N0=variance/(er-1+cb)^2 hands
positive expectation:
FPDW+.25%cb N0= 260,000 hands
10/7DB+.5%cb N0= 630,000 hands
10/7DB N0= 9.7 million hands
negative expectation:
Pick'Em N0= 60 million hands
8/5SAB N0= 175 million hands
9/6DDB N0= 400,000 hands
8/5JOB N0= 26,000 hands
How do you guys do this stuff??? Do your minds "naturally"
think like this much less. . . understand it??? Whenever I
"dive" into one of these posts (and I do love 'em–don't get me wrong!, don't understand 'em, but love 'em!) my eyes start to water, my ears ring and my mouth gets dry. I start to feel like I did as a Sophomore in HS in Mr. Prahl's math class. . … . . . I didn't understand that at the time, either. But, I do now–heck, I even understand %'s! (I find it amazing how much of the population doesn't even understand that!)
And then, just about the time I think I'm "getting" one of these math monster posts, someone goes and says "but if you do this and that" then it can be such and such!!! And my mind goes on tilt again. But hey! I love the mental challenge and the amazement that you guys can figure this out! In my next life I'm going to ask for more "math" brains! Just wanted to let you know that to me you're all amazing and frustrating (to myself) all at the same time! Keep it coming. . . . .I'm thinking. . . . . .
nightoftheiguana2000 <nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
N0=variance/(er-1+cb)^2 hands
positive expectation:
FPDW+.25%cb N0= 260,000 hands
10/7DB+.5%cb N0= 630,000 hands
10/7DB N0= 9.7 million hands
negative expectation:
Pick'Em N0= 60 million hands
8/5SAB N0= 175 million hands
9/6DDB N0= 400,000 hands
8/5JOB N0= 26,000 hands
Jean H--
You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes.
You can steer yourself any direction you choose.
You're on your own. And you know what you know.
And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go.... Dr. Suess
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
1) Wow, this is great stuff. But a little caveat. The PDF of these games is decidely not
normal, especially for 26,000 hands of JoB. All that means is that NO does not refer to a
particuallry well defined likilhood of anything (as in 84%, etc). In other words, NO is (as
NOTI alredy stated) simply the number of hands at which the standard deviation is equaly
to +/- the expectation. Tantalizing as it may be to assume that this equivelence occurs at
a certain probability, it's a bit of a stretch unless the distribution is normal (or you know
the distribution).
2) The point of my original post was that one's actual results affects how one views future
play. NO (and other measures) might be usfeul to tell what to expect in the future, for
hands we haven't yet played, but they don't take into account our actual results. Here's
the rub. We have a really bad day, one of those days that only should occur 1% of the
time. We drop a ton of money fast. Now how many hands to we have to wait until we get
into the long run? (Isn't that an odd question?) How many hands to we have to wait until
we have a decent likilihood of winning that money back? (better question) Or what is our
expected long-run return given that we lost that ton of money already ?(also a good
question). Well, for a postive game (er-1), using noti's conventions, the rate at which
you will earn your money back is (er-1+cb) *N. Say you went down >2 Royals worth (say
2000 units), and that er-1+cb = 1% (a pretty big number) In this case, N = 200,000
hands. If ee-1+cb = 0,5, N = 400,000 hands. At 400 hands/ hour that is 500 to 1000
hours. If we were relying on EV (er, whatever) alone to bring us back to, that could be a
long wait. But we don't... we're gamblers and we depend on the Variance to help us when
things are bad (we've lost a lot) and ignore the variance when things are good, when in
truth what has happened on a previous hand doesn't effect what will happen in future
hands.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" >
N0=variance/(er-1+cb)^2 hands
FPDW+.25%cb N0= 260,000 hands
8/5JOB N0= 26,000 hands
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
N0=variance/(er-1+cb)^2 hands
positive expectation:
FPDW+.25%cb N0= 260,000 hands
10/7DB+.5%cb N0= 630,000 hands
10/7DB N0= 9.7 million handsnegative expectation:
Pick'Em N0= 60 million hands
8/5SAB N0= 175 million hands
9/6DDB N0= 400,000 hands
8/5JOB N0= 26,000 hands
Help
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "cdfsrule" <groups.yahoo@v...>
wrote:
Well, for a postive game (er-1), using noti's conventions, the rate
at which
you will earn your money back is (er-1+cb) *N. Say you went down >2
Royals worth (say
2000 units), and that er-1+cb = 1% (a pretty big number) In this
case, N = 200,000
hands. If ee-1+cb = 0,5, N = 400,000 hands. At 400 hands/ hour that
is 500 to 1000
hours. If we were relying on EV (er, whatever) alone to bring us
back to, that could be a
long wait.
