Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I have a Bankroll of 5 trillion dollars and you are a Casino with a 1 billion dollar bankroll and I bet my bankroll on the pass line of a crap table what is the probability that I will win your bankroll before you win mine? Now 5 trillion is a lot smaller number than infinity. Would you like me to multiply that by 5 trillion, another smaller than infinity number, and do the same exercise and have you do the calculation? Remeber you with your 1 billion only get one shot at my bankroll because if you lose your bankroll you go broke and don't have anymore money to bet. Whatever you might want to believe you will find that the resulting numbers here will not be overcome by some -EV casino game unless the game is a %100 certainty.

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's cut the crap. Do you want to bet $5000 or not, otherwise please just shut up. If this is too much for you we can make it $2000.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

There's no crap here. The fact is that the only way to clasiify a game as a negative EV game is to do so by using an infiite number of Trials. So any proof that I give you with less than an infinite number of trial you can just say -- Let's cut the crap. Or do you not understand, for example, that when the pass line is evaluated in the Game of craps that to show that it is a -EV bet one must use an infinite number of trials. Atleast I've never seen it done anyother way. But if you can prove something why not just do it?

Vince

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's no crap here. The fact is that the only way to clasiify a game as a negative EV game is to do so by using an infiite number of Trials. So any proof that I give you with less than an infinite number of trial you can just say -- Let's cut the crap. Or do you not understand, for example, that when the pass line is evaluated in the Game of craps that to show that it is a -EV bet one must use an infinite number of trials. Atleast I've never seen it done anyother way. But if you can prove something why not just do it?

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no altruistic interest in educating you. My only interest is monetary.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Excuse me Vince, but you are a naive person if you believe that Diablo. or anybody else reading. this doesn't already know that Stack Size is not the only thing to consider when considering implied odds

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't believe a poster like El Diablo would not consider his opponent when considering implied odds. No my comment was more toungue in cheek than anything else. I was just wondering why such a good poster as El Diablo would use such and obvious gufaw when supporting his position. I guess you feel the same way. I mean you read his post. He said that because the bettor had a small stack his opponnent was less likely to call. He tried to make this a strong point to prove something I guess. The fact is that this was a multi way pot with four or five opponents. Plenty of implied odds from the opponents of the raisor but he didn't mention that.

Vince

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have no altruistic interest in educating you. My only interest is monetary.

[/ QUOTE ]

O.K But first what do you propose will constitue as proof?

Vince

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no altruistic interest in educating you. My only interest is monetary.

[/ QUOTE ]

O.K But first what do you propose will constitue as proof?

Vince

[/ QUOTE ]

Logic and math, what else?

This is the last reply I'm going to make this post. There is no need for me to keep posting garbage in this forum.

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Logic and math, what else?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you that you are right. Your posting in this thread is a waste of time. Logic tells me that.

vince

Re: Negreanu\'s Folly?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that the only way to clasiify a game as a negative EV game is to do so by using an infiite number of Trials.

[/ QUOTE ]

why are you guys arguing with someone who either

A: is a troll who pretends to be an idiot because it gets him attention

B: is getting into a long debate centering around probability theory yet does not know what EV means?

edit: i now notice that the debate seems to have died down, i apologize for bumping it, somebody sent me to this thread.