Re: ACDOC's "Bankroll Volatility" Explained!
- From: "Mason" <mrzer0_remove_@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:01:19 GMT
Thank you.
The cited Krigman article and included quotations explains that volatility is
statistically represented by variance and standard deviation.
What remains for ACDOC to post is what phenomenon Bankroll Volatility explains
or describes that variance and standard deviation do not.
Why is a non-standard calculation required and what new insights does it give?
How do the cited the posted mathematical calculations apply to
"Bankroll Volatility simply refers to a range of $won vs $lost for a given bet
over a given # of decisions. Your bankroll will fluctuate up or down in that
range. It can help you figure out if you are underfunded, or if you face some
steep negative volatility."
which is what ACDOC claims to be the function of the calculation.
ACDOC clearly asserts that "I've reproduced DiMauro's analysis to support my
claims concerning the
greater volatility of Progressive (Wrong) Don't Pass Betting vs Progressive
(Right) Pass Betting."
This is false if the concept of "volatility" is used as Krigman indicates is
standard for the mathematics of statistics since statistics of any adequate
sample size show absolutely nothing of the kind.
What ACDOC has done is give a new quantification of a phenomena for which he
provides no evidence at ...
http://crapsfest.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=26&sid=c76f667e775bdf3fb0213d0260601183
What is required for the calculations to be useful are examples that confirm his
claim for a difference in volatility between front line bets and backline bets.
His calculations must act to predict some testable phenomena to have any worth
whatever.
It is a very simple question. Under what circumstances is this difference in
volatility between front line and back line bets in evidence? How will it show
itself? What can be simulated that will reveal what standard statistical
analysis calculations of volatility ... variance and standard deviation ... do
not.
What do ACDOC's calculations explain? What do they predict? A hypothesis that
explains nothing that is observable and produces no testable predictions is a
nullity ... without import or use ... a hole in search of a donut.
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason
"Mr. V" <zencraps@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1131297958.442368.189250@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Here's a link to the Crapfest site, wherein ACDOC expounds at length on
> Bankroll Volatility.
>
> He cites to a Krigman article in support of his arguments..
>
> Heavy commends him for his good work.
>
> http://crapsfest.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=26&sid=c76f667e775bdf3fb0213d0260601183
>
> roll dem bones
>
.
- References:
- link: ACDOC's "Bankroll Volatility" Explained!
- From: Mr. V
- link: ACDOC's "Bankroll Volatility" Explained!
- Prev by Date: Re: how to derive house edge based on this data
- Next by Date: Re: You Can Buy Your Way to a Lower Edge, but Beware the Cost
- Previous by thread: link: ACDOC's "Bankroll Volatility" Explained!
- Next by thread: Re: link: ACDOC's
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|