6b. Re: Defining "Bad Year" was Re: Breaking Even
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2009 10:20 pm ((PST))I am NOT saying it is unreasonable to choose the BEST possible game.
I am saying it is monotonously annoying that people keeping pushing that the
ONLY games to play are positive or near positive games AS IF they are a
guaranteed win in the long run. Just because there are a CERTAIN number of
people that will fall into the desired side of the bell curve does not mean
that everyone will or that even one of those fortunate people will be me.
This is true regardless of the amount of practice, studying and focus on
positive games I make.Some people even play for a combination of a hopefully good return + the
perks involved with gambling at casinos that other games of chance or skill
don't offer. I don't see anyone offering me a room to come play a chess
tournament and I have played in them before. But a VP tournament - yes they
are every month.Chance is chance yes of course and if someone doesn't want to take the
chance then don't. BUT don't tell me that if I'm playing a 105% game over
the course of 3 years at 200,000 hands per year that I have a chance of even
breaking even. I say that because playing that number of hands has easily
yielded me about 80% and I'm sure I wasn't playing slots.
First of all, I am sympathetic to your irritation if you are in fact losing as much as you say in games with as much player advantage as you say -- but I don't think many of those who advocate for playing for the best returns, and avoiding negative EV games, have ever suggested that you are a SURE winner or loser based on game selection alone.
I do agree with you pretty much completely, and maybe it's your choice of words, but in your last paragraph above, yes I WILL tell you that if you're playing a 105% game over the course of 3 years at 200,000 hands per year that you have a "chance of even breaking even".
In fact, I'll tell you that you have a PROBABILITY of WELL over 50% of breaking even or winning -- someone could do the calculations, but I'd expect a HIGH probability.
I don't know where you're finding a 105% game (please share!!!), but it would actually be very improbable (but again, I certainly agree, NOT impossible - please understand that I agree that it is NOT impossible for this to happen) to have an 80% return on such a game over 600,000 hands.
It can happen, of course, but not very likely. In fact, it would be statistically persuasive (but not proof) of the game not paying the "promised" return.
The game should probably return 95% or more of its expected return even if you never hit a royal -- but again, "should" does not mean "will".
The Hoosier (Indiana) lottery once went 54 weeks without a jackpot winner (prob. of hitting 12 million to 1). They claim they sell about 1/2 million tickets each week when the jackpot is just starting up. Assuming that ticket sales never rise as the jackpot rises (a very bad assumption), the chances of that 54 week stretch was less than 1% -- enough that, in my opinion, while it could happen (as I said, 1% chance or less) "by chance", they should perhaps consider it good reason to examine whether the game was being generated "correctly" by the applicable software, etc.
When I talk to card-counting blackjack players who appear to be managing their bankrolls correctly and who are still losing after what seems to be a large enough "sample" of hands after many trips / years, I always question whether their skill is at the level they think it is - it MAY be that they ARE as good as they think, or it MAY be that they are making mistakes often enough to give up what should be a player advantage -- if you're losing long-run at a 105% game, you too should re-examine your skill level - no offense intended, but there is statistical reason to question it.
--BG
···
================