Re: Like I said, you can't beat retards
- From: Charlie Foxtrot <Bennett6570@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:18:18 GMT
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:58:33 -0700, mkfrnkln@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 20, 6:54 pm, Charlie Foxtrot <Bennett6...@xxxxxxx> wrote:Do you, truly, not understand that probability is simply putting a
Too many people state that an 85% favorite will lose 15% of the time.
No, it will not. Since no one will ever get close enough to playing
the same starting hand close enough to infinity, they should,
definitely, not see that hand lose 15% of the time.
This is such a ridiculous point to make. If I showed you my results
for 10,000 trials of a hand that is 85% favored to win, and they
showed it losing 14.93257% of the time, what would you do? Say, "See,
I told you it wouldn't lose 15% of the time!"
Probability is theory. Statistics are real. Everyone's statstics for
that 85% favorite will be slightly different. Some anomolies will
have it losing all of the time, on one end of the bell curve.
Slightly more will have it win 100% of the time on the other end.
Most should fall in between but the middle point will not be a 15%
loss. It would be less.
Why less? Are you suggesting that an 85% chance to win doesn't imply
a 15% chance to lose? Assuming no ties, of course.
The probable outcome of something should not
equal statistical reality. If it does, consistantly, for everyone,
there is something wrong.
This is so obvious to everyone that there is no point in stating it.
Do you really think that when someone says "An 85% favorite will lose
15% of the time." he means exactly 15% for everyone everywhere always?
What goes through your mind when you play poker?
"Ok, in this situation I am 85% favored to win. But that's only after
an infinite number of trials. Right now I'm only interested in this
trial. I can't win 85% of one trial. I can only win 100% or 0%. If
only there was some way to predict which one of those two it is likely
to be, and with what probability."
Mike
number on an abstract concept? 85% favorite simply means, in all
liklihood will win. Only a slight chance to lose.
We get that number by crunching the numbers of the total
possibilities.
Let's put it this way... A horse that is, consistantly, getting odds
of 50:1 or better that runs 500 races could, very well, NEVER come in
first place. In fact, it's likely that it will never come in first
place.
While in poker, an 85% favorite is just not going to lose all that
often.
Infinite trials has nothing to do with it. In your lifetime the 85%
favorite hand will, when you have it, most likely win close to 95% or
better.
Do you truly not understand this? I find it hard to conceptualize
being that obtuse. Probability is theory. Statistics are reality.
The two are not closely related.
Foxtrot
If you think you hate me from what I write here, check out my blog on my MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/bennettron
If you actually think I'm an okay guy, go ahead and add me as your friend if you are active at MySpace.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Like I said, you can't beat retards
- From: Old Wolf
- Re: Like I said, you can't beat retards
- From: mkfrnkln
- Re: Like I said, you can't beat retards
- References:
- Re: Like I said, you can't beat retards
- From: mkfrnkln
- Re: Like I said, you can't beat retards
- From: Charlie Foxtrot
- Re: Like I said, you can't beat retards
- From: mkfrnkln
- Re: Like I said, you can't beat retards
- Prev by Date: Re: One frustration of SNGs
- Next by Date: Re: Like I said, you can't beat retards
- Previous by thread: Re: Like I said, you can't beat retards
- Next by thread: Re: Like I said, you can't beat retards
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
