-
Sun Runner: Re: One more question
> I think SunRunner is saying that being ahead
> no matter how small the amount is to the
> right of the curve and anyone having a
> cumulative loss is to the left (IMHO)
That is what I meant.
> The argument seems to be that if you have the
> correct amount of BR, use a legitimate
> counting system and bet optimally is it
> still possible that you may not be ahead in
> the long run?
There is no argument. The answer is yes it is possible to be behind in the long run because somebody will be. Period.
To paraphrase Snyder "Somebody Won't Win" and it is not because they weren't good enough.
The question has shifted to -is it such a small % of the total to even be talking about at length. I agree, it is.
So play on and play hard. Look for every advantage you can find. Give 'em hell and don't look back. That is what I intend to do.
And hope one of those quaranteed losers ain't me!!
[ET Fan -no kidding, I'm trying to quit the thread, really!)
SR
-
Magician: 100% edge
> You are implying that increasing your edge
> can guarantee the win. Only a 100% edge will
> theoretically do that.
No, the edge is not important, only the standard deviation. With a non-zero standard deviation it is always possible to lose, even with a 100% edge. If the standard deviation is zero, any positive edge guarantees a win, however small.
-
Parker: Re: One more question
> I think SunRunner is saying that being ahead
> no matter how small the amount is to the
> right of the curve and anyone having a
> cumulative loss is to the left (IMHO) The
> argument seems to be that if you have the
> correct amount of BR, use a legitimate
> counting system and bet optimally is it
> still possible that you may not be ahead in
> the long run?
It is possible.
It is also possible that you may get killed in an automobile accident on your way home from the casino.
It is possible that you may die in your sleep of a heart attack tonight.
It is possible that the sun may nova and the earth be burned to a cinder, destroying all life.
Is there a point here?
-
ET Fan: 3 of 2,000 was for 175,000 hands ...
1 in 200,000 is for 500,000 hands (but a somewhat less favorable SCORE). If you have a positive EV, the chance of being behind gets smaller and smaller as the number of trials (hands) increases, until it finally becomes negligible. In fact, in mathematical terms, you can increase N to make P(BR<X) < e, for ANY X and ANY e>0. In other words, pick a target win, and you can play enough hands (if you live that long) to provide any desired confidence level of reaching that target, except 100%. You can get get to 99.999999999% confidence, but never quite to 100%.
ETF
-
ET Fan: Re: One more question
ETF:
> Most rational gamblers (and to
> be competent, you almost have to be
> rational) would quit after experiencing a
> losing streak that put them 3 or more
> standard deviations to the left.
SR:
> And the point of quitting then would be what?
One of two things: 1) Out of money. 2) Self doubt. Any rational person who's 3 SDs to the left of his espected win has to consider the possibility he is playing poorly, even if he can't pinpoint where he's screwing up. As King Arthur said to Lancelot, "Only fools never doubt."
ETF
-
-
Sun Runner: I Give Up
> Is there a point here?
There used to be several.
SR
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks