essence of intelligent gambling

[Paul Phillips]

I can't keep up with the day-to-day posts around here but I've spotted one unprofitable trend (or profitable, depending on where you stand) that I'd like to discourage. Following sklansky's example I will post it here in the forum that is apparently attracting "bigshots" rather than wherever it properly belongs.

What is the basic principle that leads to a few people being winning gamblers and most being losers? In the end it comes down to only one thing: winners pursue bets where they have the best of it and avoid bets where they don't. This is true no matter what brand of gambling we're talking about. It can be something as simple as foregoing games of negative expectation, or as complicated as playing good poker, which in a sense is nothing more than a long series of "prop bets" where you have a degree of control over what the prop is and how much the wager will be.

Among the critical aspects of this is the ability to figure out when you're a money favorite. You can be a very successful prop bettor by refusing 99% of the bets that come your way; all you have to do is spot the 1 in a 100 where the bettor is obviously taking the worst of it. One example of where this comes up all the time is on the golf course. There are lots of guys who are dying to bet they can make a putt at even money or small odds against when their true odds of making the putt are nowhere close to that. You don't have to be a good golfer to clean up against these guys. All you have to do is accept some of the bets that they offer you.

Now I'm going to use the contents of a couple recent threads as an example of how some people are determined to go broke. Granted, I chose these example partly to make fun of the victims, but also to belabor a critical fundamental that people ignore far too often.


Someone: I say we settle this with an old fashion game of scrabble [...] The Vegas line is Paul Phillips at a 3 to 1 favorite.
Victim: I'll take that action any day and twice on Sunday, for my entire bankroll. There is simply no way that Paul would be a 3:1 favorite over me in Scrabble.


Now several people proceed to knock their grandmothers over to bet on me at that line even though I haven't said a word. As a gambler, this is the point at which the warning bells should be clanging that something is up. But no! Instead the victim goes into a tangent about the logical fallacies of her opponents, unwilling to do the minimal research necessary to objectively examine the line she has accepted. This after trying to put her entire bankroll on it.

In the age of google it takes only seconds to find out why this bet is drawing dead, but the victim would rather dig her heels in than reassess her chances. This is the moral equivalent of discovering that your wagering partner actually attended the tape-delayed game on television at the moment, the one you bet on thinking it was live; yet then doubling the bet anyway because you're so confident the home team ought to win the game.

If you aren't willing to use all the information available to you and to reassess situations as new information comes to light, then you will never be a successful gambler. Especially, if you let your ego get tied up in your betting; if you're afraid to admit your initial assessment was wrong; or if you let your desire to beat one particular person color your thinking: then you are doomed at poker and every other form of gambling. It's as big a leak as you can suffer. It is how the winners bankrupt the losers.

Here's another example. In this case rather than accepting a horrible line, the author sets one:


Victim #2: I would bet that in a large tourney most top players are more than 90% likely to double up before going bust.


Setting bad lines is an even faster way to go broke than accepting them. As david points out in that thread, if that were true it would mean most top players are required to fold aces preflop. It's even worse than that though. Aces are only 85.2% against a completely random hand. If you are 90% to double up by other means you have to fold aces even if your opponent moves all-in preflop without looking!! If top players actually followed this strategy, how long do you think it would take the "lesser" players to find a strategy to exploit them? It wouldn't be too complicated to discover.

This illusion that top players are so amazingly successful is built on the fallacy of selective memory. People see names they know at the top of the leaderboard for day two and imagine those particular ones are the top players. They rarely look at the entire list of who went out on day one, or better yet, make predictive lists of "top players" before the tournament begins and check whether 90% doubled up before going broke.

It's very dangerous to invent percentages out of thin air. I realize this is "only" a discussion board and that people are accustomed to talking out of their ass without it having any consequences. Regardless, I suggest it's an awfully bad habit for a gambler (or anyone, but especially a gambler) to have. If you instead form the habit of thinking hard about a bet before you set a line on it, you are likely to have much more success in your gambling endeavors. Including poker.

And then there is the more general principle that one should be willing to back up one's words. Inventing lines out of thin air leaves you in the unenviable position of having to either take a bad bet or admit you had no idea what you were talking about. The latter is much superior from a bankroll preservation standpoint, but better yet is to try to set a decent line in the first place.

Happy wagering...

[chuddo]

And in other news:

-The sky is blue.
-Styrofoam floats.
-Kittens are cute.
-There is absolutely nothing insightful to be found in the long-winded and meandering post made above.

[SossMan]

Unbelievably good post, Paul.


-SossMan

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
And in other news:

-The sky is blue.
-Styrofoam floats.
-Kittens are cute.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do agree with your assessment regarding its potential for earth-shattering. That doesn't mean that some people won't gain from its expression. There is ample evidence that lots of people do need to hear this again.

We make much of life vastly more complicated than it needs to be, when it's really the adherence to a few fundamentals that leads to 98% of success. Why are there a hundred poker books that say essentially the same thing? Because repetition is effective and because people respond differently to different expressions of the same principle.

[ QUOTE ]
-There is absolutely nothing insightful to be found in the long-winded and meandering post made above.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have my permission to ignore the lessons that are beneath you from now on.

[chuddo]

Not trying to be a complete dick Paul, as i enjoy reading some of your posts here and on your journal.

It is just that I found this particular thread akin to someone posting the importance of the seat belt in a motor vehicle safety forum.

An aside regarding your scrabble fondness: do you ever tool around with literati on yahoo?

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
It is just that I found this particular thread akin to someone posting the importance of the seat belt in a motor vehicle safety forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Students of human nature should realize that the post provided me with an excuse to continue poking fun at a certain humorless novelist for whom words are her dreary stock-in-trade. However, that doesn't mean I wasn't providing a public service by articulating the concept.

It's also a selfish effort to shame people into caring a little more about what they say, because I have an interest in higher quality gambling discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
An aside regarding your scrabble fondness: do you ever tool around with literati on yahoo?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, though I've heard of it. I used to spend a sick amount of time playing scrabble at ISC but I don't play much anymore. My all-or-nothing nature prevents me from sustaining a merely healthy interest.

[srblan]

[ QUOTE ]
My all-or-nothing nature prevents me from sustaining a merely healthy interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, I wonder how many of us (poker players) are like that. I used to be the same way about chess as I am now about poker.

[Easy E]

and I didn't even have to flip a coin to make that decision!

[bobby rooney]

Hey Paul, good post. I have no doubt that many people overestimate the advantage that "name players" have over no-name players.

I have a related question for you that I'm curious about. How much of a favorite do you consider yourself in the average 10K tourney? 2x the buyin, 4x? Also, what do you consider an adequate bankroll for such events and do the increasingly large fields require a bigger roll? Before her TOC win, Annie Duke mentioned that she had about a 200K roll and when I heard that it seemed to me to be woefully inadequate, especially when you include travel and lodging, which might explain why she was using backers for the big events to help lower the overhead at the time. She probably doesn't need backers now, but I wonder how much she should keep in her roll and not touch? 400K maybe? How much bankroll do you keep for these events (I understand you might not want to answer that)?

Is there any way to mathematically figure out bankroll reqs for these tourneys? And other than guestimation, a way to figure out how much expectation the good players have?
Anyway, thanks in advance for any responses, and these questions aren't just for Paul if anyone else wants to give their opinions/analysis.

[Boris]

I did a google search and I'll agree that your probably a 3000:1 favorite against me in scrabble but why do you think you're such a clear favorite against the "victim" in your post?

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
I did a google search and I'll agree that your probably a 3000:1 favorite against me in scrabble but why do you think you're such a clear favorite against the "victim" in your post?

[/ QUOTE ]

She used the fact that she's a novelist as evidence that I couldn't be much of a favorite. That means the only way she'd have a chance is if she was pulling the ol' double-reverse trick and pretending to think that mattered to sucker me in. My experience at spotting this trick indicates otherwise.

Having a large vocabulary has almost nothing to do with being good at scrabble except among purely recreational players. In competitive scrabble most people don't even know the meaning of most of the words they use. It's too hard to learn all the definitions as well (and knowing them provides almost no value in the context of the game) so we just learn the legal letter combinations.

[Wayfare]

If you are berating paul's post for being of no value to you or to this board, why committ the exact same mistake that you accuse him of by pointing it out? You pointing out that you think his post has no value committs the same sin that you accuse paul of committing. You might counter by saying that your rebuke might discourage paul from posting similar (valueless) things in the future, but that would only be useful if paul's post actually took away from the forum. No one has ever claimed that.

Instead of trying to discourage a poster from posting a topic that he finds interesting (and I would gamble many others do too), you should try to understand why the topic might be interesting instead of dismissing it out of hand.

[chuddo]

Wayfare, I understand that, I was just giving Paul a hard time. More importantly, I wanted to use the phrase "kittens are cute".

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a related question for you that I'm curious about. How much of a favorite do you consider yourself in the average 10K tourney? 2x the buyin, 4x?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depending on how generous I feel about myself, anywhere from 2x to 3x the buyin as an average cash (thus a profit of one to two buyins.) I don't believe anyone is way higher than that. My prediction is that 4x is the top end and I would bet against almost everyone at that level. However there are numerous good, smart players who think it's higher.

My results from the last year are better than 3x even if I throw out my bellagio win (which must be about 60% of my return) but that's variance for you.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, what do you consider an adequate bankroll for such events and do the increasingly large fields require a bigger roll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bankroll estimation is not my forte because I've had the luxury of not having to worry about it. Someone fading all their own action in 5K/10K tournaments these days could end up incredibly deep in the hole, even if they were very good, but especially if they only had small positive equity.

The larger fields absolutely require a bigger roll. In the "old days" many big buyin tournaments had 100 or fewer people and a first place of perhaps 40 buyins. These days there are usually 300+ and first place is at least 100 buyins and sometimes much more. My intuition says that must require players to be far deeper, but I'd rather defer to someone with actual expertise.

[ QUOTE ]
Before her TOC win, Annie Duke mentioned that she had about a 200K roll and when I heard that it seemed to me to be woefully inadequate

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that surely carries a major risk of ruin.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any way to mathematically figure out bankroll reqs for these tourneys?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but a) it requires estimations that people are notoriously bad at making and b) the variance is so high that trying to reduce risk of ruin to a negligible amount would probably lead to ludicrously high bankroll requirements.

It's really a question for the mason types.

[ QUOTE ]
And other than guestimation, a way to figure out how much expectation the good players have?

[/ QUOTE ]

If we had everyone's complete history we could make some decent estimates because we'd have a lot of data. We don't though. To make a good estimate we'd also need some means of determining who the good players are OTHER than results; you can't just look at the results of the top N players and average them out, because some of those players actually suck and some of the losers are good. It'd be tough. My estimates are based mostly on intuition born of experience, not on math, but given the unreliability and incompleteness of the available data, it's not clear to me that anyone can do much better than intuition.

I'd be very interested in any serious effort anyone makes in quantifying this.

[MDBLakers]

Someone: I say we settle this with an old fashion game of scrabble [...] The Vegas line is Paul Phillips at a 3 to 1 favorite.

I apologize for posting this. I didn't realize it would cause such a ruckus. It was just a weak attempt at humor. Maybe if I put the odds at 2 to 1 for Paul there wouldn't have been such an uproar. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bobby rooney]

Thanks for the reply, I agree that even for a supergeek math genious, some of the problems are virtually unsolvable, but I find your attempt at guestimation based on intuition and experience (which you have much more of than me) to be quite interesting and to confirm some things that I have suspected. I have a funny feeling that these larger fields are going to break many pros, unless the sponsors of these tournaments start adding money, or having more freerolls, or if the pros themselves all get backers and/or endorsement deals.

One more question, for someone who aspires to play these things, how the heck (other than already being a millionaire) can anyone, even a good player, do it? It seems like I could win or place in literally hundreds, if not thousands of small tourneys, and still not have enough roll to feel good about dropping 10 large on one tourney with a 500+ field. Even if you are a great player, it could easily take more than a lifetime to work up to the bigger tourneys. I guess cash games are more reliable, if you also excel at those you can move up faster because of lower bankroll reqs, but I imagine it gets a lot tougher to win at 50/100 and above. Or maybe the best course is to play the new NL cash games that seem to be flourishing because of TV poker. BTW, this isn't a veiled attempt to get backing, which I'm sure you get all the time. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Anyway, my question is: where the heck do all these new players come from? I was at the LOP and there were so many freakin people. Are all of these new players woefully underfunded and destined to be broke in a year or two? I know a lot of them get in through satellites, but that doesn't explain all of them.

[STLantny]

for anyone who is still confused. Shoot yourselves. or read malmuth theory of gambling, the term is self-weighting V non-self weighting.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I did a google search and I'll agree that your probably a 3000:1 favorite against me in scrabble but why do you think you're such a clear favorite against the "victim" in your post?

[/ QUOTE ]


I'll accept those stakes.... Next time you and Paul play Scrabble, I'm sure someone will take Paul and I'll put $10 on you blind ... I could use a new car.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Zinzan]

Paul, you're freaking hilarious. And I agree that repetitive reading of simple, useful concepts works, especially when each author puts his or her own unique spin on the concepts.

Keep posting!

-Z

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
for anyone who is still confused. Shoot yourselves. or read malmuth theory of gambling, the term is self-weighting V non-self weighting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, those. I read just about every poker book that had ever been written a few years ago but it's been a while and I've fallen out of touch with the nomenclature. Mason on non-self-weighting strategies (http://www.twoplustwo.com/gambling.html). People should read that.

[CCass]

So if I bet even money that at least 7 of the home teams in the NFL would win outright this week, am I the victim, or am I the gambler with the edge?

[STLantny]

Is that sarcasm? Its all lost on me when it comes to reading on the internet. But, if it is not, it depends on the teams. All it says: place your bets when you have the best of it. So if there is NO point spread involve, bet the favorite. The non-self weighting comes in the fact that you are betting against the spread.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Paul,

The reason I said I'd take the 3:1 line in a Scrabble game is three-fold. First, as I said, I'm a novelist. Words are my stock-in-trade, so I have a far-greater-than-average vocabulary. Second, I also work crosswords and other word puzzles (especially Jumbles) on a daily basis, so again the skills involved in Scrabble are part of my daily life.

And third, there are significant random elements in Scrabble: the draw of the tiles, the words on the board, etc. This goes back to your own post about "how good can you be in tournament poker." You're probably a favorite over me in Scrabble -- I've no idea as we've never played -- but I would be astonished if you were a 3:1 favorite over anyone with a significantly-higher-than-average vocabulary and good letter-word-play skills.

Cris

[David Sklansky]

"Hi Paul,

The reason I said I'd take the 3:1 line in a Scrabble game is three-fold. First, as I said, I'm a novelist. Words are my stock-in-trade, so I have a far-greater-than-average vocabulary. Second, I also work crosswords and other word puzzles (especially Jumbles) on a daily basis, so again the skills involved in Scrabble are part of my daily life.

And third, there are significant random elements in Scrabble: the draw of the tiles, the words on the board, etc. This goes back to your own post about "how good can you be in tournament poker." You're probably a favorite over me in Scrabble -- I've no idea as we've never played -- but I would be astonished if you were a 3:1 favorite over anyone with a significantly-higher-than-average vocabulary and good letter-word-play skills."

There are two mistakes here, only one of which is forgiveable. The forgiveable mistake is not knowing, as I didn't, how little luck there is in upper echelon scrabble games. Jim Geary, ex world champion and poker player as well, upon being told that my ex wife is a very good amateur who has scored five hundred points and averages over 300, told me that she would be a FIFTY to one dog to beat him any particular game. Then ironically, in a conversation I had with Paul Phillips he declared himself a ten to one underdog to Jim per game! Apparantly the luck factor is similar to golf. A 110 average is far more likely to beat a 100 average than a 75 average is to beat a 71 average.

The unforgiveable mistake which Paul pointed out, is "betting into the wind". I'll let others elaborate.

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Paul,

The reason I said I'd take the 3:1 line in a Scrabble game is three-fold. First, as I said, I'm a novelist. Words are my stock-in-trade, so I have a far-greater-than-average vocabulary. Second, I also work crosswords and other word puzzles (especially Jumbles) on a daily basis, so again the skills involved in Scrabble are part of my daily life.

And third, there are significant random elements in Scrabble: the draw of the tiles, the words on the board, etc. This goes back to your own post about "how good can you be in tournament poker." You're probably a favorite over me in Scrabble -- I've no idea as we've never played -- but I would be astonished if you were a 3:1 favorite over anyone with a significantly-higher-than-average vocabulary and good letter-word-play skills.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

the scrabble that serious players are playing does not even resemble the games you may have giggled over with your husband or whoever at your kitchen table.

i think you are likely worse than 1000-1 to win.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
And third, there are significant random elements in Scrabble: the draw of the tiles, the words on the board, etc. This goes back to your own post about "how good can you be in tournament poker."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there is a significant random element in scrabble that often allows a lower rated player to beat a higher rated player, but you're self-evidently not in a position to estimate the size of that factor, nor the difference in our levels of skill.

Do you even know the 2s, let alone the 3s and their stems? I'm not getting the impression that you do since you haven't yet mentioned any skill or knowledge that matters in competitive scrabble. If you possess that minimum baseline knowledge, without which you have nearly zero chance of winning, then you're doing a professional job of hiding it.

[ QUOTE ]
You're probably a favorite over me in Scrabble -- I've no idea as we've never played -- but I would be astonished if you were a 3:1 favorite over anyone with a significantly-higher-than-average vocabulary and good letter-word-play skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're really doing an amazing job at making my point about people remaining impervious to their available information. Seriously, I applaud. People are going to start thinking you're a creation of mine intended to teach others about the dangers of making bad bets. Everyone, I swear she's another completely autonomous human being.

Even after the hints in my initial post in this thread you still think that having a decent real world vocabulary is enough to render you competitive against a tournament scrabble player? What were your objective criteria for setting 3-1 as an advantage you'd be "astonished" if I held? Perhaps if you listed your reasons for this grossly mistaken belief, it might help illustrate for everyone the psychology of self-destructive wagering.

The funny part of all this is that I haven't played a serious game or even glanced at a word list in over a year, but no matter how many words have leaked out of the back of my head I could never be less than a 3-1 favorite over someone who has not studied the game.

As you read these thoughts and reflect upon the various clues here and elsewhere all of which cry out to be noticed, do you wonder who is likely to be setting a better line here? This is your opportunity to avoid compounding your error by applying what analytical skills you possess. To do that first you have to honestly consider the possibility that you're desperately out of your depth. Can you do this? Or are you determined to continue to serve as an object lesson for wayward bettors?

(It's odd, but I thought once someone showed you where the "ignore" button was that you would take advantage of it...)

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Paul:

Thanks. That's much appreciated.

best wishes,
Mason

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]

What is the basic principle that leads to a few people being winning gamblers and most being losers? In the end it comes down to only one thing: winners pursue bets where they have the best of it and avoid bets where they don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how does the above apply to Andy Beal? Your livejournal seems to imply he is only raising the stakes up as a ploy to bankrupt the pros, but is still an underdog to them. Is he making a EV- play then? Or is he a loser?

--Greg

[David Sklansky]

If the pros play him with less than thirty million or so than Beal is likely a favorite to bust them. That doesn't mean he has positive EV. See why?

[Paul Phillips]

Incidentally, the 2004 scrabble championship will be on ESPN (http://www.scrabble-assoc.com/tourneys/2004/nsc/build/index.html) on October 3rd at 1PM ET. For the record I play nowhere near the level of these guys, but I have a greater advantage over a recreational player than they do over me.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
As you read these thoughts and reflect upon the various clues here and elsewhere all of which cry out to be noticed, do you wonder who is likely to be setting a better line here? This is your opportunity to avoid compounding your error by applying what analytical skills you possess. To do that first you have to honestly consider the possibility that you're desperately out of your depth. Can you do this? Or are you determined to continue to serve as an object lesson for wayward bettors?


[/ QUOTE ]

Diablo already got mad at me for trying to ruin his bet, or else I would have gone into greater detail to explain that my point wasn't just that you'd win, it's that you'd win about 999/1000 times. A quick: "finger extempore" on ISC provided me all the information I needed to know that you weren't a hack. Not having played for a while is irrelevent unless you're talking about playing an actual player.

~D

[Arsene Lupin III]

You two should seriously consider having a little exhibition best-of-5 match. It'd be interesting to see how many spectators showed up:

www.isc.ro (http://www.isc.ro)

[ohgeetee]

Far too easy to cheat, but I'm not sure it really matters.

Paul, if you were playing an amateur that had full access to the scrabble dictionary and the scrabble word makers, word lists, etc. What do you think the line would be?

If you both had access to these tools, would the line return back to what it was when neither of you had access?

Obviously this post isn't to infer that Paul or Cris would use the scrabble cheating tools available, but to point out that the possiblity is there.

[muzungu]

Ooh, I can answer this one!

OGT-

Depends on the time control, obviously, but i'm assuming the amateur has enough time to use said resources.

A while ago on ISC (the site where the world-class players play), a guy admitted to cheating. He was rated around the same as the world-class players (around 2000). After he stopped, his rating dropped/was reset/whatever to around mine (in the 1300s).

For context, on this site:

A literate person who has never studied: hmm, maybe 700-900?

Me/Duke: 1300-1400 (I hereby challenge any 2+2er to a friendly match, btw.)

Paul: 1500ish.

World class: 2000.

I dunno exacly what formula ISC uses, but a difference of 200 pts = stronger player wins maybe 3 out of 4. 400 pts = u win maybe 9 out of 10.

So: i think you would have to know enough to know how to use the lists, but if you did, you could play on a very high level. So: with a little practice, Cris + Lexpert (the main program for such things) beats Paul.

Woohoo, I feel useful.

-muz

[CCass]

I was trying to be a bit humorous, but there is some seriousness to what I asked. A co-worker and I were discussing this weeks NFL games, and he stated that only 3 home teams would win this week. Without looking at the games, I offered to bet him any amount of money that more than 3 home teams would win this week. He backed away from his original statement, and the final wager was that I win if the home teams win more than half of the games this week, and he wins if the visiting teams win more than half the games this week (we push if the record is tied).

My thoughts on making this bet are that on any given week in the NFL, the home team will win more often than the visiting team. This week, many of the favored teams are on the road, but the favored team doesn't always win in the NFL.

In a round about way, I think this applies to what Paul was saying because my coworker chooses to ignore the historical data regarding home teams and winning in the NFL. Using the 2001, 2002, and 2003 seasons as an example (the only readily available results I could find), the home team wins 58% of the time. Additionally, of the 51 weeks of football during those 3 seasons, visiting teams won more games than the home teams only 20% of the time.

So I believe my bet is +EV, but then again I could just be a goofball that catches cards.

[donny5k]

In order to for your bet to be +EV, the individual lines must be incorrect. I don't think this is correct if you take the best half of teams against the worst half of teams and put the best half on the road, but with the parity in the NFL you aren't losing too much money making this bet.
Don't you think Vegas takes the home field advantage factor into account when calculating a favorable line?

[mmbt0ne]

Read this. It might help you out in the scrabble match. Oh yeah, it was written by the guy you think you're only a 3-1 dog against.

http://www.improving.org/paulp/scrabble/

zyzzyva? halakah? seppuku?
He's all yours.

[CrisBrown]

Hi David,

Do you know how well or poorly I play Scrabble? Did the original poster who suggested the 3:1 line? Does Paul? I think not.

Paul's curriculum vitae in Scrabble is, quite literally, an open book. I can (and have) quite easily learned what his ranking is, what his thoughts about the game are, and so on. It's all over the Internet. I know how well he plays Scrabble, and in fact I've known since the thread began.

My curriculum vitae for Scrabble isn't on the Internet. I could be a former college Scrabble champion, a pro who posts here under a pseudonym, or a rank amateur. Paul neither knows nor has any way of knowing how well or poorly I play Scrabble.

So which of us is "betting into the wind?"

Cris

[PseudoPserious]

....exactly how good are you at volleyball?

Cheers,
PP

[Mammux]

[ QUOTE ]
If the pros play him with less than thirty million or so than Beal is likely a favorite to bust them. That doesn't mean he has positive EV. See why?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because Beal can lose considerably more than he can win.

-Magnus

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi David,

Do you know how well or poorly I play Scrabble? Did the original poster who suggested the 3:1 line? Does Paul? I think not.

Paul's curriculum vitae in Scrabble is, quite literally, an open book. I can (and have) quite easily learned what his ranking is, what his thoughts about the game are, and so on. It's all over the Internet. I know how well he plays Scrabble, and in fact I've known since the thread began.

My curriculum vitae for Scrabble isn't on the Internet. I could be a former college Scrabble champion, a pro who posts here under a pseudonym, or a rank amateur. Paul neither knows nor has any way of knowing how well or poorly I play Scrabble.

So which of us is "betting into the wind?"

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul wrote:

"That means the only way she'd have a chance is if she was pulling the ol' double-reverse trick and pretending to think that mattered to sucker me in. "

If this is true, then you are quite amazing, Cris.

[La Brujita]

Hi Paul,

You have a few more dollars than me but can I get in on the Scrabble action if it happens? I would venture to guess betting on you at 3:1 would be a pretty damn solid bet. I know only a little about the game but have a scrabble player in the family and know the skill edge can be pretty huge.

BTW and somewhat off topic, Word Freak is a pretty decent book about Scrabble.

[CrisBrown]

Hi SossMan,

[ QUOTE ]
Paul wrote:

"That means the only way she'd have a chance is if she was pulling the ol' double-reverse trick and pretending to think that mattered to sucker me in. "

If this is true, then you are quite amazing, Cris.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or I'm just a hustler. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Seriously, I'm the only one in this conversation who knows both sides of the equation. This thread is about the value of information in gambling. I might be a world-class Scrabble player. I might never have played the game. Or I might be somewhere in between. No one has so much as asked me when I last played Scrabble, or at what level. Everyone involved knows or should know half of the equation: Paul's skill. But the other posters neither know nor can they know the other half of the equation: my skill.

That italicized language -- "nor can they know" -- is critical. It sucks to discover you've been hustled after you've lost, and an intelligent gambler would neither offer nor accept a wager under such conditions.

Cris

[Wayfare]

.

