Mathmetically speaking
 

I have played 1000 215sngs and have a 70% roi. Not sustainable.

Why not play the next 1000 sngs 5+1 to equal out the varience for less losses.

Why would this theory not work, or would it?

David

ps. please do not comment on the 70% roi.

Re: Mathmetically speaking
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have played 1000 215sngs and have a 70% roi. Not sustainable.

Why not play the next 1000 sngs 5+1 to equal out the varience for less losses.

Why would this theory not work, or would it?

David

ps. please do not comment on the 70% roi etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call shenanigans. Fat chance on not having people comment on the ROI.

Anyway, no, that wouldn't work. There's no reason that the next 1000 are going to run you at like -40% or whatever.

Anyway, with your new 150k, I'd invest a lot of it elsewhere and just keep pwning the 215s. Hopefully you don't start running bad and only pull ~30%

Re: Mathmetically speaking
 

i better say now to avoid further complication, i dont have that roi, its more of a hypothetical situation.

But to have that roi would be extremely extrememly lucky, hence more chance of having a big crash soon?

David

Re: Mathmetically speaking
 

I'm not sure you can say that because you had an absurd amount of good luck, you're very likely to soon have an absurd amount of bad luck.

Based on your ROI and finish distributions, over a period of 1000 games your profit should be within a certain range. Anything beyond the bounds of that range is just high variance.

If you've been running well lately and are worried about regression to the mean...don't trip. Just play and let variance take its course. I think if we could control it or at least channel it, Gigabet would have already posted by now [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Mathmetically speaking
 

Randomness has no memory. If you got dealt AA ten times in a row the chance that you'll get it an 11th time is the same as if you haven't been dealt AA in the last 1000 hands.
Actually, the chance that you get it an 11th time is way higher because the likelihood that you got them 10 times in a row makes it more likely that the randomizer in the system broke down or something and that you are stuck on the AAs.

Re: Mathmetically speaking
 

Hypothetically:

You play 1k 215's and end up with ROI of 70%

You play 1k 6's and end up with ROI of -50%

Would this give you 20% ROI and minimize your losses doing so? NO. Your profit would be (215,000 * .7) + (6000 * -.5) or 147,500. Your ROI would then be (147,500/221,000) or 66.7%

Re: Mathmetically speaking
 

[ QUOTE ]
i better say now to avoid further complication, i dont have that roi, its more of a hypothetical situation.

But to have that roi would be extremely extrememly lucky, hence more chance of having a big crash soon?

David

[/ QUOTE ]

If you flip a coin 10 times and it comes up heads each time, what are the odds it comes up tails on the next flip?

50%

Re: Mathmetically speaking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Randomness has no memory. If you got dealt AA ten times in a row the chance that you'll get it an 11th time is the same as if you haven't been dealt AA in the last 1000 hands.
Actually, the chance that you get it an 11th time is way higher because the likelihood that you got them 10 times in a row makes it more likely that the randomizer in the system broke down or something and that you are stuck on the AAs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it's very strange when people bet on black when red came 8 times in a row. Red seems such an obvious choice at that point.

Re: Mathmetically speaking
 

All it would do is reduce the chance of winning 300k (or being a breakeven player) while playing SnGs by a lot.

Re: Mathmetically speaking
 

I agree with you completely, just trying to get my head around why not.

If I flipped a coin 100 times and all were heads, the chance of getting a tails in the next throw is exactly the same as before; however over the next hundred throws why not bet a bit more on tails as surely it should even out?

btw, I am running normally and just thinking from a hypothetical point of view.

I know the rule is that you have exactly the same chance as before, but in the long run surely varience is going to level out - however the speed of this regression is not determined and it could be a gradual one as opposed to a sharp one.

Just some crazy thoughts,

Hope that it makes sense, ish

David