vpFREE2 Forums

Risk of Ruin Before Royal

#1

Steve Jacobs wrote (snip):

I wish Jazbo were here. I can talk to him without being blown off with
comments to the effect that "200 year old math can't be wrong..."

That's misquoted and out of context. Many aspects of math that were accepted as correct 200 years ago have since been proven to be wrong. For example, Euclid's formulas for mass, acceleration, etc., were accepted as being precise until Einstein showed that they don't work at very high velocities (but they're still perfectly fine for everyday use).

What I said was that the Poisson Distribution formula has been accepted as accurate for nearly 200 years. No one has yet shown any error in that formula. Any formula, no matter how good, can however be misapplied, which is why I don't try to apply Poisson's formula for a bankroll that is insufficient for at least one royal cycle.

I appreciate Mr. Jacobs' comments, and perhaps I can work them into an accurate formula. Or maybe Jazbo will come up with a solution. In the mean time, I'm working on a simulation program that will take into account all of the fluctuations along the way to a royal.

Dan

···

--
Dan Paymar
Author of best selling book, "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
Editor/Publisher of VP newsletter "Video Poker Times"
Developer of VP analysis/trainer software "Optimum Video Poker"
Visit my web site at www.OptimumPlay.com

"Chance favors the prepared mind." -- Louis Pasteur

#2

Steve Jacobs wrote (snip):
>I wish Jazbo were here. I can talk to him without being blown off with
>comments to the effect that "200 year old math can't be wrong..."

That's misquoted and out of context.

I apologize if that is the case. Your post never reached my mailbox,
so I didn't see it in the original context.

Many aspects of math that were
accepted as correct 200 years ago have since been proven to be
wrong. For example, Euclid's formulas for mass, acceleration, etc.,
were accepted as being precise until Einstein showed that they don't
work at very high velocities (but they're still perfectly fine for
everyday use).

What I said was that the Poisson Distribution formula has been
accepted as accurate for nearly 200 years. No one has yet shown any
error in that formula. Any formula, no matter how good, can however
be misapplied, which is why I don't try to apply Poisson's formula
for a bankroll that is insufficient for at least one royal cycle.

I'm not claiming that the Poisson Distribution itself is wrong (although
it _is_ an approximation). However, I do have confidence in my
solution and I believe it is exact. Your number is sufficiently different
from mine that I believe it represents something that may be quite
different from what you wanted.

I appreciate Mr. Jacobs' comments, and perhaps I can work them into
an accurate formula. Or maybe Jazbo will come up with a solution. In
the mean time, I'm working on a simulation program that will take
into account all of the fluctuations along the way to a royal.

I'm glad that you're investigating this further. I think you may be surprised
by the result. I think the important thing, when two people disagree, is
to work toward resolving the difference so that the truth (or a better
approximation to the truth) is uncovered.

···

On Saturday 05 November 2005 02:58 pm, Dan Paymar wrote:

#3

Dan, I'm sure you're a better mathmatician than historian
I think you met Newton's formulas.

Matt

···

----- Original Message -----
  From: Dan Paymar
  To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
  Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 4:58 PM
  Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Re: Risk of Ruin Before Royal

  Steve Jacobs wrote (snip):
  >I wish Jazbo were here. I can talk to him without being blown off with
  >comments to the effect that "200 year old math can't be wrong..."

  That's misquoted and out of context. Many aspects of math that were
  accepted as correct 200 years ago have since been proven to be
  wrong. For example, Euclid's formulas for mass, acceleration, etc.,
  were accepted as being precise until Einstein showed that they don't
  work at very high velocities (but they're still perfectly fine for
  everyday use).

  What I said was that the Poisson Distribution formula has been
  accepted as accurate for nearly 200 years. No one has yet shown any
  error in that formula. Any formula, no matter how good, can however
  be misapplied, which is why I don't try to apply Poisson's formula
  for a bankroll that is insufficient for at least one royal cycle.

  I appreciate Mr. Jacobs' comments, and perhaps I can work them into
  an accurate formula. Or maybe Jazbo will come up with a solution. In
  the mean time, I'm working on a simulation program that will take
  into account all of the fluctuations along the way to a royal.

  Dan

  --
  Dan Paymar
  Author of best selling book, "Video Poker - Optimum Play"
  Editor/Publisher of VP newsletter "Video Poker Times"
  Developer of VP analysis/trainer software "Optimum Video Poker"
  Visit my web site at www.OptimumPlay.com

  "Chance favors the prepared mind." -- Louis Pasteur

  vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

    a.. Visit your group "vpFREE" on the web.
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     vpFREE-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]