[La Brujita]

[ QUOTE ]

Seriously, I'm the only one in this conversation who knows both sides of the equation. This thread is about the value of information in gambling. I might be a world-class Scrabble player. I might never have played the game. Or I might be somewhere in between. No one has so much as asked me when I last played Scrabble, or at what level. Everyone involved knows or should know half of the equation: Paul's skill. But the other posters neither know nor can they know the other half of the equation: my skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gambling is basically a pursuit that very very rarely has perfect information. That being said I would take the wager on Paul's behalf on the basis of a few things:

1. His success at gambling
2. His scrabble ability
3. Cris' previous reasoning explaining why she would not be a 3:1 dog
4. Cris' past history of let's say overstating her gambling success and ability (sorry to bring it up but that is a big factor in why I would take the bet)

[STLantny]

zing.

[Gainsay]

Paul/Whomever,

Can you please comment on the accuracy of what I've observed about Scrabble. This is coming from a better than average recreational player, and I'm curious how it matches up with real competitive play.

- Against players of reasonably close skill level, getting more of the blank and s tiles seems to be a huge advantage. A 5-1 split on those tiles seems close to insurmountable. If that's true, what's a reasonable ratio of points per tile to sacrifice in order to get access to more tiles (i.e. spelling longer words rather than words worth more points)?

- The point values for a lot of tiles just seem wrong to me. A, E, and O just seem much better than I and U to me. Similarly K, X, and Q seem completely out of wack.

- While I agree that Scrabble's very much a skill-based game, I'd say there's no way anybody is more than a 3-1 favorite at Scrabble Rhebus, at least not if both people know what a rhebus is.

[CrisBrown]

La Brujita,

For how much would you be willing to take that wager? Your entire bankroll? You still haven't asked whether I've ever played Scrabble, or if so, how recently and at what level. You are still "betting into the wind." There are several orders of magnitude difference between the customary kind of imperfect information inherent in life -- what card will come off next, who will draw which tiles, etc. -- and your utter absence of information about my Scrabble ability. I have neither overstated nor understated that ability; in fact, I've said nothing at all about my proficiency with that game. You're offering to bet into a total informational black hole, based solely on your perception of someone you've never met, and a handful of posts you've read on an Internet forum. If you can't see why that's a foolish wager, I would love to have a series of prop bets with you. If you can see why that's a foolish wager, and you're still willing to make it, then you are what the wager implies: a fool.

Cris

[razor]

oh please... there is enough information out there to make this wager.

[byronkincaid]

[ QUOTE ]
handful of posts you've read on an Internet forum

[/ QUOTE ]

1786 posts. You must have big hands /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[fnurt]

Well it's not an informational black hole, because the statements are there. If someone says "I am good at Scrabble because I am a novelist with a big vocabulary," there are only 2 real possibilities:

(a) the person does not understand that world-class Scrabble play is not about having a big vocabulary, and thus is making a sucker bet; or
(b) the person understands all that, and is running a hustle.

Just because no one can know with absolute certainty which category you fall into doesn't mean they are not entitled to draw an inference. I might say, "there's a 10% chance I'm being hustled here, but I only have to lay 3-1 odds, so I'll take that bet." People are putting you on a range of hands, as it were.

[BeerMoney]

I thought the same thing chuddo did. Its like " If you take fewer strokes than your opponent, you will beat him at golf." I think giving PP the oppportunity to get flamed in the same manner as the rest of us is only fare. When I post something dumb, I don't get my panties in a bunch if someone lets me know.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
I was trying to be a bit humorous, but there is some seriousness to what I asked. A co-worker and I were discussing this weeks NFL games, and he stated that only 3 home teams would win this week. Without looking at the games, I offered to bet him any amount of money that more than 3 home teams would win this week. He backed away from his original statement, and the final wager was that I win if the home teams win more than half of the games this week, and he wins if the visiting teams win more than half the games this week (we push if the record is tied).

My thoughts on making this bet are that on any given week in the NFL, the home team will win more often than the visiting team. This week, many of the favored teams are on the road, but the favored team doesn't always win in the NFL.

In a round about way, I think this applies to what Paul was saying because my coworker chooses to ignore the historical data regarding home teams and winning in the NFL. Using the 2001, 2002, and 2003 seasons as an example (the only readily available results I could find), the home team wins 58% of the time. Additionally, of the 51 weeks of football during those 3 seasons, visiting teams won more games than the home teams only 20% of the time.

So I believe my bet is +EV, but then again I could just be a goofball that catches cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you clealy fall into what Paul was talking about when he talked about how some people didn't even research(google for scrabble info) before making a bet.

Lets simplify it to one game to make the example easier:

If I pick one RANDOM game and offer you the home team at even money, they you should obviously take it.

However, if I pick one game out and I know whos playing but you don't, and I offer you home team at even money, you'd be a fool to take it.

Same principle with all the teams....your friend had researched this and you hadn't. If more road teams are favored then you've clearly made a wrong play. YOUR STAT ABOUT HOME TEAMS USUALLY WINNING OVER TIME EACH WEEK IS BECAUSE MORE HOME TEAMS ARE USUALLY FAVORED EACH WEEK. If they aren't favored, then the odds are against them winning.

If New England was at Miami...who would be favored? Who would you want to bet even money on?

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
I was trying to be a bit humorous, but there is some seriousness to what I asked. A co-worker and I were discussing this weeks NFL games, and he stated that only 3 home teams would win this week. Without looking at the games, I offered to bet him any amount of money that more than 3 home teams would win this week. He backed away from his original statement, and the final wager was that I win if the home teams win more than half of the games this week, and he wins if the visiting teams win more than half the games this week (we push if the record is tied).

My thoughts on making this bet are that on any given week in the NFL, the home team will win more often than the visiting team. This week, many of the favored teams are on the road, but the favored team doesn't always win in the NFL.

In a round about way, I think this applies to what Paul was saying because my coworker chooses to ignore the historical data regarding home teams and winning in the NFL. Using the 2001, 2002, and 2003 seasons as an example (the only readily available results I could find), the home team wins 58% of the time. Additionally, of the 51 weeks of football during those 3 seasons, visiting teams won more games than the home teams only 20% of the time.

So I believe my bet is +EV, but then again I could just be a goofball that catches cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

A better stat for you to look at: How often does a road FAVORITE lose? If its under 50% then you made a bad bet(I'm assuming of course that the majority of this week's road teams are favorites...if not, then your friend is simply and idiot, and although you have not demonstrated much skill yourself, your friend has demonstrated even less and you will therefore be favored in this bet).

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
For how much would you be willing to take that wager? Your entire bankroll?

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have missed my multiple posts in the other thread asking how much your bankroll is, since that's what you excitedly wanted to wager.

[ QUOTE ]
You're offering to bet into a total informational black hole

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's a matter of perception, I guess.

[ QUOTE ]
then you are what the wager implies: a fool.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never disputed that. Don't they say something about separating fools from their money?

[CrisBrown]

Hi fnurt,

[ QUOTE ]
If someone says "I am good at Scrabble because I am a novelist with a big vocabulary," there are only 2 real possibilities:

(a) the person does not understand that world-class Scrabble play is not about having a big vocabulary, and thus is making a sucker bet; or
(b) the person understands all that, and is running a hustle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't said I'm good at Scrabble. I haven't even conceded that I've ever played the game. I have conceded that I'm a hustler (and I am). Am I hustling this? You can pick a number out of the air and assign that to my probability of hustling, but you don't know how often or in what ways I hustle, so that too is just a guess. Is it a guess you're willing to bet on?

The only flaw in the original post -- which the poster has said was a joke -- and the subsequent thread, is everyone's willingness to lay odds regarding a total unknown (my skill at Scrabble). You simply can't lay odds on a total unknown, and thus any wager is speculative at best and foolish at worst. In fact, that's exactly what Paul's original post in this thread was about. Note also that Paul didn't take the bet, despite the rhetoric, probably in part because he knows he would be betting into an unknown quantity, which he concedes would be a bad wager.

As for whether the 3:1 line on Paul to win at Scrabble is a good wager ... the world will never know. I'd stake my poker bankroll on it, but my current bankroll is pin money, that is, money I could replace without a second thought. As I've said before, I'm learning PL Omaha at micro-stakes, so I don't need much of a bankroll at the moment. So while I wouldn't worry about losing it, I'd be happy to triple it (if I won).

Cris

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
That means the only way she'd have a chance is if she was pulling the ol' double-reverse trick and pretending to think that mattered to sucker me in.

[/ QUOTE ]

And now I guess she's using the ol' double-double-reverse by pointing out the fact that she may indeed be a hustler. Brilliant!

Well, either that or just doing what she did in the other thread and steadfastly refusing to concede, well, anything, in the face of those troublesome facts and that annoying sound logic.

