|
|
#22
03-20-2005, 01:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: This is what makes SNGs profitable
In that case I'm just a little surprised. I'm sure you are not a -30% player in the $22s. That said, and I'm sure you know this, your numbers in the $11s haven't been that great. Of course, between 200-300 sngs you could still just be running bad.
|
|
#23
03-20-2005, 01:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why this system is flawed...and an opposite alternative to think a
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Assuming that the winner of a S&G had good cards, and that everyone gets the same cards over the long run, a player can expect to get worse cards in the S&G following a win. [/ QUOTE ] No, they can't. eastbay [/ QUOTE ] Yes they can. Simple example. If you got dealt pocket Aces 4 times in 100 hands. If you sit down for another 100 you are just as likely to get 4 pocket aces again. However it is obviously MUCH LESS likely to get them 4 or 5 times vs getting them 3 or less. Anyone expecting they are 50/50 to get dealth them 4 times again needs to lose their money.
|
|
#24
03-20-2005, 01:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why this system is flawed...and an opposite alternative to think a
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Assuming that the winner of a S&G had good cards, and that everyone gets the same cards over the long run, a player can expect to get worse cards in the S&G following a win. [/ QUOTE ] No, they can't. eastbay [/ QUOTE ] Yes they can. Simple example. If you got dealt pocket Aces 4 times in 100 hands. If you sit down for another 100 you are just as likely to get 4 pocket aces again. However it is obviously MUCH LESS likely to get them 4 or 5 times vs getting them 3 or less. Anyone expecting they are 50/50 to get dealth them 4 times again needs to lose their money. [/ QUOTE ] U cannot use conditional probability when speaking of a group of hands/SNG's/Tourneys. Each hand/SNG/Tourney is independent of the last. Easybay has given up on you guys, because he has argued with nonsense and figured out some people are stuborn in their ways.
|
|
#25
03-20-2005, 01:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why this system is flawed...and an opposite alternative to think a
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Assuming that the winner of a S&G had good cards, and that everyone gets the same cards over the long run, a player can expect to get worse cards in the S&G following a win. [/ QUOTE ] No, they can't. eastbay [/ QUOTE ] Yes they can. Simple example. If you got dealt pocket Aces 4 times in 100 hands. If you sit down for another 100 you are just as likely to get 4 pocket aces again. However it is obviously MUCH LESS likely to get them 4 or 5 times vs getting them 3 or less. Anyone expecting they are 50/50 to get dealth them 4 times again needs to lose their money. [/ QUOTE ] U cannot use conditional probability when speaking of a group of hands/SNG's/Tourneys. Each hand/SNG/Tourney is independent of the last. Easybay has given up on you guys, because he has argued with nonsense and figured out some people are stuborn in their ways. [/ QUOTE ] Am I missing something? If you rolled a 1000 sided dice and get 500. The next time you roll it you have a 50% chance of rolling higher than before. If you roll a 700. You have a 30% chance of rolling higher than before. If the average SNG winner rolled a 700. 699/1000 times he will not roll higher. Rolls are independent of previous results. Not the odds, even if they are changed by the previous results. I don't know or care what the average roll for a SNG winner is. I'm not arguing it.
|
|
#26
03-20-2005, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The One and Only Sure-fire Can\'t Lose \"System\"
Initialize the betting progression at 0. For each win, loss, or tie, reduce the bet by 1. Works with roulette, craps, SNG's, ad infinitum.
|
|
#27
03-20-2005, 03:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why this system is flawed...and an opposite alternative to think a
[ QUOTE ]
Rolls are independent of previous results. Not the odds, even if they are changed by the previous results. [/ QUOTE ] Have you noticed in casinos now how they've stared putting those scoreboards above the roulette wheels that show the past 10 or so spins? Roulette revenues are through the roof because of these things. The dumb masses look at the board and say, "Wow, the last 5 spins were red so it's long overdue to be black. I mean what are the odds of six reds in a row? Slim to none I'd say. Here's 5x my normal bet on black." And then they vote.
|
|
#28
03-20-2005, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why this system is flawed...and an opposite alternative to think a
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Rolls are independent of previous results. Not the odds, even if they are changed by the previous results. [/ QUOTE ] Have you noticed in casinos now how they've stared putting those scoreboards above the roulette wheels that show the past 10 or so spins? Roulette revenues are through the roof because of these things. The dumb masses look at the board and say, "Wow, the last 5 spins were red so it's long overdue to be black. I mean what are the odds of six reds in a row? Slim to none I'd say. Here's 5x my normal bet on black." And then they vote. [/ QUOTE ] I know this man. I'm not arguing for this misconception. Why does everyone think this is the same? You guys are making the mistake of thinking that becuase a specific hand is just as likely the next time the cards are dealt, then getting it again is a 50/50 shot. It isn't. If getting a specific hand happened 1 in 25 times. Then if you got it once you don't have a 50/50 shot of getting it again. If you got athe 2nd best out of 25hands. Then the chance of you doing the same or BETTER than before is 1/25, and worse would be 24/25. If you got the 10th best hand, then the chance of you doing the same or BETTER is 10/25, and worse would be 15/25.
|
|
#29
03-22-2005, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why this system is flawed...and an opposite alternative to think a
[ QUOTE ]
You guys are making the mistake of thinking that becuase a specific hand is just as likely the next time the cards are dealt, then getting it again is a 50/50 shot. It isn't. [/ QUOTE ] Nobody said that.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
