*****Forwarded Message*****
···
To: vpFREE@Yahoogroups.com
From: "fordscks" <jason_c_vp@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu Jul 8, 2010 4:53 pm
Subject: Re: Bob Dancer's CasinoGaming Column - 29 JUN 2010
Einstein stated everything should be made as simple as possible, but not
simplier. Newton wrote about "natura valde simplex est et sibi consona" to
which E. Goldratt translates as "nature is exceedingly simple and harmonious
with itself" (see page 35 from "The Choice".)
It's not a popularity contest, it's a contest of applying sound logic. The
article wasn't about greed per se, it was about careless because Bob failed to
do his homework. If you understand this, all of Bob's arguments were specious
and irrelevant (please see last paragraph for summary).
Bob explained a situation where he was to win a sum certain amount but decides
to forgo this amount for two possible outcomes. In one outcome, he will gain an
extra $1 and in the second outcome he will lose a disportionate amount (let say
it's $84). This is a common problem in the insurance business. To solve for
the problem, you make Bob pay an insurance premium to guard against the loss.
If you understand the math, the wealth function is non-linear because people
like Bob and most people are risk adverse. In these situations, you need to use
calculus since involves derivatives.
People like Harry stated: "When it comes to calculation of "marginal utility",
outcome values are weighted by probability of the outcome." I advised Harry in a
private e-mail that he "lacked the intelligence" in that you can't solve a
non-linear function using a linear function since this is Bob's situation
(please understand probability weighted averages is a linear function when there
is two outcomes). Harry failed to understand this basic math concept of
non-linear vs liner, which is why Newton "invented" derivatives. Some people
even claim laying 84:1 odds is the correct play (again 84:1 odd is linear). Bob
D. who has a PhD knows the calculus and the math is not easy for the average
person.
Next is the issue of the hourly win rate. Cogno disagrees with my original three
issues but fails to state why akin to someone saying you are wrong because I
said so. I made a claim that Bob overestimated his hourly win rate by adding
the progressive meter. In fact, Bob's own admission of not claiming a
guaranteed $83 in meter movement clearly points out Bob's overestimation. Yes,
Bob "urinated aways" 30 basis points of EV for someone who is big on hourly EV.
Recall from Bob's article that 30 basis points (0.30%) of his EV was due to the
fat quad ACES based on "and the aces were at $480 (adding another 0.3%)."
When I press Cogno on this fact that Bob's original hour win rate is
illusionary, Cogno now switches gears to talking about animal activities. For
some reason, Cogno doesn't want to stay on topic. Then you have people like
Harry who makes ad homenim comments like "Get a new pair of reading glasses"
(which is a personal attack).
As for the law of opportunity cost. Even Harry and Cogno gets it wrong. If
someone claims he will win $X an hour, but because he overestimates the win rate
and gets $Y an hour AFTER THE FACT (where $X > $Y), there is an opportunity
cost. Had the person known BEFORE THE FACT he was going to get $Y an hour, he
could have done something else in the first place. That is what is meant by
opportunity cost. Again, Cogno stays silent on this issue.
Then there is the issue of non-randomness. Bob does not have a monoploy of
dealt hands (especially quads). Bob does not have a monoploy on riding
progressive meters. What if two people were using Bob's strategy of sitting on
quad aces? Logic dictates one person will be disappointed. Therefore, Bob's
argument of the probability of the next quad aces is IRRELEVANT (since someone
is already sitting on the quad aces unbeknownst to Bob).
Then there is the issue of Bob's "a priori" versus "a posteriori" (before the
fact vs after the fact) argument. Remember Bob's original position of "Also, I
only know I lost $84 AFTER THE FACT. I had to make my decision BEFORE THE FACT."
Let me ask Bob this simple question: Did he have a lock on quad aces? The
answer is No. The next question is: Would he sit on quad aces if another person
is sitting on quad aces? Again, the answer would be no. In economics, this
would be market failure due to asymetrical information problem. Bob's a priori
knowledge failed to acknowledge the correction conditions on WHEN TO RIDE
PROGRESSIVES. For example if, Bob knew the ALL other players were playing
short-coin and WERE UNABLE to hit the quad aces, then that makes sense to sit on
the progressive meter since he has a LOCK on the quad aces. Without the LOCK,
the quads were at risk as dicatted by LOGIC.
It's not about smarts. It's about sound logic. Be very careful of people like
Harry when he makes comments of using linear functions to solve non-linear
functions. Be very careful of people like Cogno who says you are mistaken
because he said so and that's why. Be very care about Bob Dancer who omits key
information in his articles to hide his sloppy analysis. Bob's BIGGEST mistake
was that he failed to acknowlegde when it is correct to ride meter movements --
that is the crux of the article (yes, Harry that is the main point) -- the rest
of the article is IRREVELANT. Newton (Goldratt) and Einstein were right in that
things are simple when you strip away the nonsense.
Regards,
J
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, patricia swenson <jackessiebabe@...> wrote:
For any forum members who can't decide who is most likely correct in the
debate
about Bob Dancer's VP acumen and the accuracy of his assertions, ask yourself
this question:If you owned a casino who would you rather deal to on the basis of their VP
smarts?....... Curtis/Luke/Jason? Or Bob/Cogno/Harry?~Babe~