Nah, I'm going with the outstanding double-double-reverse.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
You simply can't lay odds on a total unknown, and thus any wager is speculative at best and foolish at worst. In fact, that's exactly what Paul's original post in this thread was about. Note also that Paul didn't take the bet, despite the rhetoric, probably in part because he knows he would be betting into an unknown quantity, which he concedes would be a bad wager.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say a headsup match was arranged between Greg Raymer and one of these incoherent forum newbies who are always flaming him. Now of course, any nick on this forum could be a world-class player in disguise, but can't you safely say the odds are less than 50%? Couldn't you take Greg's side in this bet without being a fool?

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, I'm the only one in this conversation who knows both sides of the equation. This thread is about the value of information in gambling. I might be a world-class Scrabble player. I might never have played the game. Or I might be somewhere in between. No one has so much as asked me when I last played Scrabble, or at what level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand that "information" is not what you tell us, it's what we observe?

If you think you're convincing ANYONE with this futile effort I feel somewhat sorry for you.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Paul,

[ QUOTE ]
Do you understand that "information" is not what you tell us, it's what we observe?

[/ QUOTE ]

And what you observe (here) is exactly and only what I want you to observe. There is, after all, a backspace key in Internet communication. I don't have to share anything I don't want to share. I don't have to be honest. I don't even have to offer arguments that I truly believe. I can play the "devil's advocate" and argue, as compellingly as my grasp of logic will permit, for what I know to be an entirely erroneous conclusion. You have no way of knowing whether I'm doing that, because you don't get to see me in the real world, or assess me on any basis other than what I choose to write here.

It could be that I'm simply arguing for sport -- as you yourself seem prone to do -- because I'm in the mood to argue....

Cris

[STLantny]

Girls cant hustle.


Im printing up t-shirts, send me a S.A.S.E + 24$.

[curtains]

Paul, what's your scrabble rating? Or estimated rating if you don't have one.

[astroglide]

i'd put $1000 on paul in a best of 3, non-internet game.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I have conceded that I'm a hustler (and I am).

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently not a very good one. When can I put my money in on this action?

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
It could be that I'm simply arguing for sport -- as you yourself seem prone to do -- because I'm in the mood to argue....

[/ QUOTE ]

What you optimistically call "for sport" the rest of us would label "to save face." Thoroughly ineffectively, I should add. The machinations you're willing to go through to avoid noticing when you're wrong are a real giggle to me.

If humans are evolving toward having a higher capacity to rationalize, you are some kind of advanced superwoman.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
La Brujita,

For how much would you be willing to take that wager? Your entire bankroll? You still haven't asked whether I've ever played Scrabble, or if so, how recently and at what level. You are still "betting into the wind." There are several orders of magnitude difference between the customary kind of imperfect information inherent in life -- what card will come off next, who will draw which tiles, etc. -- and your utter absence of information about my Scrabble ability. I have neither overstated nor understated that ability; in fact, I've said nothing at all about my proficiency with that game. You're offering to bet into a total informational black hole, based solely on your perception of someone you've never met, and a handful of posts you've read on an Internet forum. If you can't see why that's a foolish wager, I would love to have a series of prop bets with you. If you can see why that's a foolish wager, and you're still willing to make it, then you are what the wager implies: a fool.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many factors here?

1.How much of a favorite is Paul over a decent amatuer?
2.How much of a favorite is Paul over a very good player who has played in some big time matches?
3.How much of a favorite is a world class player over Paul?
4.What are the odds that you are each of these 3?

I'll ballpark some of these answers:

1.about 2000-1
2.about 700-1
3.about 15-1
4.Without knowing you at all, I'd put it somewhere like this: 70% that you're a decent amatuer, 25% that you're a very good player, and 5% that you've been hustling us all along and you're a pro.

Based on these assumptions.......

(.7 x .9995) + (.25 x .99857) + (.05 x
.0625) = .69965 + .2496425 + .003125 = .9524

Therefore, Paul has about a 95% chance of winning the bet. Therefore, he is about a 19-1 favorite...Of course, all of this is just speculation on my part and perhaps yours, Paul's, or someone else's views might be different....but really, thats what we do when we make a bet- we access the situation and make a good gamble according to what we think.

As you can clearly see, the odds that you are a pro must me significantly higher for 3-1 to be bad odds for Paul. If you are indeed a hustling pro, then you've done a good job and probably deserve to get paid off by Paul here.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For how much would you be willing to take that wager? Your entire bankroll?

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have missed my multiple posts in the other thread asking how much your bankroll is, since that's what you excitedly wanted to wager.

[ QUOTE ]
You're offering to bet into a total informational black hole

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's a matter of perception, I guess.

[ QUOTE ]
then you are what the wager implies: a fool.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never disputed that. Don't they say something about separating fools from their money?

[/ QUOTE ]

Cris, if you were indeed willing to risk your entire bankroll, then that would definitely cause me to raise the % of you being a pro in my equation.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Paul,

No, the truth is I'm just arguing because I'm in a mood to argue. I can't argue with my partner or my kids because: (a) we usually agree; and, (b) I don't want to hurt their feelings. Neither of those factors applies here -- if anyone gets their feelings hurt by something they read on an Internet forum, they have serious mental health issues -- so it's a harmless diversion. It's more entertaining (to me) than TV, and a good way to unwind at the end of a writing day. And this particular forum, where the posts usually have very little 'hard' content, is a good place for it.

Truth is, I've no doubt that you are at least a 3:1 favorite over me in Scrabble. I'd still take the wager, for my entire poker bankroll, for the reasons I stated in another post. That is, my bankroll is minimal right now, given what I'm trying to accomplish in poker (learning PLO at microstakes), so I could replace it without a second's hesitation. Tripling it, however, would be a nice bonus. If you'd like to set up such a match -- though I doubt it would be worth your time or effort -- I'm willing.

Cris

[Ulysses]

Do you ever think to yourself, "Maybe I should forget about all this backtracking and double-talk and just own up to being wrong." ?

If not, you should give it a try.

[astroglide]

what about my action? /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[jwvdcw]

THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS THREAD SEEMS TO HAVE GOTTEN OUT OF WHACK.........

We have gotten off on a tangent about whether Paul was making a good be due to his missing information. But the intial discussion was on whether or not people like Cris are making good or bad bets?

So, Cris, for the purpose of dicussion, can you come clean? Just how good are you at scrabble? Do you consider yourself a world class player or not?

The point of Paul's orginial post was that its foolish for people who aren't world class players to think that 3-1 odds is good simply becuase they have a big vocabulary. Clearly, 3-1 isn't good odds for that type of player. Paul then used you as an exmample. Are you an example? None of us know except for you! But the point remains- THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD(WHO AREN'T WORLD CLASS PLAYERS) WHO WOULD TAKE PAUL UP ON HIS BET AND WOULDN'T BOTHER TO DO THE RESEARCH THAT SHOULD'VE BEEN DONE BEFORE MAKING SUCH A BET. THESE PLAYERS ARE LONG TERM LOSING GAMBLERS, AND PAUL WAS TRYING TO HELP ANY OF THEM THAT ARE HERE WITH HIS INITIAL POST.

[banditbdl]

You keep bringing it up so I'll ask the questions. When was the last time you played Scrabble? Do you have any sort of tournament Scrabble experience? If so, what is your Scrabble ranking (whatever that means)? For you to say you would take the 3-1 odds against Paul in a game of Scrabble knowing what you know about his Scrabble ability implies you either know for a fact that you are at least near his skill level or you simply don't care and just want to make the bet and play the game for argument's sake.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd still take the wager, for my entire poker bankroll, for the reasons I stated in another post. That is, my bankroll is minimal right now, given what I'm trying to accomplish in poker (learning PLO at microstakes), so I could replace it without a second's hesitation. Tripling it, however, would be a nice bonus. If you'd like to set up such a match -- though I doubt it would be worth your time or effort -- I'm willing.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul wrote:
"Especially, if you let your ego get tied up in your betting; if you're afraid to admit your initial assessment was wrong; or if you let your desire to beat one particular person color your thinking: then you are doomed at poker and every other form of gambling. It's as big a leak as you can suffer. It is how the winners bankrupt the losers."

Cris's above post merely confirms this in action. Amazing that one person can post 5-6 times in a thread and actually demonstrate the point the original poster was making.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
And what you observe (here) is exactly and only what I want you to observe.

[/ QUOTE ]
You wrote that Paul couldn't be a 3-1 favorite over you because you know a lot of words.

That's like saying Paul can't be a favorite over me at poker simply because I've got really good eyesight and I'll never mistake a diamond for a heart.

If you believed what you wrote, it's strong evidence that you'd be much worse than a 3-1 dog against Paul since you have no clue what skills being good at Scrabble requires.

So the only question left is whether you were pulling the double-reverse hustle to help you get action on your bet. While logically possible, the context of your statement made it appear highly unlikely.

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
I could be a former college Scrabble champion, a pro who posts here under a pseudonym, or a rank amateur. Paul neither knows nor has any way of knowing how well or poorly I play Scrabble.

