Harry, thanks for the response. I think we have finally moved a step
forward in the analysis. Yes I am saying that the $5match play is the
same as a $5 cash bet (the step forward). Let me explain.
Consider this situation, I give you 10,000 match play coupon with
which to play. Now as you go along and play these coupons keep your
winnings in separate piles, one pile for matchplay winnings one for
own money winnings. The two piles will of course be identical in
amount. Do you agree?
Now focus on the own money pile, after 10,000 hands (this is probably
to low a number to ge to true expected return, so of course we could
extend this play to 10,000,000 hands if we wish the ideas is the same)
Now what would you expect thaqt pile amount to be. I would say
playing basic strategy blackjack that would be 99% of the amount bet.
Agree? If you don't agree please explain why not. The whole ideas of
rational expectation is based on agreement here.
Now since the two piles contain the same amount therefore they have
the same expected return QED
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
wrote:
jaydavidson118 wrote:
> Does the fact that I have won substantial financial rewards in
math
> competitions (four year tuition scholarship based solely on
> mathematical prowess) change your mind to at least
Jay, has it never been the case that even though you scrutinized a
problem several times that you managed to overlook something that
should have been obvious?
You might wish to consider that you have several very experienced
players disagreeing with you and none concurring.
As far as the question at hand, you basically argue that you're
indifferent to receiving a $5 match play or $5 in cash to play with.
Consider that if you place a wager with $5 of your own money plus a
match play, on an even money win you end up with $15 - a net
financial
gain of $10 against your $5.
If you wager the $5 and the $5 gift, yuou end up with $20 after the
even money win, a net gain of $15 against your $5.
Clearly the cash is better than the match play. If you disagree,
I'm
sure that Jean and others will be happy to sell you match plays for
70
cents on the buck. 
- Harry
Think about what I
> am writing? I guess the point I am trying to make is a little
more
> subtle than I thought.
>
> Now Jean, what does expected return of 99% mean to you, it means
that
> over the long run you will get back 99% of the money you bet e.g.
if
> I place 10,000 $10 bets I would expect my return to approach
$99,000
> The fact that my experience on a single bet is either +100%, -
100%,
> or +150% is not what I should be focusing on when I choose a game
it
> is the sum total of the effect of many of these bets that counts.
It
> is Wrong to just average theses three outcomes to determine my
> return, the more complicated probabilities of the game must be
used.
>
> One final go.
>
> Perhaps the limited number of possible outcomes from a single
> blackjack bet leads to this faulty reasoning. Let's try something
> more familiar Video Poker:
>
> If a casino sits you down at 9/6 JOB machine and gives you one
free
> $5 spin what would you say the value of that is, I hope you would
> agree that the value is $5 x 99.54%. Will you get .9954 x $5 on
that
> spin...definately NOT but in the long run your experience on
these
> spins will approach that value. The fact that there are many
possible
> outcomes forces you to revert to the expected return value to
answer
> this question, well that is also the correct answer to the
blackjack
> situation $5 x 99%
>
> Don't take heart in the fact that other people on this forum have
> fallen into the same mental trap that you have...1,000 years ago
most
> people thought the earth was flat and could have queried as many
> people on the subject and gotten the same answer "the Earth is
Flat"
>
> I am a bit surprised and disappointed by the lack of
understanding by
> the people who have responded to this message thread. Someimes
you
> have to think before responding.
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Scott" <QueenofComps@f...>
wrote:
> > Thanx to everyone who explained why my explanation wasn't
faulty.
> That piece came from "More Frugal Gambling," a book that Anthony
> Curtis edited carefully. I'm not saying he wouldn't ever make a
> mistake - but he has a computer for a brain - so I trust him to
catch
> any math mistakes I might make. However, this one is such a
basic
> concept that even I, queen of the math-challenged, have known
about
···
> it for years.
> > ________________________________________
> > Jean $¢ott - Go to http://www.FrugalGambler.biz
> > for VP software and strategy cards and for the
> > Frugal series of books.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]