If I read this correctly that after 400,000 hands one would be back to
even within some plus/minus?
Well sort of: I'm just saying that the overall all EV (including the bad loss) would be zero at
that point (400,000 hands or whatever). The +/- would be huge, and that's what matters
to me anyway.
How huge? Well after 400,000 hands the standard deviation is abot 632.5 times the
standard deviation of 1 hand. Let's say the game had a variance of 25 (FPDW is about that)
or a standard deviation of 5. So, 632.5 * 5 = 3162.5 units. We could then say something
like "with a high probaility we expect to within +/- 3162 units or that original bad loss" (if
we new that that the PDF wa normal we would easily know the exact probability) Wow.
+/- 3162.5 , a 6325 unit range after 400,000 hands. That's a big range. Is that the long-
run ? But look at the bright side, in percentage terms, it a small range, 6325/400,000 =
1.58 %. In other words, at 400,000 hands the +/- 1 SD points are at about -0.80% and
+0.80%. I guess in percentage terms, it doesn't sound so bad.
As for 400,000 hands (or whatever number) being the long run, that's a question I leave
up to the player. But the thing that has the biggest effect on that scary +/- SD range is
the variance, not the EV (or er, whatever), at least for the VP games that I've seen. Just
Take a look at NOTI's numbers and a table of EV & Variance for typicall VP games.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "cdfsrule" <groups.yahoo@v...>
wrote:
Well, for a postive game (er-1), using noti's conventions, the rate
at which
> you will earn your money back is (er-1+cb) *N. Say you went down >2
Royals worth (say
> 2000 units), and that er-1+cb = 1% (a pretty big number) In this
case, N = 200,000
> hands. If ee-1+cb = 0,5, N = 400,000 hands. At 400 hands/ hour that
is 500 to 1000
> hours. If we were relying on EV (er, whatever) alone to bring us
back to, that could be a
> long wait.If I read this correctly that after 400,000 hands one would be back to
even within some plus/minus?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
N0=variance/(er-1+cb)^2 hands
positive expectation:
FPDW+.25%cb N0= 260,000 hands
10/7DB+.5%cb N0= 630,000 hands
10/7DB N0= 9.7 million handsnegative expectation:
Pick'Em N0= 60 million hands
8/5SAB N0= 175 million hands
9/6DDB N0= 400,000 hands
8/5JOB N0= 26,000 hands
Please put into words what this means regarding negative games.
wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
>
> N0=variance/(er-1+cb)^2 hands
>
> positive expectation:
> FPDW+.25%cb N0= 260,000 hands
> 10/7DB+.5%cb N0= 630,000 hands
> 10/7DB N0= 9.7 million hands
>
> negative expectation:
> Pick'Em N0= 60 million hands
> 8/5SAB N0= 175 million hands
> 9/6DDB N0= 400,000 hands
> 8/5JOB N0= 26,000 hands
>Please put into words what this means regarding negative games.
For a positive expectation gamble of N0 hands, you will be positive
(net win) 84% of the time. For a negative expectation gamble of N0
hands, you will be negative (net loss) 84% of the time. (Note: this is
an approximation assuming a normal distribution, an exact solution can
be found using a calculator such as
http://www.lotspiech.com/poker/index.html or Dunbar's risk analyzer)
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
> <nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
> >
> > N0=variance/(er-1+cb)^2 hands
> >
> > positive expectation:
> > FPDW+.25%cb N0= 260,000 hands
> > 10/7DB+.5%cb N0= 630,000 hands
> > 10/7DB N0= 9.7 million hands
> >
> > negative expectation:
> > Pick'Em N0= 60 million hands
> > 8/5SAB N0= 175 million hands
> > 9/6DDB N0= 400,000 hands
> > 8/5JOB N0= 26,000 hands
> >
>
> Please put into words what this means regarding negative games.
