Matt Ebenhoe and theoretical $$.
 

Just out of curiousity, when Greg Raymer won $5,000,000, how much theoretical money did he win?

Re: Matt Ebenhoe and theoretical $$.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't have missed the point by more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what I read.

Re: Matt Ebenhoe and theoretical $$.
 

OK, so if I win the lottery, and win $1,000,000 on a lottery ticket I paid a dollar for, I theoretically lost $.50 since the lotto is - EV game?

Re: Matt Ebenhoe and theoretical $$.
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK, so if I win the lottery, and win $1,000,000 on a lottery ticket I paid a dollar for, I theoretically lost $.50 since the lotto is - EV game?

[/ QUOTE ]

The example from my article you seem to have a problem with is talking about the insignificance of a single result which varies from the mean when put in the perspective of the long run.

For your example of the lottery, if the EV of buying a ticket is -$0.50, then you've theoretically lost $0.50 every time you bought a ticket, and this holds true over the long run of all lottery tickets bought. $1,000,000 wins are insignificant when looking at the lottery as a whole.

Now if you want to look at an individual person who buys a single lottery ticket and wins $1,000,000 off of it, there are a couple reasons this isn't comparable to the example of mine you are referencing:

1. There is no long run for this person, so this is example is useless to them.

2. In a single poker session for a winning limit player, which this article's audience would be best defined as, the possible range of results of a session is much smaller than that of the person buying the lottery ticket.

So basically with this smaller level of variance and longer run of time, thinking in theoretical dollars becomes much more relevant.