Thread Rating:

FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 262
  • Posts: 13901
September 15th, 2010 at 10:21:23 AM permalink
Willful blindness, belief systems, Deities...

You've all seen the tee shirts: "We all have to believe in something... I believe I'll have another beer".
It doesn't really mean the wearer's primary belief in life is yet another beer, its simply an adopted attitude for festive occasions wherein a drink is available.

On a battlefield a soldier doesn't really think much about variance, he simply zigs and zags and each time hopes he chooses correctly knowing that he might as well go forward than be shot for cowardice. So he "trusts to his luck" and dwells not on his precise chances.

Usually a visit to a casino is a somewhat festive event and with the absurd phrase "its only money" ringing in his ears, he quaffs down his drink that he knows is not free and places his bet with chips that are really cheques and finds out if Lady Variance has smiled upon him favorably or not.

Just as he knows the drink is offered solely to induce him to engage in more risky betting, he knows the casino is not offering him any sort of sure thing. He knows he has no secret knowledge about that little white ball or those bouncing "bones". Its a question of hope. He hopes that he has some "system" that even if it doesn't quite work all the time will work that night! He hopes that Luck will be a Lady Tonight! The whole atmosphere is one of suspension of logic. He knows that the Tray Lizard is thinking about her high heels rather than about a night in the sack with him. He knows the drink is not likely to be a generous pour. He knows that next spin can be Red or Black or Green.

For some gamblers there seems to be a need to have a more persistent suspension of belief. There has to be some system. And he is the one who has discovered it. He alone will know rather than hope for a certain outcome. Well, its not much different at the gaming tables than at a battlefield or at a party. Beliefs are chosen and one situation represents strongly held and strongly expressed beliefs another situation allows a greater concern for validity, but in reality it is simply a matter of a plausible denial of reality.

Some are satisfied with a tee shirt's slogan. Some want a mathematical proof. Some want more mental comfort than is viewed as realistic. Well, good luck to them. For the others, good variance to them!
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
September 15th, 2010 at 10:32:58 AM permalink
Quote: FleaStiff

On a battlefield a soldier doesn't really think much about variance, he simply zigs and zags and each time hopes he chooses correctly knowing that he might as well go forward than be shot for cowardice. So he "trusts to his luck" and dwells not on his precise chances.



There's a difference. A moving target is harder to hit than a stationary one. But a moving target that moves at a constant speed on a fixed course is easier to hit than one which varies its speed and course. So if a soldier can make his course sufficiently random, he makes it harder for the enemy to shoot him.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
September 15th, 2010 at 11:08:23 AM permalink
Quote: 98steps

Perhaps I am mistaken, but the pass line bet is the only wager I utilize which has an inherent house edge. The 1.41% of the passline I consider to be a cost of doing business, overhead if you will. THe other wagers I incorporate are naturally 0% propositions, akin to a simple coin toss.

The odds wagers that the pass line allows me to take advantage of are truly 0% wagers. The Buy on 4/10 when used in tandem become another 50/50 proposition, with 6 ways to win and 6 ways to lose. The vig, if payed on winning wagers only, becomes another cost of doing business.

Is my math or my logic incorrect?


Yes.

You acknowledge the cost of doing business yet admit that your expected profits when you exclude the cost of doing business is zero. In short, you have recognized costs but no recognized path to profit. That's not an attractive investment scenario.

But suppose you simply used a fair coin and wagered on "simple coin tosses" like you mention above. A savvy investor would never "invest" in a 50/50 chance with no expected profits. Given that, and given that you acknowledge your system has greater costs but no greater reward than the coin-flipping scenario, it would seem that any investor would be making a poor investment by funding your system.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
98steps
98steps
Joined: Sep 14, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 119
September 15th, 2010 at 12:00:59 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Yes.

You acknowledge the cost of doing business yet admit that your expected profits when you exclude the cost of doing business is zero. In short, you have recognized costs but no recognized path to profit. That's not an attractive investment scenario.

But suppose you simply used a fair coin and wagered on "simple coin tosses" like you mention above. A savvy investor would never "invest" in a 50/50 chance with no expected profits. Given that, and given that you acknowledge your system has greater costs but no greater reward than the coin-flipping scenario, it would seem that any investor would be making a poor investment by funding your system.



I acknowledge that over the long run, my wins vs. losses would approximate 50/50, not that profit would. Over 1000 such coin toss wagers, is it reasonable to anticipate approximately 500 wins and 500 losses?

