Well I need say nothing in my defense, all you fellas have heard it all before, just as I have heard all your arguments before too. Its is a silly boring back and forth.
However, because of Norm's (whom I have great respect for) picture, I WILL clarify what exactly I mean by positive variance. This is a registry that is similar to a few that I have played recently:
LLLLLwLLLLwLwwLwW
Now we have 11 losses and 6 wins. The positive variance here is the bolded. No miracle required.
You found one example where it worked ignoring the vast majority where it didn't. George Burns smoked cigars constantly and lived to 100. Does that mean doctors should advise patients to smoke? Or, perhaps we should look at all examples.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
How do you refer to that (portion) as positive variance?? You don't understand the concept at all. You played 17 times and lost 11. Unless the game you're playing has rather shitty odds, your sequence is a demonstration of NEGATIVE variance. You want to isolate the bold part and call it positive variance? Do you have a plan for playing that part only and avoiding the beginning of the sequence?
This discussion belongs in the Voodoo section.
Don
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Visit UK-21's Degenerate Gamblers Pages - www.uk-21.org
I typically use a 3 unit stop loss from my top. I want to know is there any empirical data that supports a stop loss at any level improves results for a player using basic strategy? And if there is what is the optimal stop loss and how was it derived. I’ve done some simple tests with a limited sample and it shows some promise. However, if there is anything out there that proves it does or doesn’t I would love to see the data or analysis.
Bookmarks