check, JD, A/B test plan.

Contour B - Soft (optional, strictly limited):

Intuitive signals ("this slot is played smoother," "this line seems underestimated") affect only secondary choices: a choice of several equal EV options, the pace of the game, pause/continue to stops.
Any adjustment is strictly capitalized (for example, ± 10-20% to the base rate, a slot change within the same RTP class).

Iron rule: Loop B never overrides Loop A rules.

3) How to limit the influence of intuition (so that it does not "pull" the bank)

We enter the "intuition corridor":

Cap on the bet: (u '=\min\big (u\cdot (1 +\gamma s),, u_{\max}\big)), where (s\in [-1,1]) is your subjective signal, (\gamma) (for example, 0. 2) - maximum permissible influence.
Cap by frequency: no more than (K) consecutive decisions initiated by intuition (for example, 3), then a mandatory pause and recalculation of metrics.
No "stop movement": stop loss/time limit unchanged at any (s).

4) Intuition calibration: turning sensations into data

1. Digitize the signal: put (s\in {-1, -0. 5,0, +0. 5, +1}).

2. Log outcomes, ROI, σ, time.

3. Count the Brier score for your probabilistic estimates (if you give p before the bet) and build calibration bins (is it really 60% happens ≈60%).

4. Compare ROI and RAROI between solutions with (s> 0) and (s\le 0). If there are no differences or worse, cut (\gamma) or turn off intuition for this type of decision.

5) Soft integration formulas with mathematics

5. 1. Micro probability bias (for p-rated bets)

If your model gives (p) and the variance of the estimate (\sigma _ p), and the "flair" gives the sign (s):

[
p' = \mathrm{clip}\big(p + \lambda, s, \sigma_p,; p_{\min},; p_{\max}\big), ]

where (\lambda\in [0,1]) is the weight of intuition (e.g. 0. 3). Next, use Kelly's share of (p ') (better ⅓ Kelly's ½) with a rate cap.

5. 2. No change in probability (slots, RTP fixed)

We change only the pace/rate within the corridor:

[
u' = \min\big(u\cdot(1+\gamma s),, u_{\max}\big), \quad \gamma\le 0. 2.
]

It is forbidden to raise (u) with negative expectation above the corridor - "intuition" cannot interrupt the house.

6) Scenario practice

A) Slots (RTP known, EV ≤ 0, play for time/promo)

Contour A: select the slot with the maximum available RTP and suitable volatility; calculate HE (_\text{eff}) with promo; specify (u), stop loss = 1. 5 × expected wear, time limit.

Contour B: if heaviness is "felt" (s = − 0. 5/ − 1) - decrease (u) by 10-20% or pause for 5-10 minutes; if "goes straight" (s = + 0. 5/+ 1) - increase (u) by a maximum of 10-15% without changing the stops.

Disabling criterion B: if the actual "cost of turnover" worsens at (s> 0), the influence of intuition is reduced to zero.

B) Bets with model (have own p)

Contour A: lines with expected EV> 0, rate = ⅓ - Kelly ½, DD limit 20-30%, correlation limit between events.

Contour B: shift p → (p ') according to formula 5. 1 с (\lambda\le 0. 3), cap per share: (f '\le 1. 2 f).

Hygiene: if for 100-200 cases (\text {ROI} (s> 0 )\le\text {ROI} (s\le 0)) - (\lambda\to 0).

7) A/B test: prove that "flair" gives something

Hypothesis: Adding an intuitive signal boosts Net ROI by (\delta) pp

Plan: accidentally alternate between "with intuition" and "without," the same limits and setpoints.

Metrics: Net ROI, RAROI, drawdown, EV/hour.

Statistics: 95% CI for ROI difference; if 0 is not inside → effect.

Conclusion: only the proven effect is entitled to (\gamma> 0 )/(\lambda> 0).

8) Where is the intuition of the place, except for the choice of bet

Pauses and rhythm: a feeling of fatigue/emotions → an immediate pause (this is "intuition of self-control," it is useful to listen to it).

Condition filter: anger/euphoria/rush - signals to stop, not to increase risk.

The choice among equal EV alternatives (styles of mechanics, interface, speed) is a permissible area for taste.

9) Red lines (intuition doesn't belong here)

Cancel or expand stop loss, time limit, DD limit.

Doubling down after a losing streak "because I feel."

Choosing options with the worst EV/HE (_\text{eff}) only because of "sympathy."

10) Checklists

Before the session

RTP/EV and HE calculated (_\text{eff}).
Set to (u), stop loss, take profit, time limit/DD.
Given intuition corridor: (\gamma) or (\lambda), (u_{\max}), limit of consecutive B solutions.

During the session

Any flair solution is labeled (s) and fits into the corridor.
Stop rules are unchanged, pauses are required.
There are no "dogons" and no foot transfers.

After the session

Log updated: ROI, σ, time, promo, tags (s).
Comparison (\text {ROI} (s> 0)) vs (\text {ROI} (s\le 0)), Brier/calibration.
The solution: keep/cut/turn off the influence of intuition.

11) Frequent mistakes and how to avoid them

Intuition without caps → reassessment and increased risk. Enter (\gamma ,\lambda) and (u_{\max}).

Fitting to the result ("I thought...") → everything is fixed before the session, the log is required.

Role mixing: Intuition cannot change feet/limits - only micro-solutions.

Lack of calibration: no journals - no evidence of benefit.

12) The bottom line

The combination of mathematics and intuition works only in the format of "hard frame + soft tolerances." Mathematics determines what and how much you can afford, intuition - when to take a small step in one direction or another inside a safe corridor. Digitize the "instinct," limit its influence, test and leave only what actually improves the result - then intuition will become an assistant, not a source of expensive errors.