[/ QUOTE ]


But Paul knows theres only about a 0.001047% chance of you actually being a scrabble champion.
(oh crap, is that what Paul meant when he said, "It's very dangerous to invent percentages out of thin air."? /images/graemlins/wink.gif)

[CCass]

After I posted the details of our NFL bet here (my co-worker is an occassional reader of 2+2), he and I were discussing it further, and we agreed on a couple of points.

1. He thinks your New England at Miami example is exactly what is happening in the NFL this week. A lot of very good teams on the road playing the not-so-good teams.

2. I believe that what the data shows is that a Home underdog is much more likely to pull an upset than a Visiting dog (my co-worker has agreed to this also). I believe that there are a couple of NE vs MIA type games this week, but that there are several games where the Home team is a slight dog, and enough of them will pull off the upset to cover my bet. For the record, this weeks games include 10 home dogs (Okay, maybe this was a bad week for this bet).

I rarely make prop bets for the very reason Paul mentioned in his original thread, and my apparent inability to correctly apply the edges I might have.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
I've no doubt that you are at least a 3:1 favorite over me in Scrabble. I'd still take the wager, for my entire poker bankroll

[/ QUOTE ]

If you enjoy taking on -EV propositions, I am sure there are many posters here who would be happy to accommodate you.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS THREAD SEEMS TO HAVE GOTTEN OUT OF WHACK

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

The point of the thread is that Ms. Brown feels better emotionally by trying to represent herself as far better than she actually is at everything. Note that she's never accepted any actual offer of action. Note that she ignores every single point made against her that isn't defensible by hiding behind her Scrabble anonymity. Note that if she were actually trying to fool all of us to provide for herself a great betting opportunity, she would have accepted action. She's ignored offers. Now she tries to frame it as a grand ploy by boldly lying about the preliminary research she did into the matter regarding playing Paul.

Cris seems to live out her delusions of grandeur in Fantasycyberland. She'll never take a bet because she probably does know her actual ability. But she'll feel just a little happier with herself every time she converts someone doltish enough to think her a brilliant gambling/scrabble/literary mind based on selectively responding to disjoint points that she thinks she has a neat rebuttal for.

At least compulsive gambling losers have the stones to do something about their wild assertions. She doesn't. But that's not what gets her off. She gets an endorphin release by thinking she said something smart - no matter how transparent or false it may be. Her affliction is akin to that of an alcoholic (or compulsive gambler), and she'll never cure it until she realises that she has a problem.

She's a wonderful addition to this forum and thread because she represents the part inside all of us that can't face reality. Most people just bottle that side of themselves away as it does damage to their ability to function. Not Cris. Her disease runs so deep that it controls her actions. She thinks that with cleverly twisted prose she can throw the dogs off the scent, and prevent "all those mean people" from seeing what an utterly worthless waste of a human being that she is. I'm not saying that she's worthless, but it's fairly apparent that she holds that view of herself.

~D

[CrisBrown]

Duke,

I've said I'd take the action. If Paul wants to set up a match online, I'm game. The money I stand to lose means (literally) nothing to me, as it's chump change with which I'm learning a new kind of poker at mirco-stakes. To triple it would be a nice bonus. As for other people's side action, that's up to them to arrange between themselves.

Cris

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
Duke,

I've said I'd take the action. If Paul wants to set up a match online, I'm game. The money I stand to lose means (literally) nothing to me, as it's chump change with which I'm learning a new kind of poker at mirco-stakes. To triple it would be a nice bonus. As for other people's side action, that's up to them to arrange between themselves.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you address my questions and my point...

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT YOU ALTHOUGH IT IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE SIMILAR TO HOW YOU WERE ACTING

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT PAUL

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DON'T BOTHER TO GATHER ENOUGH INFO AND JUMP INTO BETS SUCH AS AN AMATEUR TAKING 3-1 ODDS ON A SCRABBLE MATCH WITH PAUL.

[Ulysses]

Please, Cris. As TheBusDriver once said to TheBruiser500, "get out of this with some dignity." You now have oh so slyly come up with this new claim that when you so excitedly offered to wager your "entire bankroll" in the initial thread, you were of course referring to your micro-PLO bankroll. Whatever. Give me a break. This constant backtracking and double-talk is not fooling anyone.

[STLantny]

But, shes a hustler baby.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]

Cris seems to live out her delusions of grandeur in Fantasycyberland.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, she is indeed a "novelist."

Alone with his insanity and his gun, he struggled to hold on to reality. He forced himself to hear the sounds of the night and put natural interpretations on them. He forced himself to pay attention to the pain throbbing in his hip and his back, a pain that was almost as solid as the chair on which he sat.

[La Brujita]

[ QUOTE ]
La Brujita,

For how much would you be willing to take that wager? Your entire bankroll? You still haven't asked whether I've ever played Scrabble, or if so, how recently and at what level. You are still "betting into the wind." There are several orders of magnitude difference between the customary kind of imperfect information inherent in life -- what card will come off next, who will draw which tiles, etc. -- and your utter absence of information about my Scrabble ability. I have neither overstated nor understated that ability; in fact, I've said nothing at all about my proficiency with that game. You're offering to bet into a total informational black hole, based solely on your perception of someone you've never met, and a handful of posts you've read on an Internet forum. If you can't see why that's a foolish wager, I would love to have a series of prop bets with you. If you can see why that's a foolish wager, and you're still willing to make it, then you are what the wager implies: a fool.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Cris,

I would risk my entire bankroll on very few if any bets. Do you know what scope shifting is? I never once said I would risk a significant part of my bankroll, I said I would love a part of the action. Can you see the difference?

If you were trying to subtly call me a fool I can tell you I am many things but when it comes to gambling in general and poker in specific a fool I am not.

My money goes in pretty consistantly with the best of it and I don't tilt much.

[DesD]

SAVEFACEANDENDTHISCRIS....how many points is that worth?...lol

Quite a few to Cris' reputation here I would guess, based on observations of course.... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Further on that topic, Paul, I have to say (and please don't take offence), I would not have bet on you winning the following WPT event after seeing you in action at Legends '03 - accepting that TV broadcasts can be misleading and despite the fact that you placed second.

The basis for this observation was that I thought you looked uncomfortable in the environment, a little hot under the collar you could say, and seemed to be offering a lot of information to your opponents. (None of those characteristics have been evident to me since that night I must add).

Now I know very little about Scralebb...lol...but am interested to get your views on how a player rating a 10 in technical ability but 9 in terms of performance under pressure would fare against a player who is slightly less able technically, but flawless under pressure?

Belated congratulations on winning the Five Diamond!! I'm a huge fan of the live journal and your posts here - but I'd bet my monthly bills that I could beat you heads up at no limit... /images/graemlins/wink.gif...and I can confirm that I'm not Mel J (/images/graemlins/cool.gif)...

Finally...as I'm not a regular poster...I'd just like to take the opportunity to add my views to the only other worthwhile topic in the forums at this time...Annie Duke...I would, odds on!

DesD.

[CrisBrown]

Hi felson,

That depends on how you quantify the EV. Let's say my state lottery will pay $10M to the winner, on a $1 ticket, and the odds of winning are 1:20M. In strictly monetary terms, that's a -EV decision. But the $1 means nothing at all to me; I find that much in change in the washer after my son does his laundry. Winning the $10M would change my life in a huge way (for the better). Losing the $1 won't change my life at all. So, in that sense, it's a +EV bet because it's literally zero-risk (the $1 may as well be a freebie, as far as I'm concerned).

There is more to EV than simply the money. There is also the effect that winning or losing that money would have on your life. Losing my trivial current bankroll wouldn't have any appreciable effect on my life, but tripling it would be a (small, but nonetheless desirable) bonus.

If my bankroll were $10K -- such that the loss would be significant to me -- it'd be a different story altogether.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

DesD,

[ QUOTE ]
SAVEFACEANDENDTHISCRIS....how many points is that worth?...lol

Quite a few to Cris' reputation here I would guess, based on observations of course....

[/ QUOTE ]

My reputation here is irrelevant to me. Having a fan club here would add nothing to my life, and having a bunch of people here who think I'm an idiot detracts nothing from my life. Sorry ... but you're just not that significant.

Cris

[STLantny]

There is more to EV than simply the money.


NO THERE IS NOT. Any gambler will tell you that the bottom line is what its all about. You are letting emotions get involved (a dollar is piddly etc) with a decision, therefore you are a bad gambler. This is the WHOLE point of Paul's post, any bet in which you participate in, in which you are self-weighting caused you to gamble badly. Of course you could argue that the 10Million winnings could be viewed as "infininty", due to investments. But in all reality you are deluded.

[CrisBrown]

El Diablo,

As I said to another poster, my dignity is not at issue here, so far as I'm concerned. Having a fan club here would add nothing to my life, and having a bunch of people here who think I'm an idiot detracts nothing from my life. Sorry ... but you're just not that significant.

Cris

[STLantny]

My mommy says I'M significant.

[CrisBrown]

ST,

[ QUOTE ]
Any gambler will tell you that the bottom line is what its all about. You are letting emotions get involved (a dollar is piddly etc) with a decision, therefore you are a bad gambler.

