"and since ror is non zero and ruin is irrecoverable, it is only a matter of time before you as an ap go extinct"
comments?
"and since ror is non zero and ruin is irrecoverable, it is only a matter of time before you as an ap go extinct"
comments?
Are'nt the casinos playing with an advantage and with a risk of ruin? They have a much bigger bankroll, better advantage, and lower ror, etc., of course, but its the same principle. Im no math wiz, but isnt that how THEY make money?
Risk exists in every human endeavor. We cannot sit paralyzed at home because business deals, jobs, personal relationships or even watching a movie or trying a new restaurant might result in a negative experience. We need to manage risk, not fear it. In the end, we all die. But I intend to make the best of the experience on the way.
> "and since ror is non zero and ruin is
> irrecoverable, it is only a matter of time before you
> as an ap go extinct"
Who came up with this depressing outlook?
Blackjack Scams
If you have no idea what your long-term risk is - it is probably 100%J The casinos may be stupid on many levels. But they analyze their risk.
> Are'nt the casinos playing with an advantage and with
> a risk of ruin? They have a much bigger bankroll,
> better advantage, and lower ror, etc., of course, but
> its the same principle. Im no math wiz, but isnt that
> how THEY make money?
> "and since ror is non zero and ruin is
> irrecoverable, it is only a matter of time before you
> as an ap go extinct"
> comments?
Yes. The remark is nonsensical. Suppose ROR is, say, 5%. What that means is that, if 100 players play "forever" (or some shorter period, for those who tap out), five will lose their bankroll (but it could take, in theory, more years than they have left to live!), while the 95 others will, instead of going broke, simply make more and more money, never tap out, and eventually have all the money in the world -- if they live long enough. :-)
So, the conclusion of the above statement is patently false.
Don
They will inevitably tap out, potentially not in any realistic lifetime, but as long as the chance exists to go broke, it will happen given enough time. In the extreme, there is a probability a player will lose every hand he plays until he depletes his entire bankroll. That probability approaches zero as his bankroll grows, but it never reaches zero. So given enough time it will happen. Time is powerful and allows for all permutations.
> Yes. The remark is nonsensical. Suppose ROR is, say,
> 5%. What that means is that, if 100 players play
> "forever" (or some shorter period, for those
> who tap out), five will lose their bankroll (but it
> could take, in theory, more years than they have left
> to live!), while the 95 others will, instead of going
> broke, simply make more and more money, never tap out,
> and eventually have all the money in the world -- if
> they live long enough. :-)
> So, the conclusion of the above statement is patently
> false.
> Don
It is also possible that a player will win every hand. When you discuss infinite concepts, you must be very careful. You must take into account all possibilities and their frequencies. Transfinite mathematics requires a different mindset. For example, I can??t count the number of times that I have seen posted that a Martingale system would work if there were no table limits with an infinite bankroll. This exact concept was posted on another forum this week. (And most every week.) As I??m sure you understand, it??s not true. The casinos did not put into place table limits to stop progression systems. They have numerous, sound reasons for table ranges having nothing to do with gambling ??systems.??
Now what you are saying, given an infinite amount of time and ignoring the cost of money, is also true. Assuming that a person can live an infinite amount of time. But humans live a fixed amount of time. This is not true in a fixed time period. So, what??s the point??
>They will inevitably tap out, potentially not in any realistic lifetime, but as long as the chance exists to go broke, it will happen given enough time.
I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. You make it sound as if a 5% ROR is actually a 100% ROR, just needing more time, to be certain to lose all your money! That makes no sense at all.
Instead of saying, "Given enough time, you will eventually certainly go broke," why do you reject the alternative, namely: Given enough time, you will eventually win all the money in the world and be infinitely rich?
Do you not understand that both can't possibly be true?
Reread some of the principles in the ROR chapter of BJA3. In it, I talk about the idea of "If they don't get you early, they probably will never get you at all (middle of p. 128)." You need to better understand that concept.
Don
> Risk exists in every human endeavor. We cannot sit
> paralyzed at home because business deals, jobs,
> personal relationships or even watching a movie or
> trying a new restaurant might result in a negative
> experience.
Actually, I do it almost every day and often guess I should commit suicide. :-)
>We need to manage risk, not fear it. In
> the end, we all die. But I intend to make the best of
> the experience on the way.
I agree, and so do I!
> Who came up with this depressing outlook?
It wasn't me, but I certainly know it well.
Seasons Greetings,
Desi. D.
>"and since ror is non zero and ruin is
>irrecoverable, it is only a matter of time before you
>as an ap go extinct"
This can be applied to love also. No guts- no glory, at least we're only risking money!
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks