I'll disagree strongly with the notion that the "long run" is never "reached". That depends on one's notion of "long run".
For my play, I define it as the play length required to be reasonably confident of a positive play result (incl cash play incentives). (This definition obviously reflects the concept of "N0", introduced here by NOTI)
Under that definition, I and most other knowledgeable players can reasonably look to "reach the long run" in a very managable length of time. All this requires is the discipline to restrict gaming to plays having a reasonable edge (0.5-1.0% min), keep play variance moderate, and not excessively stretch one's bankroll.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <007@...> wrote :
>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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: harry.porter@verizon.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (11) |
