True, the long run as we normally view it is not reached. I really should have quoted the article more precisely, Bob said that a full cycle, which he defined could be reached, but he said that it was unlikely for him to reach it.
That is what caused me to raise my question. If you aren't going to complete the cycle, which would give you the expected return, then why play it ?
A.P.
________________________________
From: "007 007@embarqmail.com [vpFREE]" <vpFREE@yahoogroups.com>
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 16 DEC 2014
>I agree that there isn't a bankroll concern, but when a play is considered to be good over a well defined long run as it was here, and when that long run will not be reached, again as well defined here, then why play it ?
>
>It seems to me that if you aren't likely to complete enough cycles to get the average return, and the edge isn't large to begin with why play it.
>We were given lots of good reasons not to play it, but I saw no good reasons to play it. I just want to know the logic behind the decision.
>
>A.P.
The "long run" is never "reached." The expected result, in percentage
terms, is generally more closely approached as the number of trials
increases.
Posted by: Albert Pearson <ehpee@rogers.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (6) |
