"Daddy, why is that man beating that horse?" "It's ok son, it's a dead horse"
Before running from home, the parents tacked a note to their sons forehead, while he slept.
The Horse is Dead - a very funny novel
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...-horse-is-dead
What is wrong with the logic in my last post. If RoR assumes you never resize your bet when the term is used it assumes you never resize your bet. If you will resize your bet the assumption that you won't is incorrect but that doesn't change your RoR. By definition, RoR must assume you won't resize your bet. The fact that you will resize just means RoR is not an indication of your odds of busting out. It doesn't change the odds of busting out based on the assumption you won't resize.
The problem comes up when Don insists RoR means the odds of busting out if you never resize and also means the odds of busting out if you do resize. It can't do both things as they are mutually exclusive. RoR either assumes you will never resize or it doesn't. You have to be consistent. Either RoR means your chances of busting out if you never resize or it doesn't. The mistake made is he wants RoR to also mean the chances of you busting out if you do resize. It can't be both. If it can be both then there is no resizing assumption involved in RoR. It is simple to solve the dilemma that Don has created. If you are going to resize (as almost everyone will) ask simply say what are the odds I am going to bust out instead of what is my RoR. To everyone but Don RoR always assumes you are never going to resize. People don't care that the assumption does not apply to them. They just understand RoR does not mean the odds they will bust out because they will resize. It is a useful stat that will tell you how frequently you are likely to resize. A very low RoR allows you to forgo resizing for a longer period of time. While a high RoR would make you more likely to need to resize your bets frequently.
Do you honestly believe that if you repeat the same nonsense five or six times it makes your argument stronger? Once you've posted idiocy, do you think that people will buy into it if you repeat it ad nauseam? Einstein once said that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.
You've now posted the same garbage repeatedly. Is anyone impressed? You have no understanding of this topic. Why not just give it a rest?
Don
The post was wrong when you wrote:
Your second sentence you wrote is wrong because of the fact that many new players that are starting out for the first time that are on the board are playing on small bankrolls and are already playing at the lowest level the casinos have to offer. Subsequently downsizing is not an option. The sentence also contradicts with the third sentence. First you state that you know you will re-size, then in the next moment you say if you will re-size, which way is the player going?
I would like to say that some newer players who are now betting at the lowest levels possible should base their risk on the ability to replenish their playing roll when negative variance hits. If that is a big problem then play to a very small ROR.
Last edited by BoSox; 04-05-2018 at 05:52 PM.
Honestly, how is trying to stick to the definition of a term idiocy? What is idiotic about expecting a term to have a definition that is constant? You want to chastise people for doing the same thing you do. That is hypocrisy!
Why is the definition of RoR not a constant? If you can explain that without sounding like an idiot maybe I will buy it.
Well then explain so it makes sense. RoR assumes you never resize. So how can you use RoR in a sense that resizes? RoR's definition says that it can't be used in that sense. Can you explain how RoR assumes you never resize but you see insist on saying there is such a thing as RoR for resizing? If there is then why do you say RoR assumes resizing? I need consistency here. You are all over the map. Does RoR assume resizing or not? If it does then how can you use the term RoR with the assumption being ignored? If you ignore the definition of a term you are in fact using a different term. At least those that altered your definition of SCORE often use c-SCORE to avoid confusion.
Now stop with the personal attacks and name calling and explain whether RoR assumes you will never resize or if RoR has nothing to do with the assumption that you will never resize. It is one or the other. In your response earlier in this thread you clearly tried to make it both.
They don't disagree. "It" refers to RoR. RoR is the chance you will bust out if you don't resize. If you are going to resize RoR is no longer the chance you will bust out since you will resize before you bust out. But RoR is still the chance you will bust out if you won't resize. That is the definition of the term.
I said if you are going to resize, then RoR, which is the odds of busting out if you don't resize, is no longer the odds you will bust out. Is that clearer? Or do I have to add because you resized before you busted out.
Yes. I have said the same thing in many posts but Don didn't like them either.
Bookmarks