Monte Carlo simulations
[ QUOTE ]
I would say 1000 is a bare minimum if you are talking ATS or O/U, but still the short-run. To be confident you are a long term winner would take at least 5000 bets in my book.
You will definitely go through streaks/downswings of 50-100 bets or more, just flip a coin/do a monte carlo of a 50/50 prop and see how long some of the 'runs' get for heads or tails. Doesn't mean it's non-random.
Anyone who thinks 500 bets is enough to declare yourself a longterm winner is kidding themselves, of course, that's why so few people make a living at this.
[/ QUOTE ]
Alright, interesting. Maybe I'll just keep track this year and see what comes. Should be 1500-2500 picks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just did one in Excel. 65k trials of 50/50 shot.
I 'won' 50.3% of the time, for a +0.6% EV. If this was the odds line at craps, take 65,000 times [0.6% then subtract the 0.14% house advanatge on 10x odds] times $110 per throw. [$10 + $100 odds bet.]
I just won $43k. Does that make craps EV?
Of course not. And this was with over 65,000 trials.
Runs - 8 in a row and 10/11 to common to mention. Hit two downswing of 10 losses in 11 games nearby, and you feel like a moron, the reverse, and you feel like Bill Gates.
Let's change odds to 10% chance of winning, say at the racetrack, and God tells you the exact odds of each horse, and you decide to play all the horses with a 10% chance of winning with, no vig, just to gamble a bit.
This simulation you would only 'win' 9.84% of the time over 65k trials. That a worse 1.6% EV [10-9.84 over 10] than the true odds.
0.016 * 65k * $100 per bet = $104k loss. Just due to randomness. Was God lying? No, you just didn't hit a perfect distribution. 65,536 races weren't *enough* to take you to the longterm.
This is an incredible fundamental, important concept for any serious gambler to grasp, with the conclusion that you really need a much bigger bankroll than most people think to get anywhere near 'longterm.' [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
Naj
|