You're absolutely right about the control factor, but I believe that that is the reason it is relevant, not because it is a quantitative factor like machine selection, skill, benefits etc. but because no matter how well you prepare there is always a chance, however slim that your long term results will not be as good as expected, there is also the chance that your results may be way better than expected. Perhaps that's why they call it gambling.
Regards
A.P.
From: mailto:vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 9:13 PM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Bob Dancer's LVA - 30 JUN 2015
>skill and discipline are often small factors compared to random events/luck.
I don't see the point of saying this. No one has any control over
luck, so, no matter how much of a factor it plays in results, it can't
be relevant.
nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com wrote:
>Bob wrote: "When you are good, sometimes you are over-royaled and sometimes you are under-royaled, but these things eventually average out and when they do, you're going to be ahead of the game."
>That's the Monte Carlo fallacy. As long as there's no regression to the mean, things don't "average out". Just because you had a bad run, you can't expect to get a good run to compensate
"Average out" could mean that there is a tendency towards the
compensation that you refer to or it could mean that in percentage
terms, results tend to converge to expected value. I think Bob meant
the latter. I don't think he believes in the "due theory."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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 (20) |
