Thread Rating:

odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 314
  • Posts: 8827
February 20th, 2011 at 6:18:59 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

how she played at third base could not affect if the dealer would bust or not.



This fallacy seems more die-hard than any of the others. I think it is because it is true that decisions do disrupt the distribution as is set. One either goes on to the logic that an unknown card distributed randomly remains a random distribution when another unknown randomly distributed card is substituted... or one goes to the fallacy that the distribution is set along the lines of things being "due" and "you don't disrupt that. "

Actually I first ran into this playing poker, and having players get mad at me for folding and making them get "my" card.
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
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
February 20th, 2011 at 6:43:25 PM permalink
Quote: crazyiam

Unfortunately you are wrong while making a good point. The cost of the best is the EV of the bet. Half the time you lose $110 and half the time you win $100. So on average you bet $220 dollars and win $210. Over two bets you lose $10 making the cost per bet $5.



I believe you are correct. My mistake, in trying to make the larger point. I still do think the value of a $110 bet is $100, though, since it pays just like a completely fair bet of $100 would.
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
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 194
  • Posts: 10735
February 20th, 2011 at 7:30:54 PM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

This fallacy seems more die-hard than any of the others. I think it is because it is true that decisions do disrupt the distribution as is set. One either goes on to the logic that an unknown card distributed randomly remains a random distribution when another unknown randomly distributed card is substituted... or one goes to the fallacy that the distribution is set along the lines of things being "due" and "you don't disrupt that. "


That's a very good way to describe it.


I don't get worked up if the guy at third plays badly and "takes the dealer's card" because the deck could have been shuffled differently.

But that's the math guy in me talking.

A non-math person looks at it that the shuffle is already done, and the cards aren't shifting around in the shoe.

Most importantly, those complainers will only complain about the bad plays that causes the dealer to get a winning hand. Those times that the third baseman's bad play causes the dealer to bust, are quickly forgotten.
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
OneAngryDwarf
OneAngryDwarf
Joined: Dec 17, 2009
  • Threads: 44
  • Posts: 254
February 20th, 2011 at 8:33:18 PM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear


Most importantly, those complainers will only complain about the bad plays that causes the dealer to get a winning hand. Those times that the third baseman's bad play causes the dealer to bust, are quickly forgotten.



I was playing blackjack last week, and hit a soft 18 against a 10, getting a face for a hard 18. Everyone at the table got upset. The dealer flipped over a 12 and pulled another 10. That shut everyone up.

...until the next hand, when the dealer turned over a blackjack. The Asian woman next to me started cursing me out in her native tongue, because I obviously had caused that to happen. :rolleyes: Oh, and the very next hand, SHE got a blackjack. I didn't get any credit for that.
"I believe I've passed the age/of consciousness and righteous rage/I've found that just surviving was a noble fight... I once believed in causes too/I had my pointless point of view/And life went on no matter who was wrong or right..." --Billy Joel
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
February 20th, 2011 at 8:36:52 PM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

A non-math person looks at it that the shuffle is already done, and the cards aren't shifting around in the shoe.

Most importantly, those complainers will only complain about the bad plays that causes the dealer to get a winning hand. Those times that the third baseman's bad play causes the dealer to bust, are quickly forgotten.



I wouldn't characterize such thinking as a math error; more a conceptual error. The vast majority of people don't understand randomness; they think much more of the universe is causal than it actually is.
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
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
February 20th, 2011 at 9:18:21 PM permalink
Let me give you a question and tell me how you would explain the answer.

You have a $1000 bankroll and being conservative you find a game with a mere 1% house advantage. You are determined to play until you either double your money or go broke.

If you bet the full $1000 on a single roll you have a 49.50% of leaving with double your money, and a 50.5% of going broke. But you are want to gamble for a while and have some fun. You have to choose between the following options:

Option A) Bet $100 per hand
Option B) Bet $10 per hand

Which option (if any) gives you the highest probability of going home with $2000?

After you've answered that question, tell me which of the following statements is closest to the truth.

1) Options are the same
2) Best option is slightly better than the worst option
3) Best option is twice as good as the worst option
4) Best option is four times as good as the worst option
5) Best option is ten times as good as the worst option

How would you explain your reasoning to your date?
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
February 20th, 2011 at 9:32:19 PM permalink
Quote: pacomartin


Which option (if any) gives you the highest probability of going home with $2000?