[/ QUOTE ]

If "any gambler" will indeed argue that the bottom line is what it's all about, even when the risk is de minimus, then "any gambler" is an utter idiot about the true value of money.

Cris

[SossMan]

<font color="blue"> The money I stand to lose means (literally) nothing to me </font>
<font color="blue"> To triple it would be a nice bonus. </font>


So according to CrisMath,

Nothing * 3 = NiceBonus

interesting

[CrisBrown]

Hi ST,

And I'm sure you are ... to her. That's hardly at issue. But to think that your opinion of me ought to matter to me as much as your opinion of your mother matters to her is simply laughable.

Cris

[STLantny]

You are quite the megalomaniac, I never said anything about YOU at all in regards to me being significant. But nice try. Listen, this is simple freakin mathmatics. Lets say you have 2 sons, and wash their jeans/school uniform etc , and find an average of 1 dollar everytime you wash their jeans. This re-occurs everyday from the age of 5-15. And at the end of everyweek you buy lottery tickets with the 10
you find every week. Over the course of 10 years, at 10$ a week, which should be just a drop in the bucket to a big time novelist such as yourself, you have wasted 5200$. Now, is that insignificant to you, it may be? Which, if it is, great for you. Do you see why you are a bad gambler now?

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
Not trying to be a complete dick Paul, as i enjoy reading some of your posts here and on your journal.

It is just that I found this particular thread akin to someone posting the importance of the seat belt in a motor vehicle safety forum.

An aside regarding your scrabble fondness: do you ever tool around with literati on yahoo?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have had absolutely no expirience with prop betting, and very little with odds in betting outside of horse-racing. I had never considered placing a bet no matter what the odds were unless i thought I was a favorite until probably the last 6 months.

Please don't assume that the knowledge you think is remedial will not be appreciated by others and ridicule the poster, I am sure there are others that appreciate it too.

[DesD]

Hi Cris.

Nothing personal...This is a community and I would suggest your reputation is important to me, if not yourself.

There is an air of Norman Wisdom entering the ring with Muhammad Ali to your posts and I would guess that nobody really wants to see you continuing to dig yourself in (despite what is being said).

However, nobody on this forum can deny that what you have said is true - they don't know you...and you could indeed be the Ali of the Scrabble world...although I hope your fingers are smaller /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

That said, step back and take an objective look at the thread...it needs to end or change direction.

Regards.

DesD

ps - any chance of a game of heads up at PLO...lol... /images/graemlins/wink.gif!

<font color="red">PPS - jwvdce - I think you have taken a harsh stance on this topic considering the Liz &amp; Sam fiasco that you gave birth to...but lets not rake that up again eh? </font>

[CrisBrown]

Hi SossMan,

[ QUOTE ]
So according to CrisMath,

Nothing * 3 = NiceBonus

interesting

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. The actual value of money is often not a linear function. For example, let's say you have a hole in your pocket and a quarter falls out and into a storm drain. You will probably do like most of us would, and shrug it off. It's only a quarter.

Now let's change that and say you're walking to your car after a great night at the casino, feeling the heft of your $5000 bankroll in your hand, and it slips out and into that storm drain. I'm willing to bet you're going to try to find some way of retrieving it.

In purely linear terms, that $5000 is simply 20,000 quarters ... and if you can shrug off one quarter, why not 20,000 of them? It's just 19,999 more shrugs. Except we both know it isn't.

There's a reason that every responsible seminar on gambling includes the rule: "Never gamble with money you can't afford to lose." That reason has to do with the non-linear delta value of different sums of money.

Cris

[Wayfare]

Also, if you are going to play for your entire bankroll, you should play for your entire bankroll. Not the micro-stakes PLO bankroll you have creatively brought up to say "I got ya" to everyone.

Also I'll bet $100 on PP as long as he doesn't sandbag.

[Wayfare]

That's probably the most valuable piece of info that has come out of this thread.

Keep it up CB

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
She's a wonderful addition to this forum and thread because she represents the part inside all of us that can't face reality.

[/ QUOTE ]
Notwithstanding her lapse of judgment in this thread, she's also a wonderful addition to this forum because she writes well and explains some important poker concepts pretty clearly.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Wayfare,

That's not my PLO bankroll. It's my entire poker bankroll at present. I withdrew a bunch to pay bills, and deposited a small amount to learn a new game. If Paul wants to waste his time to earn $110.25, I'm up for it. The game would be fun, and I wouldn't mind losing. But I doubt Paul would go for it, simply because he could find much more profitable ways to spend his time.

In fact, if Paul wants to play the game, and has a PStars account, once we sit down at the Scrabble table, I'll transfer the $110.25 to him at the start of the game. If he wins, he can keep it. If I should happen to win, I'll trust him to transfer the $441 back to me.

Fair enough?

Cris

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
Notwithstanding her lapse of judgment in this thread, she's also a wonderful addition to this forum because she writes well and explains some important poker concepts pretty clearly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll grant you the first one, but based on what we've witnessed here recently you should be petrified about using her writings to understand important poker concepts.

She's the linda sherman of twoplustwo -- she writes with enviable spelling, grammar, and clarity of expression, suffering only the small downside of usually being wrong.

I'll take muddled articulation backed by genuine understanding over elegant incorrectness. Fortunately your options are wider yet and don't require you to make such a difficult decision.

[felson]

"The actual value of money is often not a linear function."

I shouldn't have to explain this, but the utility curves for money get nonlinear only when the monetary amounts are extremely large. 3:1 for $100, or for $1k probably even, is not extremely large, unless your preferences are unusual. This is why your lottery example is irrelevant.

I believe this is Sossman's point.

The other justification for -EV bets is because you like gambling, like a roulette player. This is rational too, although unprofitable in the long wrong. But it was not your justification.

In any case, your storm drain example is a poor one because the actual calculation is expected return vs. effort to retrieve it. It is rational to expend 20 min of effort to retrieve $5k but not for 25 cents, and this has nothing to do with nonlinear utility curves. Is that difficult for you to accept?

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Now let's change that and say you're walking to your car after a great night at the casino, feeling the heft of your $5000 bankroll in your hand, and it slips out and into that storm drain. I'm willing to bet you're going to try to find some way of retrieving it.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I lost the quarter, I would be only a very little upset. If I lost $5k, I would be very, very upset.

SossMan Math:

(Very, Very Upset) / (Very Little Upset) = about 20,000.

So I would be about 20,000x more upset for losing $5k than $.25.

That's far from saying losing $110 would "change absolutely nothing" but having $440 would be a "nice bonus". The curve isn't that steep is it? I mean, you don't have someone named Grandma knocking on your door asking for $399 or a finger do you?

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
She's the linda sherman of twoplustwo

[/ QUOTE ]

Linda Sherman? (http://www.coloradovocalist.com/)

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Notwithstanding her lapse of judgment in this thread, she's also a wonderful addition to this forum because she writes well and explains some important poker concepts pretty clearly.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I've been involved in these threads is that precisely because Cris does write reasonably well and often with an authoritative tone, some readers tend to assume that what she writes is correct. That is often not the case.

[Sephus]

Duke!

[Sephus]

she did not write that...

[Sephus]

i think it's cute the way you pretend that's how you feel.

[Sephus]

it's like looking at an abstract painting in the sculpture wing of the museum.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
But I doubt Paul would go for it, simply because he could find much more profitable ways to spend his time.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly, so you can pretend to want to do the bet and be reasonably sure that either way it wont happen.

i find it ironic that you're willing to pretend to want to take a losing proposition from paul to prove something to us, but by doing that you're showing us all exactly what paul was trying to exlpain that bad gamblers do.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
you simply can't lay odds on a total unknown

[/ QUOTE ]

it's not a total unknown! i can say that i don't know for sure that you're not a scrabble pro, but i can determine that from my perspective the odds are long based on my perceptions. you should know what the word "total" means.

i also can't say for sure that you aren't actually actor patrick stewart in disguise here to give us headaches, but you can't call it a total unknown!

here is one of the many things you don't understand: information is everywhere! don't you realize that we can make inferences about you as a person beyond that which you choose to reveal? you said somewhere in this thread that we can't speculate as to the odds of whether you're a world-class scrabble player because you hadn't said yea or nay, that we could "only see what you wanted us to see" or something, by virtue of the backspace key.

this is so far from true! i can say with a very high degree of certainty that you did not major in philosophy at an ivy league school, that you have never met the emperor of japan, that you have never played professional rugby, etc.

[cowpie]

[ QUOTE ]
It's very dangerous to invent percentages out of thin air. I realize this is "only" a discussion board and that people are accustomed to talking out of their ass without it having any consequences. Regardless, I suggest it's an awfully bad habit for a gambler (or anyone, but especially a gambler) to have. If you instead form the habit of thinking hard about a bet before you set a line on it, you are likely to have much more success in your gambling endeavors. Including poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul Paul Paul... Why don't you even listen to yourself. Here's what Barry Greenstein wrote on RGP ( http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;c2coff=1&amp;frame=right&amp;th=f051ba6c62c9854b&amp;seekm=5 1ac6c3b.0409301404.1869a69a%40posting.google.com#l ink21 )

[ QUOTE ]
A funny story: Paul did bet some dot-com money against me. He had a
7000 in chips and I had 3500 in chips in this year's WSOP Ace-to-Five
lowball event. He had been very lucky and it was clear that lowball
was not one of his better games, as is the case with many young
players. I offered him an even crossbook. He said, "You've got to be
kidding. I feel guilty getting that big of a spot." I said, "I've
watched you play and I feel like I'm stealing."

He had the one of the best run of cards I've ever seen in a lowball
event. He beat at least eight seven-lows for other players: four
before we bet and four after, including a pat six against my pat
seven. I think I was very unlucky that he made it to 14th place and
cashed out around $3,000. I came in second and cashed for $44,000,
which meant I collected $41,000 from him.

Barry Greenstein

[/ QUOTE ]

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Duke,

I've said I'd take the action. If Paul wants to set up a match online, I'm game. The money I stand to lose means (literally) nothing to me, as it's chump change with which I'm learning a new kind of poker at mirco-stakes. To triple it would be a nice bonus. As for other people's side action, that's up to them to arrange between themselves.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you address my questions and my point...

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT YOU ALTHOUGH IT IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE SIMILAR TO HOW YOU WERE ACTING

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT PAUL

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DON'T BOTHER TO GATHER ENOUGH INFO AND JUMP INTO BETS SUCH AS AN AMATEUR TAKING 3-1 ODDS ON A SCRABBLE MATCH WITH PAUL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cris, can you please respond to my point...I'll say it again: The point of this thread isn't about you necessarily, but about people like the one you are representing. That is, people who are amateur's at a game like scrabble and yet would bet only getting 3-1 odds against a great player are fools. Thats the point of this thread. Are you an example...we don't know because you might 'be a great hustler.' But lets forget about you for a second Cris. What do you think about 'the fool' that I talk about above? Do you think he truly is a fool or do you disagree with Paul?

[CrisBrown]

jwvdcw,

I disagree as to your fundamental premise. You seem to believe that Paul posted his original comments as a way to discuss intelligent wagering. I don't think that was his intent at all. I think the putative topic was merely a pretext he used to slam a couple of posters with whom he disagreed. Obviously, you and I won't agree on this. But that is why I'm not answering your question.

Cris

[blendedsuit]

<font color="blue"> Haven't you thought of spending more time with your kids. Your family, your life, and our lives would benefit from it much more than imitating James Joyce, whether on purpose or accidental. That is clearly the only +EV move you have left. </font>

[mike l.]

"The forgiveable mistake is not knowing, as I didn't, how little luck there is in upper echelon scrabble games."

you couldnt figure that out after thinking about the game for about 2 minutes? i could. id say this error is unforgiveable.

[jwvdcw]

[ QUOTE ]
jwvdcw,

I disagree as to your fundamental premise. You seem to believe that Paul posted his original comments as a way to discuss intelligent wagering. I don't think that was his intent at all. I think the putative topic was merely a pretext he used to slam a couple of posters with whom he disagreed. Obviously, you and I won't agree on this. But that is why I'm not answering your question.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you are correct. And if you view this as a personal attack, then I can see why you are so adament concerning it. Nevertheless, I do think there is a lesson to be learned here, which is why I come to these forums. Moreover, I think you realize the answer to my question. I think you know that the answer is that its rather foolish to bet against a great player if you are an amateur and only getting 3-1 odds in a game like scrabble where the luck factor is not high.

I think Paul was using you to prove a point. Was this a little disrespectful on his part? Perhaps it was, and I can understand your feelings. However, at the same time, you can argue that Paul was simply trying to get you to see your mistake(if of course, you aren't hustling him). We all come here to get better, right? Well, this is a chance to improve your 'game'. This is a chance to get better- take a look at the situation. Whether the person described is you or not, learn the correct lesson from this, and make yourself a better gamlber.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
you can argue that Paul was simply trying to get you to see your mistake

[/ QUOTE ]

if he only knew the fundamental futility of this.

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
you can argue that Paul was simply trying to get you to see your mistake

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the irony of posts like this that make these threads awesome.

[babigm]

First of all, I don't really care if CrisBrown is wrong or right or stubborn or a scrabble hustler or Patrick Stewart or Paul Phillips arguing with himself for kicks.

Before this whole thing came up, I didn't know a damn thing about professional scrabble. I would wager, given enough time to research and set proper odds etc. etc., that most of the people that are so matter of fact now, and willing to bet so much on Paul, knew approx. as much as I did. Even David Sklansky, 'The God of Knowing Things', wasn't aware of the skill:results ratio involved himself. I can pretty much give really great odds that more people were tempted by that 3:1 then are willing to admit it now. So for most people the answer for who to bet on should be c) I don't know anything about competitive scrabble, so I won't bet on it! It's like trying to set a fair selling price for the Mona Lisa when all you've seen is a Etch-a-Sketch copy of it.

The thing to keep in mind is, when you take a look at a line that you think is too good to be true, or too bad to be true, the next thing to consider is the person/entity offering that line. Most people don't offer bets and lines with the intention of losing them. What you have to decide is whether or not you are more prepared, more knowledgable, and/or more correct in your reasoning then the person offering the bet.* Only then should you condier the bet itself.

*Certain Vegas bets are different, because they play to different rules then straight up prop bets.

[George Rice]

Cris, if you think about it, David's statement about betting into the wind is "correct". Not correct no matter what, but correct probably over 99% of the time.

True, you might be a hustler looking to get Paul in a contest at 3:1 where you figure to have the best of it at those odds. But what are the chances of that? People make all sorts of claims and assumptions about their abilities. There are untold numbers of people who would offer to play at those odds who had almost no chance of winning, nor any understanding of gambling concepts, scrabble or even adequate word knowledge. His statement illustrates the same point (or one of the points) in Paul's orinigal post.

Besides, your assumption that you are "the only one in this conversation who knows both sides of the equation" is flawed. You don't know if Paul has improved his game or whether David, if fact, does know who you are and knows about Paul's improved game. Not that any of this is likely, but neither is it likely that you're actually a wolf in sheep's clothing--far more likely the opposite.

Don't neglect the fact that you have over 2000 posts and David may have a pretty good idea about your abilities and thought processes from reading these posts.

Finally, it really dosen't matter if you are the rare hustler. The amount someone is willing to bet against you probably isn't enough to warrant your efforts. And a large bet would arouse suspicions and you might be found out (certainly David wouldn't wager a lot without looking into it).

But that's my point of view after reading some of the posts. If David made his statement without considering the small likelihood that you were a hustler, or didn't consider it irrlevant for the above reasons or others, then he was guilty of "betting into the wind." But I doubt it.

And if I'm wrong, excuse me for "'breaking wind' into the wind." /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[driller]

I stumbled across this thread while researching "self-weighting". But it reminded me of a story about Arnold Palmer when he was a lot younger and probably the best golfer on the planet.

Some guy that had had too many opined that the pro's weren't all that great and if Palmer would give him 2 up a side, he would play him for $1000. Palmer replied, "I'll give you 4 up a side and we'll play for $10,000." End of conversation. Palmer was betting into the wind, I guess.

[TStoneMBD]

please dont bump posts that have rightfully died unless you have something really important to say. jesus christ.

[curtains]

Yeah nothing can ruin my mood more than the untimely revival of an old thread.

[partygirluk]

FWIW, one of my best friends came third in the 2004 World Scrabble Championship. I regularly get 7 letter words, average maybe 285 and even though I knew he would likely beat me, thought I could maybe run him close, and if I hit luck, maybe just maybe beat him. I played him 3 times and he soundly trounced me. In one game I got 3 7 letter words and and he beat me by about 350 points! If I had to guess, I would say I am a 1000-1 shot to beat him.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
please dont bump posts that have rightfully died

[/ QUOTE ]


I have to disagree with you here, there are a multitude of lessons in this thread making it, easily, one of the better ones of 2004. This board is full of a ton of new faces and I think it's a public service when gems like this are brought back.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[drexah]

good post, thanks paul.


p.s. keep your beard

[drexah]

You're really doing an amazing job at making my point about people remaining impervious to their available information. Seriously, I applaud. People are going to start thinking you're a creation of mine intended to teach others about the dangers of making bad bets. Everyone, I swear she's another completely autonomous human being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was it just me or did anyone else laugh hysterically at this?

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
good post, thanks paul.


p.s. keep your beard

[/ QUOTE ]

too late

[Ezcheeze]

"So, in that sense, it's a +EV bet because it's literally zero-risk (the $1 may as well be a freebie, as far as I'm concerned)."

Wow. Complete garbage. Wow.