Mathmetically speaking

[David100]

oh, some of the things i was thinking while writing that have been said [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I do agree with you all completely. I like the roulette example and was watching people play only the other day doing what you said and feeling very sorry for them.

David

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would bet on heads because I have absolutely no reason to believe that tails is a more likely outcome.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

Why would this theory not work, or would it?


[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you do not understand the answer to this question makes me believe that it is not possible you have an ROI that high at the 215s. No one does that well without a basic understanding of probability.

Each SnG is independant. Variance comes into effect when unlikely/unfortunate things that don't happen all the time happen to occur in a particular SnG. Variance is just how your results deviate from long term expectation. But each SnG does not effect each other SnG, unless you count people taking notes, your own tilt factor, etc. but that is marginal compared to what cards get dealt.

[spentrent]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

That you imply that black is the "obvious choice" is exactly why casinos will never go out of business.

[HesseJam]

It doesn't really "even out". Ther is no pull or push in either direction. The fluctuation of the relative difference between the times you observed event 1 and the times you observed event 2 is getting smaller. Sorry for not using proper mathematical terms here, I know those only in German.

[SonnyJay]

As a finance major who recently had to take an extensive statistics program, I'll present you something similar to an example that my professor gave me.

Suppose you're playing a game with your friend where you're flipping a coin, where you make $1 for each heads and you lose $1 for each tails. You will flip 50 times, take a break, then flip 50 more. Your EV for the day, obviously (I hope) is 0.

After 50 flips, you happen to be up $5. Now, given that you're up $5, what is your total expectation for the day at this point? It is $5, because you are already up $5 and flipping 50 more times at an EV of 0.

The "law of averages" that everyone thinks of is bogus, that a big upswing is sure to be followed by a big downswing. The real law to be concerned about is the Law of Large Numbers, meaning that as your sample size grows very large, your return will converge towards the EV.

You have played 1000 SNGs at an ROI that clearly is not sustainable, but that does not mean that a downswing is inevitable. Sure you may not maintain that ROI, but all that the Law of Large Numbers means is that as you approach 10,000 SNGs, 100,000 SNGs, and 1,000,000 SNGs, your ROI will begin to approximate your "true" ROI.

In the long run you'll likely win, just not at the rate you currently are winning.

-SonnyJay

[Nicholasp27]

no it wouldn't

expected value is over the long term...like infinite

if u flip a coin 1 million times and get 800k heads, that doesn't mean that you will get >500k tails the next million...u can't predict when streaks will occur...over time it'll even out, but u can't say it'll run in 1k cycles or 1million cycles, etc

[HesseJam]

If you flip a coin a Million times and get 800K heads I would be very surprised if you got less than 750K heads on the next Million flips assuming its the same coin and the same environment. That coin is rigged, man.

[Nicholasp27]

the odds of 800k/1million heads is very low

however, so is the odds of 750k heads the second time, so u shouldn't be surprised if it does <750k heads

the odds are low, yes, of 800k/1mil heads, but that doesn't mean the coin is rigged