After you've answered that question, tell me which of the following statements is closest to the truth.

1) Options are the same
2) Best option is slightly better than the worst option
3) Best option is twice as good as the worst option
4) Best option is four times as good as the worst option
5) Best option is ten times as good as the worst option

How would you explain your reasoning to your date?



Obviously, the larger bet is better for that purpose, just as a one-time bet of the whole $1000 would be best, and a series of $1 bets would be worst, again, for that purpose.

To answer your second question, I'd need to know if "good" or "better" are only considered in the light of "chance to double your money", or whether other considerations, such as staying in action/less likelihood of losing the entire amount, etc. apply. Also, are you asking for the "best" option, or the "better" option?
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
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
February 20th, 2011 at 10:05:32 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Obviously, the larger bet is better for that purpose, just as a one-time bet of the whole $1000 would be best, and a series of $1 bets would be worst, again, for that purpose.

To answer your second question, I'd need to know if "good" or "better" are only considered in the light of "chance to double your money", or whether other considerations, such as staying in action/less likelihood of losing the entire amount, etc. apply. Also, are you asking for the "best" option, or the "better" option?



Well your right the best option in the light of "chance to double your money" is to make a single bet. You have to choose the better of the two options in the same light.
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
February 20th, 2011 at 10:52:25 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

I've never actually met anyone who doesn't live in "my" world, as in, Earth. Might be fun, though.



I am sure you've met many people who don't live in the world of gambling and advantage play, or deal with maths regularly.

Quote:

The cost of the bet is indeed $10. If there was no vig (the bet paid even money, not -110), then the cost of the bet would be zero. Look at it this way--the cost of the bet is equal to its expected profit to the house. If a $100 bet truly cost $100, then the house would make $100 from every such bet made--which they obviously don't.



Cost to me and most people in the day to day world is the price you pay for an item. When I buy a banana, I pay 37c. That is the cost. The Banana may be worth 25c to my buddy who needs some fruit. The banana has a 25c Value, and I lost 12c (if I was playing some sort of fruit trading at work scheme).

If I told someone the banana cost me 12c, they'd not understand what I meant exactly, and hence if they don't live in the same paradigm, would insist that the banana cost 37c. Just as your bet on the superbowl cost $110. The difference is the exact final value is unknown, and the expect value is known (*)

I believe most financial sheets would list the cost at $110 on one side, and an asset (the betting slip) worth $100, giving you a -$10 on the total value on the books. I could be wrong. Accountancy is certainly not my forte.

(I realize I stated $100 before, when I in fact meant $110).

Quote:

The VALUE, as you put it, of the bet is MINUS $10 because you are exchanging $110 in cash for a bet with a mathematical value of $100. You have to look at it in this way--as in, BEFORE the actual outcome. Otherwise, you paddle up an existential creek. If you buy fire insurance, what's its value? Is it zero if your house never burns down? The value of a bet has to be expressed BEFORE the outcome, in terms of relative probabilities and the resultant payoff(s).



I don't disagree with your explanation of the VALUE of the bet at all.

In short, calling it a "cost" maybe using a word in a way that non-gamblers are not used to, and hence your explanation didn't work out with the lady in question.

(*) assuming it's a 50/50 bet, which I think is fair assumption here, right?
"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
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
February 20th, 2011 at 11:09:53 PM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

This fallacy seems more die-hard than any of the others. I think it is because it is true that decisions do disrupt the distribution as is set.


So what's surprising? It's not exclusive to gambling. A lot of people, present audience included, will blame whoever they prefer for the current economic recession and their relevant losses, despite recessions only being natural and necessary in the cycle of economic growth.

They lost their bets - their high-paying jobs, their cheap mortgages, their stocks value. Someone else won their bets - got cheap workforce, bought a home el cheapo, did some good shorts. In the overall scheme of things, we lost some, like current income levels, and we won some, like stopping price escalation for a while and weeding out some of the weaker players, paying the way for new ones.

It is to be admitted that some players were more deserving of blame than in a card game, but their blame is limited to how exactly the recession is proceeding and being handled, while people incorrectly blame them for the recession itself.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama

  • Jump to: