vpFREE2 Forums

Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 11 MAY 2010

#1

Adventure at the Tropicana --- Part II of II

http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0511.html

<a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0511.html">
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0511.html</a>

···

*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

#2

"This is analogous to me saying that since I don't know
how to hit a major league curveball perhaps Alex Rodriguez
will have a bad year in 2010."

I'm glad Bob's ego is still intact after these
scurilous attacks on his gambling abilities.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE Administrator" <vpfreeadmin@...> wrote:

Adventure at the Tropicana --- Part II of II

http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0511.html

#3

I have disagreed with Bob Dancer plenty of times in the past. For example, his recent assertion that the Dreamcard machine always chooses the best card is flat out wrong. Many players, including myself, have seen occasional blatant errors in actual casino play. Therefore, I always caution Dreamcard players to analyze the machine chosen DC carefully.

But with respect to this week's column I am in 100% agreement with Mr. Dancer. His point is that people should not make assumptions when they don't know all the details. And it is unacceptable that they then further exaggerate their ignorance through malicious gossip.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, krajewski.sa@... wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE Administrator" <vpfreeadmin@> wrote:
>
> Adventure at the Tropicana --- Part II of II
>
> http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0511.html
>

"This is analogous to me saying that since I don't know
how to hit a major league curveball perhaps Alex Rodriguez
will have a bad year in 2010."

I'm glad Bob's ego is still intact after these
scurilous attacks on his gambling abilities.

#4

Bob wrote:
"Nobody knows how to measure exactly how much luck or skill was present at any particular time. But I believe the overall concept that luck is dominant in the short run and skill is dominant in the long run is accurate. We just can't quantify it."

Like many things in life, it's been quantified.

The ratio of luck to skill is:

sqrt(variance x hands) / (edge x hands)

At one hand, luck is dominant, by the ratio of sqrt(variance)/edge. At N0 (variance/edge^2) hands, skill and luck are equal, in other words N0 is the crossover. At 4 times N0 hands, skill dominates luck by 2 to 1. At 9 times N0 hands, skill dominates luck by 3 to 1. At 16 times N0 hands, skill dominates luck by 4 to 1. ...

If you precisely know your edge and variance, then you precisely know your N0.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_analyst

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE Administrator" <vpfreeadmin@...> wrote:

Adventure at the Tropicana --- Part II of II

http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0511.html

<a href="http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0511.html">
http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0511.html</a>

*************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes
and doesn't constitute an endorsement or approval
of the linked article's content by vpFREE. Any
discussion of the article must be done in
accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
*************************************************

#5

I know in a negative expectation game you are going to go broke, but does NO have any meaning (if so what) in a negative game?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

Bob wrote:
"Nobody knows how to measure exactly how much luck or skill was present at any particular time. But I believe the overall concept that luck is dominant in the short run and skill is dominant in the long run is accurate. We just can't quantify it."

Like many things in life, it's been quantified.

The ratio of luck to skill is:

sqrt(variance x hands) / (edge x hands)

At one hand, luck is dominant, by the ratio of sqrt(variance)/edge. At N0 (variance/edge^2) hands, skill and luck are equal, in other words N0 is the crossover. At 4 times N0 hands, skill dominates luck by 2 to 1. At 9 times N0 hands, skill dominates luck by 3 to 1. At 16 times N0 hands, skill dominates luck by 4 to 1. ...

If you precisely know your edge and variance, then you precisely know your N0.

#6

I'm not challening the overall conclusion of the article. I'm
simply noting that the analogy above makes Bob, A-Rod. No one
will accuse him of being humble.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mikeymic" <mikeymic@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, krajewski.sa@ wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE Administrator" <vpfreeadmin@> wrote:
> >
> > Adventure at the Tropicana --- Part II of II
> >
> > http://www.casinogaming.com/columnists/dancer/2010/0511.html
> >
>
> "This is analogous to me saying that since I don't know
> how to hit a major league curveball perhaps Alex Rodriguez
> will have a bad year in 2010."
>
> I'm glad Bob's ego is still intact after these
> scurilous attacks on his gambling abilities.

But with respect to this week's column I am in 100% agreement
with Mr. Dancer. His point is that people should not make
assumptions when they don't know all the details. And it is
unacceptable that they then further exaggerate their ignorance
through malicious gossip.

#7

It has the same meaning, except in that case it's the casino that has the edge. If you have the edge, you expect to eventually gain over luck. If the casino has the edge, they expect to eventually gain over luck. In both cases N0 is the crossover. If it's a fair gamble, a coin toss, both contestants have the same starting bankroll, nobody has an edge, N0 is infinite, it's pure luck all the way.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@...> wrote:

I know in a negative expectation game you are going to go broke, but does NO have any meaning (if so what) in a negative game?

#8

Use NSUD as an example with no cash back so ER is 99.728%. What is its NO and what does it mean in numbers

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@> wrote:
> I know in a negative expectation game you are going to go broke, but does NO have any meaning (if so what) in a negative game?

It has the same meaning, except in that case it's the casino that has the edge. If you have the edge, you expect to eventually gain over luck. If the casino has the edge, they expect to eventually gain over luck. In both cases N0 is the crossover. If it's a fair gamble, a coin toss, both contestants have the same starting bankroll, nobody has an edge, N0 is infinite, it's pure luck all the way.

#9

With all due respect to Dunbar, the chart on the vpFree glossary shows the NSUD NO as a net loss, so that is why I am asking for numbers

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@> wrote:
> > I know in a negative expectation game you are going to go broke, but does NO have any meaning (if so what) in a negative game?
>
> It has the same meaning, except in that case it's the casino that has the edge. If you have the edge, you expect to eventually gain over luck. If the casino has the edge, they expect to eventually gain over luck. In both cases N0 is the crossover. If it's a fair gamble, a coin toss, both contestants have the same starting bankroll, nobody has an edge, N0 is infinite, it's pure luck all the way.
>

Use NSUD as an example with no cash back so ER is 99.728%. What is its NO and what does it mean in numbers

#10

edge = ER-1 = .99728 -1 = -.0027
variance = 26
N0 - variance/edge^2 = 26/(-.0027^2) = 3.6 million hands

It's a negative expectation game, the casino has the edge, so at N0 hands, your chances of being a net loser are about 84%.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@...> wrote:

Use NSUD as an example with no cash back so ER is 99.728%. What is its NO and what does it mean in numbers

#11

.......................................................................

That is what I thought, thanks.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@> wrote:
> Use NSUD as an example with no cash back so ER is 99.728%. What is its NO and what does it mean in numbers

edge = ER-1 = .99728 -1 = -.0027
variance = 26
N0 - variance/edge^2 = 26/(-.0027^2) = 3.6 million hands

It's a negative expectation game, the casino has the edge, so at N0 hands, your chances of being a net loser are about 84%.