Ugh, first big dive!

[creeping panther]

Wise one

amen, glory hallelujah!
:celebrate

:toast:

Thank you Fellow MMOA Predator and Executive Director of the 2009 "BJ BASH" :grin::band: :grin:

Say "hi" to the Wife for I and Chris.

CP

 

[bj bob]

Very well said. That is almost a word-for-word perfect explanation in my opinion. I think CP just meant that we should reduce the variance to a level that is acceptable to us (and preferably a bit lower) and then deal with it. There are a lot of discussions about how to get a bigger advantage but not very many on how to manage and reduce the natural fluctuations. Knowledge of both is crucial.

-Sonny-

I got to agree with Sonny and the chimp here. On the exact same hand / round/ session, there is both positive and negative variance. If an AP wins 14 hands in the row, that's pos. variance for him however, that same 14 hand run is negative variance for the house. Same way on the crap table with both sides being played. A 25 roll pass played properly will make the come players very happy while wiping out the don't folks.

 

[EasyRhino]

I think the stats nerds would probably prefer something like "left-handed" variance.

johndoe, if it's any consolation, your loss may feel worse when measuring in "units" if your unit is your min bet in a shoe game, and you have a big spread (which is appropriate). If big hands gang up on you, you're going to lose a ton of min bets.

Contrast with, say, a good single deck game, where your spread might be very small. But the units, or at least the min bet, are probably bigger.

Often the serious people define a unit as, roughly, the amount that is bet for each positive true count. This meaning is more abstract across game types. In a shoe, the min bet might be a small fraction of a unit. If wonging, there min bet is zero, but you still have a unit.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

I could not disagree with you more. There is no such thing as "negative variance" since variance is defined as a sum of squares, which is always positive!

I know you are not the only one to mention "negative variance" here, or even in this thread, but what is particularly disturbing is that a few posts earlier you made mention of the definition of variance to support an argument!

You're right, I was using the term in the informal way we use it around here as a euphemism for l*ck. And I'm using "negative" as a euphemism for "shitty".

So let's rephrase it- there is nothing you can do about the fact that you will sometimes have shitty l*ck.