>For a positive expectation gamble of N0 hands, you will be positive
(net win) 84% of the time. For a negative expectation gamble of N0
hands, you will be negative (net loss) 84% of the time. (Note:
this is
an approximation assuming a normal distribution, an exact solution
can
be found using a calculator such as
http://www.lotspiech.com/poker/index.html or Dunbar's risk
analyzer)
Please give me input values for Lotspiech's analyzer to get 400,000
for 9/6 JoB. I have tried to arrive at same conclusions that you do
using this program but never get same answer.
DWK
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
> <nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
> >
> > N0=variance/(er-1+cb)^2 hands
> >
> > positive expectation:
> > FPDW+.25%cb N0= 260,000 hands
> > 10/7DB+.5%cb N0= 630,000 hands
> > 10/7DB N0= 9.7 million hands
> >
> > negative expectation:
> > Pick'Em N0= 60 million hands
> > 8/5SAB N0= 175 million hands
> > 9/6DDB N0= 400,000 hands
> > 8/5JOB N0= 26,000 hands
> >
>
> Please put into words what this means regarding negative games.
>For a positive expectation gamble of N0 hands, you will be positive
(net win) 84% of the time. For a negative expectation gamble of N0
hands, you will be negative (net loss) 84% of the time. (Note:
this is
an approximation assuming a normal distribution, an exact solution
can
be found using a calculator such as
http://www.lotspiech.com/poker/index.html or Dunbar's risk
analyzer)
Lets see if I have got this. For FPDW, EV =100.76% at zero cb then
at NO number of hands played (assuming normal dist.) I would expect
to be from break even to 102.28 EV 84% of the time. [100 + (3 X.76%
= 2.28%)]
If I have that correct then if I was playing NSUD, EV = 99.726% at
zero cb then I would be from even to 99.184 EV 84% of the time.
[100 - (3 x 0.272% = .816%)]at NO of hands played.
Is that correct and what is value of NO in each of above?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>
wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000"
<deuceswild1000@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
> > <nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > N0=variance/(er-1+cb)^2 hands
> > >
> > > positive expectation:
> > > FPDW+.25%cb N0= 260,000 hands
> > > 10/7DB+.5%cb N0= 630,000 hands
> > > 10/7DB N0= 9.7 million hands
> > >
> > > negative expectation:
> > > Pick'Em N0= 60 million hands
> > > 8/5SAB N0= 175 million hands
> > > 9/6DDB N0= 400,000 hands
> > > 8/5JOB N0= 26,000 hands
> > >
> >
> > Please put into words what this means regarding negative games.
> >
>
> For a positive expectation gamble of N0 hands, you will be positive
> (net win) 84% of the time. For a negative expectation gamble of N0
> hands, you will be negative (net loss) 84% of the time. (Note:
this is
> an approximation assuming a normal distribution, an exact solution
can
> be found using a calculator such as
> http://www.lotspiech.com/poker/index.html or Dunbar's risk
analyzer)
>Lets see if I have got this. For FPDW, EV =100.76% at zero cb then
at NO number of hands played (assuming normal dist.) I would expect
to be from break even to 102.28 EV 84% of the time. [100 + (3 X.76%
= 2.28%)]
Break even or better 84% of the time.
If I have that correct then if I was playing NSUD, EV = 99.726% at
zero cb then I would be from even to 99.184 EV 84% of the time.
[100 - (3 x 0.272% = .816%)]at NO of hands played.
Break even or worse 84% of the time.
Is that correct and what is value of NO in each of above?
FPDW: 25.83461805/0.007619612^2= 444,976 hands
NSUD: 25.78027/(.997283-1)^2= 3,492,273 hands
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>
wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000"
<deuceswild1000@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
> > <nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > N0=variance/(er-1+cb)^2 hands
> > >
> > > positive expectation:
> > > FPDW+.25%cb N0= 260,000 hands
> > > 10/7DB+.5%cb N0= 630,000 hands
> > > 10/7DB N0= 9.7 million hands
> > >
> > > negative expectation:
> > > Pick'Em N0= 60 million hands
> > > 8/5SAB N0= 175 million hands
> > > 9/6DDB N0= 400,000 hands
> > > 8/5JOB N0= 26,000 hands
> > >
> >
> > Please put into words what this means regarding negative games.
> >
>
> For a positive expectation gamble of N0 hands, you will be positive
> (net win) 84% of the time. For a negative expectation gamble of N0
> hands, you will be negative (net loss) 84% of the time. (Note:
this is
> an approximation assuming a normal distribution, an exact solution
can
> be found using a calculator such as
> http://www.lotspiech.com/poker/index.html or Dunbar's risk
analyzer)Please give me input values for Lotspiech's analyzer to get 400,000
for 9/6 JoB. I have tried to arrive at same conclusions that you do
using this program but never get same answer.
Even for FPDW you'd have to run 444,976 hands which would take forever
on Lotspiech's calculator, so my mistake for making that suggestion.
Perhaps we can convince Dunbar to post the FPDW N0 (84.14% chance of
winning) number found using a PDF calculator for comparison to the
approximation using normal distribution.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
> <nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000"
> <deuceswild1000@y...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
> > > <nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > N0=variance/(er-1+cb)^2 hands
> > > >
> > > > positive expectation:
> > > > FPDW+.25%cb N0= 260,000 hands
> > > > 10/7DB+.5%cb N0= 630,000 hands
> > > > 10/7DB N0= 9.7 million hands
> > > >
> > > > negative expectation:
> > > > Pick'Em N0= 60 million hands
> > > > 8/5SAB N0= 175 million hands
> > > > 9/6DDB N0= 400,000 hands
> > > > 8/5JOB N0= 26,000 hands
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please put into words what this means regarding negative
games.
> > >
> >
> > For a positive expectation gamble of N0 hands, you will be
positive
> > (net win) 84% of the time. For a negative expectation gamble
of N0
> > hands, you will be negative (net loss) 84% of the time. (Note:
> this is
> > an approximation assuming a normal distribution, an exact
solution
> can
> > be found using a calculator such as
> > http://www.lotspiech.com/poker/index.html or Dunbar's risk
> analyzer)
>
> Please give me input values for Lotspiech's analyzer to get
400,000
> for 9/6 JoB. I have tried to arrive at same conclusions that
you do
> using this program but never get same answer.
Even for FPDW you'd have to run 444,976 hands which would take
forever
on Lotspiech's calculator, so my mistake for making that
suggestion.
Perhaps we can convince Dunbar to post the FPDW N0 (84.14% chance
of
winning) number found using a PDF calculator for comparison to the
approximation using normal distribution.
Disregarding the length of time, what would be the values you would
enter. Or use another vp game. I just do not understand how to
enter the numbers to get NO
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
> <nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000"
> <deuceswild1000@y...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
> > > <nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > N0=variance/(er-1+cb)^2 hands
> > > >
> > > > positive expectation:
> > > > FPDW+.25%cb N0= 260,000 hands
> > > > 10/7DB+.5%cb N0= 630,000 hands
> > > > 10/7DB N0= 9.7 million hands
> > > >
> > > > negative expectation:
> > > > Pick'Em N0= 60 million hands
> > > > 8/5SAB N0= 175 million hands
> > > > 9/6DDB N0= 400,000 hands
> > > > 8/5JOB N0= 26,000 hands
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please put into words what this means regarding negative
games.
> > >
> >
> > For a positive expectation gamble of N0 hands, you will be
positive
> > (net win) 84% of the time. For a negative expectation gamble
of N0
> > hands, you will be negative (net loss) 84% of the time. (Note:
> this is
> > an approximation assuming a normal distribution, an exact
solution
> can
> > be found using a calculator such as
> > http://www.lotspiech.com/poker/index.html or Dunbar's risk
> analyzer)
> >
>
> Lets see if I have got this. For FPDW, EV =100.76% at zero cb
then
> at NO number of hands played (assuming normal dist.) I would
expect
> to be from break even to 102.28 EV 84% of the time. [100 + (3
X.76%
> = 2.28%)]
Break even or better 84% of the time.
> If I have that correct then if I was playing NSUD, EV = 99.726%
at
> zero cb then I would be from even to 99.184 EV 84% of the
time.
> [100 - (3 x 0.272% = .816%)]at NO of hands played.
Break even or worse 84% of the time.
> Is that correct and what is value of NO in each of above?
FPDW: 25.83461805/0.007619612^2= 444,976 hands
NSUD: 25.78027/(.997283-1)^2= 3,492,273 hands
So is it correct to use the zero to 102.28% as expected ER(EV) or is
it only correct ot say break even or better?
Like wise for a negative game only of course in opposite directin,
which statement is correct?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>
nightoftheiguana2000 wrote:
Even for FPDW you'd have to run 444,976 hands which would take
forever on Lotspiech's calculator, so my mistake for making that
suggestion.
Perhaps we can convince Dunbar to post the FPDW N0 (84.14% chance of
winning) number found using a PDF calculator for comparison to the
approximation using normal distribution.
I'm hard pressed to see where an effort to refine the value of NO (to
account for actual hand distribution in the medium term vs. an assumed
long term normal distribution) is going to get anyone.
The significance of the concept is that you can play a positive game
under favorable conditions (10/7 DB w/ .2% cb is not a case of this)
with reasonable assurance that you'll see positive results over a
tangible number of hands played, despite the considerable volatility
of the game. It dispells the "millions and millions of hands" - said
in my best Carl Sagan impersonation - claims of some. That's about as
far as I can see going with the concept ... a mighty powerful distance
in my book.
Of course, if you've got time on your hands, an interest in precision,
and it'll make your day to find that the answer proves to be 670,000
hands instead of 445,000, go for it 
- H.
wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000"
<deuceswild1000@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
> > <nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000"
> > <deuceswild1000@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
> > > > <nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > N0=variance/(er-1+cb)^2 hands
> > > > >
> > > > > positive expectation:
> > > > > FPDW+.25%cb N0= 260,000 hands
> > > > > 10/7DB+.5%cb N0= 630,000 hands
> > > > > 10/7DB N0= 9.7 million hands
> > > > >
> > > > > negative expectation:
> > > > > Pick'Em N0= 60 million hands
> > > > > 8/5SAB N0= 175 million hands
> > > > > 9/6DDB N0= 400,000 hands
> > > > > 8/5JOB N0= 26,000 hands
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please put into words what this means regarding negative
games.
> > > >
> > >
> > > For a positive expectation gamble of N0 hands, you will be
positive
> > > (net win) 84% of the time. For a negative expectation gamble
of N0
> > > hands, you will be negative (net loss) 84% of the time. (Note:
> > this is
> > > an approximation assuming a normal distribution, an exact
solution
> > can
> > > be found using a calculator such as
> > > http://www.lotspiech.com/poker/index.html or Dunbar's risk
> > analyzer)
> > >
> >
> > Lets see if I have got this. For FPDW, EV =100.76% at zero cb
then
> > at NO number of hands played (assuming normal dist.) I would
expect
> > to be from break even to 102.28 EV 84% of the time. [100 + (3
X.76%
> > = 2.28%)]
>
> Break even or better 84% of the time.
>
> > If I have that correct then if I was playing NSUD, EV = 99.726%
at
> > zero cb then I would be from even to 99.184 EV 84% of the
time.
> > [100 - (3 x 0.272% = .816%)]at NO of hands played.
>
> Break even or worse 84% of the time.
>
> > Is that correct and what is value of NO in each of above?
>
> FPDW: 25.83461805/0.007619612^2= 444,976 hands
> NSUD: 25.78027/(.997283-1)^2= 3,492,273 hands
>So is it correct to use the zero to 102.28% as expected ER(EV) or is
it only correct ot say break even or better?Like wise for a negative game only of course in opposite directin,
which statement is correct?
