|
|
#71
09-20-2004, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
[ QUOTE ]
And yes, I know I'd be taking the worst of this bet... and I'd still gamble on it. [/ QUOTE ] This is a tangent, but . . . if you know you'd be taking the worst of it, why would you gamble on it? Lots of people knowingly take the worst of it all the time. Walk into any casino and look at how many people are playing slots, craps, or roulette. They know it's a bad bet, but they do it anyway. And thank god -- because if nobody was willing to take the worst of it in poker, the rest of us would be unable to make any money at it. It just strikes me as odd that a 2+2er would knowingly take the worst of a bet. On the other hand, TJ Cloutier is well known for enjoying craps. I believe Phil Ivey also plays craps. Stu Unger and Doyle Brunson both apparently took the worst of it on golf bets quite often. All of these people understand the odds inside and out, so they knew they were making -EV bets. Is it just a psychological urge to gamble? Would you bet on tails in your example just for fun? Wouldn't it be more fun to find a +EV wager instead of taking a -EV wager? 
|
|
#75
09-20-2004, 03:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why, you ask?
Maybe I'm Gus Hansen's long-lost blood relative or something..
[ QUOTE ] And yes, I know I'd be taking the worst of this bet... and I'd still gamble on it. This is a tangent, but . . . if you know you'd be taking the worst of it, why would you gamble on it? [/ QUOTE ] dictionary.com is getting a workout today! <font color="green">gam·ble v. gam·bled, gam·bling, gam·bles v. intr. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest. To play a game of chance for stakes. <font color="red">To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit. </font> To engage in reckless or hazardous behavior </font> [ QUOTE ] It just strikes me as odd that a 2+2er would knowingly take the worst of a bet. [/ QUOTE ] Who wants to be a robot? Besides, I'm gambling on gambler's fallacy- always a +EV move! [ QUOTE ] All of these people understand the odds inside and out, so they knew they were making -EV bets. Is it just a psychological urge to gamble? Would you bet on tails in your example just for fun? Wouldn't it be more fun to find a +EV wager instead of taking a -EV wager? [/ QUOTE ] That explains why I don't do much but play poker these days. But the basic premise behind my willingness to make these less-than-optimal bets (Dan H, 50 consecutive heads) is that I'm gambling that I'm more "likely" to win than I should be, given recent history that's extremely unusual.
|
|
#76
09-20-2004, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Simplicity -
* dan harrington made the final table of the two largest fields in big buyin tournament history, on top of having won the wsop a decade prior. What are his chances of making the final table in 2005, assuming a field of 5000? Say final 10 to simplify the math. The exactly average player's chances are 1/500. What are dan's?
Dan has the same chances 1/500 to make the final table (final 10 assuming 5000 players). * I'll let you pick some number of players. If a single one of those players wins a bracelet at the 2005 WSOP, you win the bet. How many players do you need to list before you are a favorite in this bet? Say 5000 players, I’d have to list 2501 to have an advantage…. or 100 players, I’d have to list 51. * How much positive equity does the very best player have in whichever currently existing $5K+ tournament you believe has the weakest field? Ignore juice. The exactly average player gets paid back his $X buyin on average. How good is the best? 3X? 5X? 10X? 20X? More? $X buyin on average is your “mean” expectation. You have 0 positive equity. (I confess I have no idea…but that’s my answer. * Two tournament players each play 100 large field tournaments. In the end, player A has averaged a profit of 0.5 buyins/tournament and player B has averaged 1.5 buyins/tournament. With what percentage confidence can you say that player B was actually playing with higher EV than player A? Alternately: what line would you place on player B winning more than A over the next 100 tournaments as well? What if B had averaged 3 buyins per tournament? Percentage of confidence = 0% MY line = 50/50 With 3 buy-ins per tournament for player B, what did player A average for buy in’s? assuming Player B = 3 and Player A = 1 – I’d venture to say that would be a 3/1 advantage for each tournament. Again I have no idea…but there’s my answer. Disclaimer: I am the furthest away you can get from a math wiz....I suck at math. These are "common sense" driven... or applied with the simplest thought answers. Flame away.
|
|
#77
09-20-2004, 05:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Simplicity -
the math to this question is quit sound but the problem i have is the diminishing value to ability or skill.
lets take it out of the poker world. if 5000 random people have a chance to hit 1 pitch for a home run who do you bet on? The experience of that person factors in to their ability to not only make contact but to do so when the pitch is bad or not in their favor. the cards and or pitch will never be the same for all and therefore, how you handle each pitch or cards will effect your outcome. i have read many interesting posts and this is my first reply
|
|
#78
09-20-2004, 07:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
That's the logic that casinos were hoping people will use when they put up the board that keeps track of the last N roulette numbers to come up. If 9 hasn't come up in 20 spins, it must be "due". It is still an independent trial.
|
|
#80
09-21-2004, 01:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do you believe that I\'m under that misconception?
[ QUOTE ]
Okay, how did we get to the certainty that this player's "expectation is still 2 BB/100"? Unless s/he is the world's most freakishly consistant player, winning exactly 0.02 bets in cash on every single hand, expectation is based on an average of their results . Therefore, this 2BB expectation is based on 1 BB/100 streaks and 3 BB/100 streaks and -5BB/100 streaks and so on, combining in their results over time. THIS is what allows us to declare them a "2 BB/100 expectation player." [/ QUOTE ] If a solid 2BB/100 player is running at 3BB/100 for 1000 hands, he does not need to experience an 'expected' 1BB/100 1k hand streak to stay on his mean. The reason you need to look at the long term in the statistics of random numbers is not because over time there will be high and low swings that even each other out. Rather, the longer the player plays, the smaller the swings will be in relation to the number of hands played. For example, if a 2BB/10 player has a 30BB/1000 spike and then continues to play solid 2BB/100 poker for another 10k hands (without any major swings), he will improve only a 2.1BB/100 rate. The longer he plays, the close his real world rate will asymptotically approach to his true rate. Thus, a single spike is not balanced by a spike of exactly the same magnitude in the opposite direction. Instead, it is balanced by a larger sample size at the true mean. Looking for a downswing immediately after an upswing is plain wrong. In fact, since an upswing is more likely when the observed average is below the true rate, it is more likely that the player's true average is higher than previously expected.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
