Thread Rating:

AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
January 22nd, 2014 at 8:04:06 PM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

But you only quoted half the tag-line. Here's the whole thing:

Sure, whether you in or lose is important. It's VERY important.



I'm not sure that it's very important.

Say you are walking by an empty craps table. The pit boss calls you over, and offers you the chance to roll the dice one time. You have to bet $5, and if you roll snake eyes you get $1000. Anything else, and you lose, and you can't bet again (you get one shot only). Two things are clear:

1. Assuming that you have $5 with which to gamble, you'd be an idiot not to take this bet.
2. You will probably lose.

The point is, it doesn't matter that you will probably lose. Because, it's not whether you win or lose that is important. It's only important that you have a good bet, and this is a very good bet.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1446
  • Posts: 25129
January 22nd, 2014 at 8:11:11 PM permalink
Quote: tournamentking

I think one of the administrators here has this by-line. I ask WTF?



Personal insult -- three-day suspension. Keep in mind whose house you're in.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” -- Carl Sagan
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
January 22nd, 2014 at 8:14:37 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I'll take thin edge, high variance. Where can I play $5 10/6 DDB?



Oh, wait, I take that back. 0.07% edge?? f-that. I thought it was a quarter percent or something.

To the OP:

I suspect that you are playing above your bankroll here, regardless of the size of your bankroll. Are you that confident that your errors are not costing you a tenth of a percent?
scepticus
scepticus
Joined: Oct 16, 2013
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 57
January 22nd, 2014 at 8:24:53 PM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

It's not merely "one of the administrators" with that tag-line. It's the Wizad himself.


But you only quoted half the tag-line. Here's the whole thing:

Sure, whether you in or lose is important. It's VERY important.

The point was, having a good bet is more important.



I would put it the other way round .I think the main reason for gambling is to win money and entertainment is secondary
.I think the Wizard is wrong here- and also in his Einstein quotation.
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 436
  • Posts: 26078
January 22nd, 2014 at 8:38:38 PM permalink
Quote: scepticus

I would put it the other way round .I think the main reason for gambling is to win money .



That's why winning or losing a particular
bet in irrelevant. If you have a good bet
selection, you'll win more than lose. Bet
selection is everything in gambling, it
trumps anything else. Proper bet selection
is god, and the bane of the casino.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
tringlomane
tringlomane
Joined: Aug 25, 2012
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 6273
January 22nd, 2014 at 8:52:02 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Oh, wait, I take that back. 0.07% edge?? f-that. I thought it was a quarter percent or something.

To the OP:

I suspect that you are playing above your bankroll here, regardless of the size of your bankroll. Are you that confident that your errors are not costing you a tenth of a percent?



I expect significantly over half of the people who play 10/6 DDB in Vegas make enough errors to make their edge completely vaporize, maybe as high as 90%. 99.94% accuracy by return isn't trivial to achieve. I currently couldn't do it, I don't think. And if I could, it wouldn't be at a super fast pace.

And tk may also not realize how swingy DDB is. After six hours, if you haven't got quad Aces, 2s, 3s, or 4s all day, it's probably a losing day.

Speaking of swinginess of DDB, I am running a 5000 trial simulation of 125,000 single line hands each right now of 9/6 DDB (98.98% with flawless play). I'm doing this because a person on another forum claimed he has had a 95% return in the last 125k hands. Will any of these 5000 sims show up below 95% (aka 4% below expectation)? I know my guess.
kubikulann
kubikulann
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
January 23rd, 2014 at 6:44:02 AM permalink
Quote: DRich

If you continue playing that game for six hours a day for the next three years your loss should be close to $0. Assuming you play it 100% correct.

Incorrect. This is a (less well known) form of Gambler's Fallacy.
Actually, the more you play, the further it will be from zero. Deviation grows with the root of number of tosses.
Example: fix a range (-x $ \ +x $) of what you consider "close to zero". The probability of ending in this range diminishes when you play more rounds.