Harry, feel free to lend a hand if you'd like, you're better with the
words.
At N0 hands, the standard deviation of the possible results is equal
to the average result. So, for example, FPDW, since you know the
average result is always +.76%, therefore at N0 hands, the standard
deviation of possible results must be .76% . Assuming a normal
distribution (or "bell curve"), one can also make the following
statements: Plus or minus one standard deviation represents 68% of the
possible results, or for FPDW: even to +1.52% is 68% of the possible
results. Since plus or minus one standard deviation is 68%, 16% of
results must be lower and 16% of results must be higher, therefore 84%
of possible results must be greater than even and 16% must be less
than even or a loss.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>
wrote:
Disregarding the length of time, what would be the values you would
enter. Or use another vp game. I just do not understand how to
enter the numbers to get NO
Lotspiech's pdf calculator is here:
http://www.lotspiech.com/poker/GamblersRuin.html
For example, start with FPDW, stake=$100, retire=$100
For one hand, 54% chance of losing
For two hands, 61% chance of losing
For ten hands, 59% chance of losing
For one hundred hands, 60% chance of losing
...
(at some point you will have to widen the stake and retire limits)
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
wrote:
> Disregarding the length of time, what would be the values you
would
> enter. Or use another vp game. I just do not understand how
to
> enter the numbers to get NO
Lotspiech's pdf calculator is here:
http://www.lotspiech.com/poker/GamblersRuin.htmlFor example, start with FPDW, stake=$100, retire=$100
For one hand, 54% chance of losing
For two hands, 61% chance of losing
For ten hands, 59% chance of losing
For one hundred hands, 60% chance of losing
...
(at some point you will have to widen the stake and retire limits)
Are you saying to just keep putting numbers in until you get an
answer or can you predetermine the number. Predetermine numbers is
what I am asking.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000"
<nightoftheiguana2000@y...> wrote:
Harry, feel free to lend a hand if you'd like, you're better with
the
words.
At N0 hands, the standard deviation of the possible results is
equal
to the average result. So, for example, FPDW, since you know the
average result is always +.76%, therefore at N0 hands, the standard
deviation of possible results must be .76% . Assuming a normal
distribution (or "bell curve"), one can also make the following
statements: Plus or minus one standard deviation represents 68% of
the
possible results, or for FPDW: even to +1.52% is 68% of the
possible
results. Since plus or minus one standard deviation is 68%, 16% of
results must be lower and 16% of results must be higher, therefore
84%
of possible results must be greater than even and 16% must be less
than even or a loss.
NOTI,
My original posting had a math error, not a conceptual error.
So let me try to help out this way.
Assume: Normal Distribution
FPDW
ER = 100.76%
SD at NO = .76%
6SD = 99.73% of area under bell curve
Then visulize a normal (bell curve) centered on 100.76% with SD of
0.76%. Then at minus one SD the value would be 100%, while at plus
one SD the value would be 101.52% between 100% and 101.52% would be
68% of the area under the curve. Therefore 16% of the area under
the curve would be below 100% and 16% would be above 101.52%.
Therefore the total area under the curve above 100% (break even)
would be 84% (68% + 16% =84%).
What I was trying to say regarding the value of 102.28% should have
read 103.28% which is at three SD positive. And then I was trying
to say that 83.865% (100 -99.73)/2 = 0.135%= area under the tail
beyound 3SD, therefore 84.000-0.135 = 83.865% of the time your ER
would range from even to 103.28% ER
Did I get it correct that time?
wrote:
What I was trying to say regarding the value of 102.28% should have
read 103.28% which is at three SD positive. And then I was trying
to say that 83.865% (100 -99.73)/2 = 0.135%= area under the tail
beyound 3SD, therefore 84.000-0.135 = 83.865% of the time your ER
would range from even to 103.28% ERDid I get it correct that time?
-1sd to +3sd would be 100% to 103.04%
the area under that region would be 68.27/2 + 99.73/2 = 84%
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deuceswild1000" <deuceswild1000@y...>