[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jesus Christ. I love it when someone here adopts such a condescending tone over a point that is clearly open to interpretation.


[/ QUOTE ]

You found my post condescending? That's weird since I was just expressing my surprise that no one on a site like this had pointed out the obvious already. Then I stated the facts.

Nothing that I said is "open to interpretation" in any way.

Running it multiple times reduces variance while EV remains the same. Seems this issue comes up all the time around here and some people still seem to fail to grasp that.

Once we all understand and agree on that what else is there to discuss really?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the post to which I referred as condescending:


Oh my God. Has this thread really gone on this long without someone pointing out that running it once, twice, 25 times makes no difference in terms of EV?

For shame 2+2.



It must have been the "Oh my God" and the "for shame."

Sorry if I misinterpreted those phrases, and imagined you might be rolling your eyes as you typed them.

You seem like a bright guy. You can probably objectively see how someone might interpret your post as condescending.

Anyway, one more time:

I never asked about the EV.

My question was obviously about variance, and I (again, perhaps erroneously) imagined the answer to be relatively straightforward.

On this point, i was clearly mistaken.