It is only your average that is going close to zero. But who cares about his average loss per game when he has lost $1000 in total?
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
7craps
7craps
Joined: Jan 23, 2010
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 1977
January 23rd, 2014 at 1:16:37 PM permalink
Quote: kubikulann

Incorrect. This is a (less well known) form of Gambler's Fallacy.
Actually, the more you play, the further it will be from zero.

but the public perception and
almost all gambling folks that can do math (RIP Alan K)
actually believe as 100% truth that the actual $$$ lost the more you play will approach the $EV for the number of trials played.

even poker players believe this.
maybe 2 do not, but I won't name names.

the math, they say, is that simple for $EV

Quote: kubikulann

It is only your average that is going close to zero.
But who cares about his average loss per game when he has lost $1000 in total?

examples are meaningless and useless
to those who believe on their truth based from expected value only.
variance is just a word.

reminds me of the song line
"But what a fool believes ... he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away"


using your example of a loss value,
how possible would it be playing a VP game that returns 1.000670 with a sd of 6.4943
say playing
6 hours a day, 400 hands per hour perfectly, for 3 years and playing max quarters
to actually lose $1000? or more?

what does the clt say about that

The OP may believe that playing what 2 sessions
should show a profit playing with +EV

maybe he just does not understand the
expected value and standard deviation relationship?

relationships
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
January 23rd, 2014 at 1:19:41 PM permalink
Quote: 7craps

but the public perception and
almost all gambling folks that can do math (RIP Alan K)
actually believe as 100% truth that the actual $$$ lost the more you play will approach the $EV for the number of trials played.



Perhaps you should raise your bar for "can do math" :)
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 158
  • Posts: 21101
January 24th, 2014 at 1:35:27 AM permalink
Quote: tournamentking

I look forward to Crimm's answer later. I understand the safe bankroll point and I will never bet outside my roll. Right now I'm in the $5 video poker bankroll territory with a good margin for safety. I don't plan on playing that high until I get this all figured out. Beardgoat ot whomever, said I'm calling out Wizard. Not at all, he just doesn't know the difference between confusion and ignorance. But he'll learn.

Teddy, I'm concerned as to why making a "good bet" is more important than winning. I'm missing something key here. I feel like a loser jerk after getting pounded by a 25c machine today. Knowing I made "good bets" does nothing for me now. It did BEFORE I played, but after when it counts I'm feeling let down. How do you vp players take these kind of beatings, then still believe in hearts and flowers for tomorrow? My confidence in being even or ahead after 100,000 hands or whatever, stinks right now.

I believe my error rate is miniscule, but who knows?

I'm not sure how it is that you play progressive $ slots without even worst fluctuation then VP. Unless you are doing some crazy hit and run system where you don't play for any prolonged period of time or you are playing some banking bonus machine. Slots should be worst fluctuation then Video poker.

If you truly have some incredible slot system, I would seriously stick with slots and leave VP at bay.

You need much more then just finding some machine that has a small advantage. There is so, so much more to it then that. I would say that most of the VP AP's started out with something fairly juicie ;)( I better check JJ thread) and build there knowledge from there, one game, one play at a time.

When you hear people like Bob D are playing some high denomination with a thin edge, you should ignore that they started out with huge advantages . Its to my understanding he had backers when he started playing huge denominations.

I repeat, you are not going to make money sitting around playing some 10/6 machines.

If you are going to play VP I would learn 9/6 jacks or better before you learn anything. Then I would learn DW.

You played 6 hrs with out a 4 of a kind? How fast did you play? You defiantly ran bad I would be upset if it happened to me when I first started playing. Luckily I played something where I could practicality never lose over a days worth of play. I can imagine what would have happened if I lost the first 3 or 4 times out.

Let me give you some advice TK. Lose the undeserving ego, stop arguing and fighting with everyone, especially the AP's who are doing the things you want to learn. No matter how much you think you know about slots, you don't know everything. No one dose. Always take what you think you know and divide it many times. Good Luck Perhaps one day you can change your make to Videopokerking.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪

  • Jump to: