Some people read what they want to read, rather than what was written (see earlier remarks in reply quoted at end). My original statement was:
> However, if you presume a player has 200,000+ hands of play in the casino and
> they have failed to establish themselves as a profitable player, there begins to be
> cause for a bias that they aren't likely to become a profitable player.
No where did I suggest 200,000 hands was a long-term measurement. I'll stick by a corollary of my original statement, a streak of 200,000 hands of profitable play is more likely to reflect variance from the casino's expected loss as a consequence of skill than it is mere luck ... and therefore, there's cause for bias (as in, "more likely than not") against the player being profitable in the longer-term.
I spoke nothing in the region of confidence that would represent a "long term" play trial. But some players are simply self-deluded in thinking that a casino should always attribute a sustained net winning streak to nothing more than dumb luck.
And let's take that DDB game that Nordo cites as an example to the contrary: If a casino is rating a game assuming 1%+ in strategy error cost, then those who are showing a profit are indeed playing above a full s.d. from casino expectation.
I assert, that while it's not with strong confidence, again, there's a bias that such results are a consequence of stronger than expected play skill than merely good luck. Such players are being overcompensated, and, again, there's cause for a bias against them being profitable in the longer-term.
- H.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <Nordo123@...> wrote :
> However, if you presume a player has 200,000+ hands of play in the casino and
> they have failed to establish themselves as a profitable player, there begins to be
> cause for a bias that they aren't likely to become a profitable player.
No where did I suggest 200,000 hands was a long-term measurement. I'll stick by a corollary of my original statement, a streak of 200,000 hands of profitable play is more likely to reflect variance from the casino's expected loss as a consequence of skill than it is mere luck ... and therefore, there's cause for bias (as in, "more likely than not") against the player being profitable in the longer-term.
I spoke nothing in the region of confidence that would represent a "long term" play trial. But some players are simply self-deluded in thinking that a casino should always attribute a sustained net winning streak to nothing more than dumb luck.
And let's take that DDB game that Nordo cites as an example to the contrary: If a casino is rating a game assuming 1%+ in strategy error cost, then those who are showing a profit are indeed playing above a full s.d. from casino expectation.
I assert, that while it's not with strong confidence, again, there's a bias that such results are a consequence of stronger than expected play skill than merely good luck. Such players are being overcompensated, and, again, there's cause for a bias against them being profitable in the longer-term.
- H.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <Nordo123@...> wrote :
To Harry and others, 200000 hands for long run - what a joke. If you were playing 9-6 DDB 1 sd would still be 1.5 %.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
__._,_.___
Posted by: harry.porter@verizon.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (9) |
.
__,_._,___
