5c. Re: One Coin versus Five Bob Dancer View
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:18 pm ((PST))Thanks for the link, Grumpy. There is a major flaw in Dancer's story.
He says, "Let's assume that you have played $10,000 through the
machine....Playing five coins, your expected loss is $46."He continues, "Here comes the critical part. If you had been playing one
coin you would only have bet $2,000 so far. Even at the higher loss rate,
your total loss would be $32.60."Dancer is comparing apples to oranges. He is comparing wagering $10,000 to
wagering $2,000.
Not having accessed the original artcle, and with the quotes above, I agree. Basically the statement "Let's assume that you have played $10,000 through the machine" is the starting point -- but then "If you had been playing one coin, you would only have bet $2,000 so far" is the same as saying "Now let's toss out our assumption about the $10K completely and talk about a completely different situation where that assumption no longer holds".
If you're going to construct an argument based on assumptions, you can't change them in mid-argument.
And I'll again point out that the way to minimize losses at negative games is not to play at all.
And that apples to apples would be situation A, with $X wagered as a single coin and with a resultant lower paytable, vs situation B, with the same $X wagered as a five-coin bet, still totalling $X, and with a resultant higher paytable due to the five-coin paytable being different. I think that's the one where A and B can be compared, and where in fact B will be the best option.
Example - apples to apples is where A is a $0.25 machine where you bet a single coin and get less than 800 coins for your royal, while B is a $0.05 machine where you be five coins and get 4000 coins for your royal.
--BG
ยทยทยท
================