mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
January 12th, 2011 at 9:03:54 PM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

That's the dumbest thing I have ever read on this site. And I have read a lot of dumb things. If I make a $100 pass line bet, I have a 0% chance of losing $1.41.

I'm not going to bother arguing. All I know is that if I decide to play 1 - $100,000 craps roll, and then never play craps again, apparently I lost $1,410, even if I just won $100,000. Does the government look at it that way? I wouldn't have to pay taxes, because I lost.

Oh, and if I play the lottery for $1, and win $300,000,000, I actually lost 45 cents, so I don't have to pay taxes on that either. Don't bother responding, it's just going to say "There are no sessions. Life is a session" Spare me.



You show a basic misunderstanding of probability and expected value. You are far from alone. Because looking at a wager in terms of expected value is counterintuitive, many people simply don't even try to understand it.

Let me restate the situation to see if you understand it this way: At the moment you make the bet, you have a 49.3% chance of ending up with $200, and a 50.7% chance of winding up with nothing (numbers rounded). Mathematically, this is the EXACT SAME THING as now having $98.59 ($100-$1.41).
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
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
January 12th, 2011 at 9:10:25 PM permalink
Quote: RaleighCraps

I lost THEORETICAL money. But REAL money totally depends on the outcome. And the HE of the bet is not a factor in the outcome. If I got no black jacks, playing 1:1 , 6:5 , 3:2, or 10:1 BJ would not have mattered. How can you say otherwise, with a straight face?
They do not take 1.41 from my $100 PL bet. Over infinity that would be the expected outcome, but for that one bet, I either win $100 or I lose $100. It is a 0% or 200% proposition. All the HE does is affect your likely outcome of the bet.

Now, if they charged me a commish based on the HE of the bet when they paid off winning bets, then I would totally agree with you. Then the bet that you are making does have an impact on the real money.



At the point of decision--when you decide to make the bet--"theoretical" IS real. I realize that you are one of many, many people who have a hard time wrapping your mind around this concept, because it seems counterintuitive---your result ON ANY ONE OUTCOME will never equate to the "theo". But why should it? Bet $1 on the flip of a coin and your theo is $0, but your result will never BE +$0; it will be either +$1 or -$1. But, so what? It's an error to expect a SINGLE result to match the theoretical result.

Casinos base player ratings on "theoretical" results, NOT actual results, so what does that tell you? That the "theoretical" is, in fact, very real, and is actually more significant than the actual result.

See the Wiz's signature line. The way to assess a bet is not by its result, but by how good of a bet (+EV) it was.
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
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
January 12th, 2011 at 9:12:17 PM permalink
Proctor Hoc Ergo Post Hoc?
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
January 12th, 2011 at 9:15:52 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Proctor Hoc Ergo Post Hoc?



You mean "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"--"after this, therefore because of this", the fallacy that can be refuted by "correlation does not equal causation"?

And if so, what was your point, may I ask?
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
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
January 12th, 2011 at 9:22:04 PM permalink
No, I really did mean - Proctor Hoc Ergo Post Hoc. I was being obtuse. Or cryptic.

In this case the fallacy that the expected value (proctor hoc) actually translates into the actual value (post hoc). I'll let the audience decide whose make the logical fallacy.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
January 12th, 2011 at 9:30:51 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

No, I really did mean - Proctor Hoc Ergo Post Hoc. I was being obtuse. Or cryptic.

In this case the fallacy that the expected value (proctor hoc) actually translates into the actual value (post hoc). I'll let the audience decide whose make the logical fallacy.



Well, "proctor" in Latin means "manager" or "supervisor", so I really didn't know what you meant.

As to whether EV translates into actual value, see my post where I explained the exact equivalence between a set of outcomes and the mathematical sum of those outcomes. A 50% chance of winning $1 and a 50% chance of losing $1 = 0, even though "0" will never be the result of any one particular trial.

The actual result will approach the theoretical result more and more closely as the number of trials increases, but the absolute difference between the actual and the theoretical result will grow larger. This is the Law of Large Numbers, and not exactly a "fallacy".
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
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
January 12th, 2011 at 9:34:07 PM permalink
Doh, there's me trying to be clever in Latin and all that and I wrote the wrong word. Ah well, never mind.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
January 13th, 2011 at 7:41:14 AM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Doh, there's me trying to be clever in Latin and all that and I wrote the wrong word. Ah well, never mind.