Now suppose that I could move from a flat betting scenario (which would indeed be a losing proposition due to the cost of doing business), to a scenario where I could be fairly certain of wagering one more unit on every win than I wager on every loss. Assuming 50%, then would I be expecting profit of 500 units less the accumulated cost of doing business?
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
September 15th, 2010 at 12:34:40 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist


I worked with a guy once who was formerly a hardware manager at Aristocrat, or maybe CDS. That didn't stop him from believing that he could spot patterns in roulette and profit from them. It takes a meaningful amount of training to condition one's perception *not* to intuitively believe in patterns or systems because we're hard-wired in precisely the opposite way. Human cognition is terrible at comprehending randomness.



That's the tragedy of the human condition--our technology has outrun our perceptive abilities. We have managed to construct a world which our primate brains are ill-equipped to comprehend.

The pattern-seeking behavior you mention is what keeps people buying racing forms and common stocks. It also grossly influences the behavior of our legislators, who now more than ever are desperately looking for patterns that they can follow, in their futile attempts to extricate us from the current mess.

The sad truth is that our brains will not be modified by evolution in nearly enough time to enable us to cope with the world we've created. As you say, rational thought requires both extensive training and a strong effort of the will. Most people are either disinclined or unable to make such an effort.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 101
  • Posts: 5872
September 15th, 2010 at 12:38:26 PM permalink
You use the words 'fairly certain'. My guess is you are using some form of Martingale system, which allows for many smaller wins and the rare huge loss. And over time.. the smaller wins add up to less than the fewer huge losses. In other words you may have a system that will win $100 99% of the time but lose $20000 1% of the time. I am guessing that the Wizards site wizardofodds.com probably addresses Martingale systems. If not there are many here who can chime in.
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
September 15th, 2010 at 12:40:51 PM permalink
Quote: 98steps

The vig, if payed on winning wagers only, becomes another cost of doing business.

Is my math or my logic incorrect?



Aren't you saying this yourself--that all your wagers are breakeven, with the exception of the pass line bet, which is a "cost"? So the logical expected result would be the sum of all the costs of your pass line wagers, +0 (the net effect of all your other wagers).

To use the business analogy, this would be like running a restaurant where the price of all the food, drinks, etc. you served exactly paid costs+overhead, i.e., no profit or loss, EXCEPT that you lost ten cents on every cup of coffee you served. Your loss at the end of the day would be (.10)(number of cups of coffee served). You would inexorably go broke, although the VOLUME of business and the amount of money you had on hand might obscure that fact for quite some time.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
September 15th, 2010 at 12:42:17 PM permalink
Quote: 98steps

Now suppose that I could move from a flat betting scenario (which would indeed be a losing proposition due to the cost of doing business)



You agree that flat betting is "indeed a losing proposition".

However, all betting systems are equivalent to multiple players flat betting at different wager levels and at different times. Each of them, by your admission, has a losing proposition. Combining their results won't change that.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
98steps
98steps
Joined: Sep 14, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 119
September 15th, 2010 at 1:24:08 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

You use the words 'fairly certain'. My guess is you are using some form of Martingale system, which allows for many smaller wins and the rare huge loss. And over time.. the smaller wins add up to less than the fewer huge losses. In other words you may have a system that will win $100 99% of the time but lose $20000 1% of the time. I am guessing that the Wizards site wizardofodds.com probably addresses Martingale systems. If not there are many here who can chime in.



I do sincerely appreciate all of the reasoned and valuable input.

My progression has nothing to do with a Martingale, except in the sense that they are both negative progressions. THe martingale is a deviously deceptive progression as it exposes you to ridiculously large risk for minuscule gain.
The progression I am working with, on paper, reduces the exposure while increasing the potential returns.

Like all negative progressions, as you noted it allows for many smaller wins vs. 1 larger loss. My data suggests a profit of $700 95% of the time and a loss of $4500 5% of the time. +700(19) - 4500(1) = +8800
The obvious danger being that if it can lose 5% of the time, there is no law that will prevent that 1 in 20 chance from occuring in consecutive sessions (much like the possibility of 12 being rolled 2 or 3 times in a row)

The best way I can explain my progression would be: flip a coin 100 times, start from 5units on the first toss. If lose go up one unit. If win go down one unit. Over a large enough sample, the winners and losers will balance and you will show profit of 1/2 unit per toss. Is my logic sound? Where is the fallacy of this particular concept?
98steps
98steps
Joined: Sep 14, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 119
September 15th, 2010 at 1:27:15 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

You agree that flat betting is "indeed a losing proposition".

However, all betting systems are equivalent to multiple players flat betting at different wager levels and at different times. Each of them, by your admission, has a losing proposition. Combining their results won't change that.



Math Extremist- I have already developed a healthy respect for your logic and input, thank you. Can you please explain this idea, multiple flat bets, in more depth?

  • Jump to: