1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Did you find this post helpful?
Yes |
No
Originally Posted by
Three
Don and a lot of other people appreciate those that attempt to do so. I do but still fail to put the "c-" before SCORE often enough when I am talking about c-SCORE. Having a dual meaning for a term is just confusing as hell. We have the same issue with RoR. It means the chances of busting out assuming you never resize. Almost everyone will resize, so RoR almost never means the chances of busting out period, but some want to make it mean that. This just confuses things and makes using the term RoR very confusing when one that wants it to only apply to people that won't resize or compute a RoR that accounts for resizing strategy gets into the conversation. When that happens the term losses its usefulness. Players resizing is a given. RoR should never be construed to mean the odds a player will bust out. It simply makes the errant assumption you will never resize to generate a stat based on that errant assumption. For the very few that either can't or won't resize RoR is their chances of busting out.
You completely misunderstand the elegance of the term and the metric. It is precisely because you keep the term ROR pure and don't mess with it the way you insist on doing that it becomes extremely useful (to everyone except you) as a starting point -- just like SCORE -- to measure the riskiness of the manner in which you decide to bet with respect to your initial bankroll. If I start with 13.5% ROR, Joe starts with 25%, and Fred starts with 5%, that has GREAT meaning -- the exact same meaning and usefulness as a situation where I buy a car with an EPA rating of 20 mpg, Joe buys one with 25, and Fred buys one with 30.
It doesn't matter in the least that, in the real world, we all decide to drive our cars in vastly different manners from the way they were driven to produce the ratings on the stickers. THAT IS A GIVEN. But to then conclude, because of that obvious fact, that the original ratings are "confusing" or "useless" is just plain foolish.
So far, in the years I've been doing this, you are the only person who thinks the term is confusing, so chances are the problem lies in the manner in which you try to understand, as opposed to the rest of the world's being wrong. You add NOTHING to the conversation by stating the painfully obvious: if you don't play exactly in the manner that is required for the original ROR statistic to be accurate, you will get a different result. DUH. Why would you waste our time stating that ad nauseam? You add nothing to the conversation other than to state: Your mileage may vary. Thanks for letting us know that. Now, may we move on?
Don
Bookmarks