Post-Thanksgivings Musings
Machinist said:
Yes SD, thankyou, I shall google more often.
Machinist, please understand I was just kidding.
I didn't know what Zeno's Paradox was either, so I Googled it and read the Wikipedia entry. After that...I still didn't know what Zeno's paradox is! Maybe that's the paradox.
By the way, my first attempt at VP was successful. I was up about $2K after just 4 hours of play on $0.25 and $1 machines. I just wish I could claim that this was due to my skill at the game! :laugh:
Deathangl13 said:
Interesting article with a wacky conclusion...
So, in this game, if we define "long run" to mean approximately how long you must play before you're more or less assured of being ahead, the answer is about 200 consecutive hours.
CVCX shows me that after 200 hours there is about a 25% chance of being under water. That doesn't fit my definition of "more or less assured." It looks like 3,500 hours is more like it.
creeping panther said:
In order for the sim to be correct you must play the
same game, the
same rules,
same pen,
same conditions,
same physical and mental condition...to have
accurate math sampling. The same for a few,
billion or a few
million hands. This is a problem isn't it! And BTW, most of us will not hit a
few million hands
I think we use our sim runs as a drug, a drug that numbs us to the reality that we are always gambling at this game.
CP, your point about the sims running the same conditions, can't be overstated. Who plays this way? Who among us would run our bankroll from, say, $10K to $500k (in the mythical long run) spreading red chips 1:15, and still only be making $10 bets with a half-million dollar bankroll???
QFIT said:
While reading this, it occurred to me that, while if we play enough hands our play in total can perhaps achieve the mythical long run, our status at any point in time is defined by a bankroll and a risk of ruin.
This means that a successful player who has grown her bankroll from $10K to $500K is no more assured of success in the future than the beginning player, if she keeps her ROR constant by scaling her bets as bankroll increases. By definition, both face the same risk of ruin, which by implication means that neither have achieved the long run.
The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that the
long run is part of the gambler's fallacy.
creeping panther said:
And.... is it not true you will
lose more bets with the much higher counts?
CP
True. We lose approximately the same number of bets as we do at low counts. We just
lose more money at those high counts!
1357111317 said:
I guess my point is here is that I know in a sense what you are saying is that try and play as good of a game as possible so you have less losing sessions but my point is that MATHEMATICALLY you cannot win every session or even 75% of your sessions. ( Assuming you keep your sessions of equal length. One could probably win 95% of their sessions if they quit every time they got ahead any amount of money).
Right. Sessions don't matter other than from an emotional perspective. Results are defined by an EV, a SD, and total playing duration (PD). Chopping PD into sessions because we need to eat, sleep, and do other things does not change the underlying characteristics of the game.
Losing sessions don't matter. Neither do winning sessions.
creeping panther said:
You also know that the very experienced Pro players on this site do not even consider counting as AP play :yikes:. They have at time
ridiculed it and
straight counters.
...
My problem is with new players, like SD, who burn through all their Bank while being fed the BS about the long run, because they will never reach it,
because they go broke after a few thousand hands. I have seen this with so many players over the years, they are brilliant, but they come and then dissapear, maybe burning through their college money at the casino in the meantime. Disaster
The Long Run mythology destroys players, gauging by sessions allows true critique of play and possibilities well before you are wiped out.
This is also so very important today with the Junk games so many here play and think they can beat. You cannot beat the junk games by counting alone and if you are STing you better be damn good or you will burn out even quicker.
Wonging in...have at it and enjoy.
A very interesting set of comments CP!!
After one year and some 15K hands of BJ, I am starting to see this counting business for what it is - a
religion. There's salvation in the long run for the true believers who have the faith to turn the other cheek while the bankroll declines. Hallelujah!
I'm not sure where shuffle tracking (ST) fits into this
religion. Is ST a form of exorcism that rids the deck of probability's demons? Maybe so, but something in my gut tells me that ST just amplifies the good and the bad. Maybe it's best not to mess with the devil...
I am happy (perhaps I should say relieved) to say that after ~14 months of play my bankroll is more or less intact. I've suffered no disaster, nothing even close. Yes, I've had a bit of an emotional roller coaster ride, but isn't that part of what brought me to this in the first place? And I've learned a lot, with your help and the help of others on this forum.
So the question becomes, "Now what?" as I enter year two of AP.
1357111317 said:
Here is a question for you. You were offered a game where you could bet on either heads or tails. You will get paid 1:1 if you guess it right You know that the coin is weighted towards heads and therefore it will land tails up 51.5% of the time and will lands heads up 48.5% of the time.
Anyone on the forum would obviously accept this game and bet on tails.
It would depend on the minimum bet as a percentage of bankroll and how long one is allowed to play the game. If game conditions don't allow ROR to be below an acceptable level, one shouldn't play even if theoretical EV is positive.
