Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 2381
August 22nd, 2018 at 10:22:15 AM permalink
Quote: VCUSkyhawk

No, I meant -.5%. I am not a counter so I imagine the best I could do would be around .5% negative EV. That was all just hypothetical anyway for me to understand the formula.

Got it. Withdrawn.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 2463
August 22nd, 2018 at 10:26:29 AM permalink
Quote: Romes

So the BEST you could hope to do is -25 + 545.49 = +$520.49
And the WORST you could do would be -25 - 545.49 = -$570.49

the above IS 100% wrong.
99.0% is NOT = to 100%
no matter who says it does.
why NOT use 8 sigma instead, that is what I say (I am more right than wrong, most times)
so we would expect out of 1 million such sessions and this happens about every weekend
(say 1 million players with one session each, flat-betting-ugh! flat etting. no one flat bets that many bets. but...)
for many
to win MORE or LOSE more than 3 SD.

the math says yes

it can be exactly calculated too instead of an approximation.
computers have feelings too
another problem here is every gambling writer (including the Wizard)
says one WILL lose just $25 over that many bets as long as each bet is made
and basic strategy is followed perfectly every round and...
look at all the writings!
it is right there (Oh, some do add the 'average' word)

problem IS, there IS NO average of just 1
1000 hand BJ session.
"A calculated "central" value of a set of numbers."

'there will never be ONE player losing more or less'
this has been written more times than the original Bible
so it must be true
come on
get real!

the truth hurts no one
except those that feel hurt

OP, imo,
use the 8 sigma range
place yourself above the rest and shine on!!

or calculate this yourself
if I can do that (in R of course using a computer)
anyone can
I Heart Vi Hart
Joined: Jul 22, 2014
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 5490
August 22nd, 2018 at 11:57:25 AM permalink
Quote: VCUSkyhawk

No, I meant -.5%. I am not a counter so I imagine the best I could do would be around .5% negative EV. That was all just hypothetical anyway for me to understand the formula.

Yes, but if you did want to count, you could use the same formulas and modify the HouseEdge with your average advantage (typically about 1% for most counters). So then you could just put in a positive .01 for that -.005, and you'd get a positive expectation.

Oh Sally, I know you know that I know that you've seen me post time and time again about running proper simulations for exact amounts. The 1.15 is subjectively the sd in blackjack and could be calculated out more. You could run worse than 3SD, but for all intensive purposes that would seriously get in to the grounds of cheating, as we all know and accept.

I do also agree you are more right that wrong... but I do believe for the OP and his question the calculations provided will be more than accurate enough.
Playing it correctly means you've already won.
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 307
  • Posts: 8429
August 22nd, 2018 at 4:21:46 PM permalink
Actually this is a good question, is a 1% chance of failure acceptable risk?

*if risking your life, I would say obviously no, in almost any situation

*if risking your life savings, likewise

*if risking what you can afford to lose, it's probably OK for most of us, which is why 3 SD is used so often

which reminds me of that old thing about 99.9% not being good enough in many things. "If you can land a plane without crashing 99.9% of the time, there would be several crashes a day at O'Hare " ... or 100 crashes a day worldwide, see link. For many things not only is 99% not good enough, but not the often used 99.9% either.

the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder

  • Jump to: