|
|
|
|
#1
11-27-2005, 04:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 10% refund question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So despite all your protest to the contrary, a 10% rebate is a +EV offer. [/ QUOTE ] And despite all your calculations the only thing I can agree with is that getting 10% of your losses back makes it less -EV but never +EV. After all if you end up losing money on your session you still lost. How can losing ever be +EV without a jackpot? Jimbo [/ QUOTE ] OMG...you must be kidding me. Nobody can have >3000 posts here and be this ignorant...so I am going to assume you are just a worthless troll and ignore you going forward... Acme 
|
|
#2
11-27-2005, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 10% refund question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So despite all your protest to the contrary, a 10% rebate is a +EV offer. [/ QUOTE ] And despite all your calculations the only thing I can agree with is that getting 10% of your losses back makes it less -EV but never +EV. After all if you end up losing money on your session you still lost. How can losing ever be +EV without a jackpot? Jimbo [/ QUOTE ] OMG...you must be kidding me. Nobody can have >3000 posts here and be this ignorant...so I am going to assume you are just a worthless troll and ignore you going forward... Acme [/ QUOTE ] Very nice, you cannot refute my logical argument so you resort to name calling. I expected better but alas I am often disappointed. Godd luck getting rich on your new +EV blackjack system. May I have an autographed copy of your book after it goes to print? Jimbo
|
|
#3
11-27-2005, 08:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 10% refund question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So despite all your protest to the contrary, a 10% rebate is a +EV offer. [/ QUOTE ] And despite all your calculations the only thing I can agree with is that getting 10% of your losses back makes it less -EV but never +EV. After all if you end up losing money on your session you still lost. How can losing ever be +EV without a jackpot? Jimbo [/ QUOTE ] OMG...you must be kidding me. Nobody can have >3000 posts here and be this ignorant...so I am going to assume you are just a worthless troll and ignore you going forward... Acme [/ QUOTE ] Very nice, you cannot refute my logical argument so you resort to name calling. I expected better but alas I am often disappointed. Godd luck getting rich on your new +EV blackjack system. May I have an autographed copy of your book after it goes to print? Jimbo [/ QUOTE ] When you present a logical argument, I will refute it. Until then, I will continue to assume you are a troll. All you have said is that losing cannot be +EV. I have presented the way it is +EV, but all you say (over and over ad nauseum) is that if you lose, you only get back 10% of your bet, so it cannot be +EV. If you will not accept the math, you are either ignorant or a troll...and thus, I will not waste another second on you... Acme
|
|
#4
11-27-2005, 08:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 10% refund question
[ QUOTE ]
If you will not accept the math.... [/ QUOTE ] How you cannot understand that your math is flawed is beyond me. What is so hard to understand about the refund? You are becoming quite stubborn and displaying it and your ignorance for all to see. Jimbo
|
|
#5
11-27-2005, 09:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 10% refund question
Yawn...
|
|
#6
11-28-2005, 12:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 10% refund question
[ QUOTE ]
48.825% of the time you double up; 51.175% of the time, you end up with 10% of your bet. The EV is +$2.76. [/ QUOTE ] Actually you will win 43.31% of the time, you'll tie 8.8% of the time and lose 47.89% of the time. Now do you see why you are mistaken and how you made your math error? These percentages still allow for blackjack, doubling and splitting. So in your single hand scenario for your max bet the odds are even worse. It should be aparrent (even to you) why the 10% rebate on your total session losses (yes even a session consisting of one hand) is -EV. Jimbo
|
|
#7
11-28-2005, 12:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 10% refund question
And despite all your calculations the only thing I can agree with is that getting 10% of your losses back makes it less -EV but never +EV. After all if you end up losing money on your session you still lost. How can losing ever be +EV without a jackpot?
Jimbo __ Hi, I just stumbled upon this thread.... Consider the casino giving you back 100% of your losses. You play 100 hands. That is clearly +EV right? Consider normally, where the casino gives you back 0% of your losses. You play 100 hands. That is clearly -EV. So there must be a magical percentage for our example, 100 hands, that is the crossover between + and - EV. I haven't thought about any of the math, but I don't know how you can be sure where 10% stands with regards to that magical #, especially since you don't even have the number of hands we are playing.
|
|
#8
11-28-2005, 12:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 10% refund question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 48.825% of the time you double up; 51.175% of the time, you end up with 10% of your bet. The EV is +$2.76. [/ QUOTE ] Actually you will win 43.31% of the time, you'll tie 8.8% of the time and lose 47.89% of the time. Now do you see why you are mistaken and how you made your math error? These percentages still allow for blackjack, doubling and splitting. So in your single hand scenario for your max bet the odds are even worse. It should be aparrent (even to you) why the 10% rebate on your total session losses (yes even a session consisting of one hand) is -EV. Jimbo [/ QUOTE ] Ok, assuming your numbers are correct, and that they somehow encompass doubling / splitting / getting a blackjack (I don't see how they could, but whatever), if we bet $100 we would get $200 back 43.31% of the time, $100 back 8.8% of the time, and $10 back 47.89% of the time. (.4331 * 200) + (.088 * 100) + (.4789 * 10) = 100.199 This is still +EV, and doesn't account for blackjack payouts or doubles, etc.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
