>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: 007 <007@embarqmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (5) |
.
__,_._,___
