Ok Norm,lets keep all the IF,BUT,AND out of the picture. If we have an absolute ev that will be mathematically achieved. Then the swings are predictable in either direction.

EV=
A)anticipated wins due to horrific negative swings will.. assure, B) anticipated losses due to tremendous positive swings.. which(both) ultimatlely arrives at expection=EV.

Mathematics says it is impossible for A to be true and B not to be true or vice versa.

Have I a new discovery here? No'it's only standard deviation. I know many enjoy using the word it's all meaningless this may be true for sessions but as we combine sessions as a whole and arrive ever so closer to *No.* then the word meaningless gradual turns into "meaningful"

Brick

> Well then it wouldn't be causal and would be
> accurate. And would be in 100% agreement
> with Parker's statement.

> Take the boolean algebra statement 'If a
> then b'

> If a is known to be false, the statement
> is true even if b is also false.
> If a is known to be true, then the
> statement is true only if b is known to be
> true.
> If a is unknown and b is always true, then
> the statement is true.
> In logic, no causal relationship is
> implied. The problem is that in English,
> statements that are logically true can imply
> a causal relationship that is untrue.