1.6% vs. 2.2%

ROFL.....Ok, just so I got this straight. The guy playing (whatever game) at 1.6% might have 'better days' vs. the guy playing (whatever game) at 2.2% *BUT* in the END (long term), the HA will still f**k them both, correct? Now lets watch how some will dance around the question, smoke and mirrors. Ken

Quote: mrjjj

ROFL.....Ok, just I got this straight. The guy playing (whatever game) at 1.6% might have 'better days' vs. the guy playing (whatever game) at 2.2% *BUT* in the END (long term), the HA will still f**k them both, correct? Now lets watch how some will dance around the question, smoke and mirrors. Ken

EV is just one of (at least) two variables. Variance is the other.

If the -1.6% EV game is low variance and the -2.2% game is high variance, the latter may be preferable to the former. DEPENDING on how YOU want to bet and play. It may also be that you find betting the -1.6% EV dull as ditchwater and prefer to play the exciting -2.2% game. The extra -0.6% maybe an acceptable trade off.

Even in your choosen game, you can control the variance (as we've seen, you like the high variance, single number bets).

So what's yer point, exactly? Yes both games will mean the player will ON AVERAGE lose money. In one he loses 16 dollars out of a 1000. In the other 22 out of a thousand. What is the question again, as I don't see one that's non-rhetorical.

You answered it, thanks buddy! What I was going to do (but got a couple warnings from forum friends) was to really SEE where that line is drawn? To the POINT where I cant win but you can. Meaning, >>> 1.4% vs. 2.7%

1.3% vs. 2.9%
1.2% vs. 3.3%
1% vs. 3.8% etc. etc.....In the END (long term) it will not matter, correct? Ken

Quote: mrjjj

You answered it, thanks buddy! What I was going to do (but got a couple warnings from forum friends) was to really SEE where that line is drawn? To the POINT where I cant win but you can. Meaning, >>> 1.4% vs. 2.7%

1.3% vs. 2.9%
1.2% vs. 3.3%
1% vs. 3.8% etc. etc.....In the END (long term) it will not matter, correct? Ken

Ah so it WAS a rhetorical question which you had no notion of reading the answer to.

Of course I read it but now I have another question back at you (or anyone). I am looking for WHERE the line is drawn between me, not being able to win and you can? Sooo, where are we at now? We are at 1.6% vs. 2.2%, both guys will lose in the long term. Lets NARROW that down to where YOU can win and I cant. Have at it. Thanks, Ken

I'm not going to argue about whether you can win or I can't -- we will both lose over the long run. I think any difference in H.E. more than 0.20% is significant if you play for a long period of time. It does not seem like a lot, but the law of large numbers makes it so. For a video poker game, an hour of continuous play at $0.25 means a difference of $6 in -E.V. If you play a lot, that makes a big difference. At BJ, 0.20% is the difference between H17 and S17; you'll notice that difference when you play a long session, when the dealer has A6s that you would have lost on had she not stood. You probably won't get the opportunity to resplit aces -- an only 0.05% H.E. difference.
----------------
So yeah, I guess you didn't ask the question, but anything greater than 0.20% merits serious consideration.

True and dont get me wrong...I understand the difference between playing daily, monthly and over 30 years. Ken

Sometimes it is interesting to put these House averages into a scenario.
The admittedly arbitrary scenario is that you have $5000 and you are making $100 bets. You have the modest goal of trying to win $1800 to cover your dinner, room, and show tickets for you and your date.

Using a HA of 1.6% there is a 50.61% chance that you will achieve your goal before you go bankrupt.
Using a HA of 2.2% there is a 42.40% chance that you will achieve your goal before you go bankrupt.

So scenario A is slightly in your favor.

"So scenario A is slightly in your favor" >>> I got that part, daily for dinner, room etc. How does it look over 30 years? Ken

Quote: mrjjj

Of course I read it but now I have another question back at you (or anyone). I am looking for WHERE the line is drawn between me, not being able to win and you can? Sooo, where are we at now? We are at 1.6% vs. 2.2%, both guys will lose in the long term. Lets NARROW that down to where YOU can win and I cant. Have at it. Thanks, Ken

I never stated I can win -1% and you can't at -5.26%. However, it's less likely that you'll win when the house is taking a bigger chunk of your average bet.

Whats the difference over 30 years between the two? Lets say 400 bets per day, 3 days per trip, 4 trips per year, $10 per bet.

That's $4000 in action per day, $12,000 per trip, $48,000 per year, $1,440,000 over 30 years in action.

At a 1% game, the expected loss is $14,400.
At a 5.26% game, the expected loss is $75,744.

On double-0 roulette, betting one number straight up, the variance is 5.84. This means (using this useful little tool http://www.beatingbonuses.com/calc.htm) :

Your 0.007% chance to be up after that number of bets. Add you bank roll will be between -95,000 and -55,000 66% of the time (1 standard deviation).

One a -1% game, like Blackjack with a low variance (1.14) :

Your 0.09 % chance of being up and your bank roll will be between -16,800 and -8,600 66% of the time.

Thats the difference over the long haul.

In fact, merely switching to a single 0 wheel in roulette, but still playing the numbers straight up :

Expected Loss : -38,800.
Chance of being up : 2.5%
Bankroll range : -$59,000 to -$19,000.

Which I hope possibly echoes my point about variance AND EV being of use.

So, even if a game is only at 1%, 30 years later, ALL players or most players (for that game) will be ahead? Believe me, I am NOT trying to argue with you, I hope you dont take it as such. Ken

To follow up, a $10, x2 odds pass bet for the same life time has a 10% chance of ending up in the black, and a Don't Pass, x3 Odds bet has a 25% chance of ending up in the black.

There, my friend, is where the difference is.

Quote: mrjjj

So, even if a game is only at 1%, 30 years later, ALL players or most players (for that game) will be ahead? Believe me, I am NOT trying to argue with you, I hope you dont take it as such. Ken

If you mean behind, yes.

If your not trying to argue, I apologize, it reads as if you are, which is the vagaries of the written word.