Re: Winrate vs. variance thread...how much would you pay to not lose?
I wonder if there's something I'm missing here, because the answer seems trivial to me: if any such thing as a "guaranteed win" existed, its price (intended as how much in terms of winnings one would be willing to pay for it) would be equal to all the winnings, minus the rake (or any other cost associated with taking part in the game) and minus an arbitrarily small quantity.
The reason being that all that matters is securing even the tiniest bit of sure profit, then by playing infinitely often on infinitely many tables one would be able to make infinitely much money, regardless of one's playing ability. By this logic no other choice (ie 50%) is rational unless some assumptions on game time and number of tables are made.
Maybe this should be crossposted to the probability forum...
|