Yes, well, it helps to know Latin before attempting to joke with it. I swear lots of people think "visa" is a Latin word meaning "to spend," because of the joke "Vini, vidi, visa."

Far easier to joke with latinate usages. For example:

Professor Septimus walks into a bar and places an order

"I'll have a dry martinus, please."
"Don't you mean," the bartender asks, "a dry martini?"
"My good man, if I wanted a double I would order it."

I think I've told this one here before on a joke thread.

Anyway, back on topic, it would help to understand the "success" of 6:5 not-BJ and double-zero roulette if we were to ask those playing such games why they play them. I really don't play either, or their legitimate variants, so I've had no ocassion to ask. Unlike, say, craps, which I do play and sometimes talk to other players about.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
January 13th, 2011 at 8:05:06 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

It's an error to expect a SINGLE result to match the theoretical result.
Casinos base player ratings on "theoretical" results, NOT actual results, so what does that tell you? That the "theoretical" is, in fact, very real, and is actually more significant than the actual result.
...
See the Wiz's signature line. The way to assess a bet is not by its result, but by how good of a bet (+EV) it was.


Some comments on the above:

Yes. Casinos place great value on the theoretical rather than the actual. Comp the guy who gives them action because irrespective of his actual results on this trip of his being a winner or a loser, he is a gambler. He gives us action ... we want to see him again. If he won this time, he will be bringing our money back to us. If he lost this time, he will be bringing more on his next trip.

Its like that red chip on the black triangle at a roulette wheel... they player sees a five dollar bet. The dealer does too, as does the surveillance camera. The only two possible results is a loss of his entire five dollars or a win of the casino's five dollars. Yet the old guy in the green eyeshades looks at the layout and doesn't see a five dollar red chip at all, he sees twenty-six cents.

Well, I don't wear green eye shades and I don't evaluate a bet by its quality... but by the results! I see a five dollar chip on that black triangle and I either see another one placed beside it or I see the dealer take it away from me. So while the casino may rate a player on his theoretical value they actually relate to the player based upon the immediate results of the bet. The actual result is what counts. Expectations are just that,,, expectations. The single result is reality.

The casino executives may have never expected 6:5 to be tolerated by the players and they may never have thought that the casino would ever be able to actually extend 6:5 until it was that which was most often encountered. We don't know if 6:5 was a "good" bet at the time the casino instituted it. We only know that the casino won! 6:5 is what we now have in most situations. Some players know this. Some players even care about it. The casino doesn't care if those players are upset or not.

Economically necessary? Well, perhaps. Economically rapacious? Well, perhaps. But one thing is clear: its reality.
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 125
  • Posts: 3793
January 13th, 2011 at 8:10:08 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

You show a basic misunderstanding of probability and expected value. You are far from alone. Because looking at a wager in terms of expected value is counterintuitive, many people simply don't even try to understand it.

Let me restate the situation to see if you understand it this way: At the moment you make the bet, you have a 49.3% chance of ending up with $200, and a 50.7% chance of winding up with nothing (numbers rounded). Mathematically, this is the EXACT SAME THING as now having $98.59 ($100-$1.41).




Don't patronize me, I'm not an idiot. Neither are any of the other people who disagree with you.

Let me try to put in a way that you might understand. When most people go to a casino, they bring actual money with them (not theoretical money). That is the money that they want to use THAT DAY to gamble with. They want to be at the casino for two actual hours. They have $200 to lose or win with.

During those two hours, if I'm playing craps, I'll be making 60 pass line bets. I'll ignore the odds bet.

Now since I understand expected value so well, I'm going to be playing $200 on the pass line. Because since variance doesn't exist, I'm losing $2.82 each roll, and in about two hours, I'll lose $170 regardless of how anything turns out. But I'll sure have fun.

Oh, and if I'm an advantage player, I only need enough money to make the first bet, since I win on every hand.

Everyone on this board knows how the math works. Single zero is better, 3:2 is better.

Maybe one day when I have as much money as you, I won't have to worry about variance, and I can make fun of those that have to worry about it. I'm looking forward to that.

  • Jump to: