General Gambling Questions For Me

[pcarfan]

OK, I have no idea why I don't get the edit option, and it is dorky to keep replying my own question, but I know why my odds calculations are wrong. We have to use both the hole cards to win a jackpot,....that's it, I am out of here....

[sandman-54]

David, where might the most profitable poker games in the country be right now?

[paperchamp]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure if this is exactly the right place to post this thread, but I am going to post it here anyways in hopes that you respond.

I would like your explanation/opinion of the “Monty Hall” problem. I am going to try to give a scenario that is represents the problem that has more to deal with gambling than the donkey/cars.

For example: If i have 3 briefcases. In one briefcase there is $1,000,000 and in the other 2 cases there is $0. I know which case has $1,000,000, but I do not care if you win the money or not.

I give you the option to choose a case. In this example you choose case #1. I then revile that case #3 is empty. I then give you the option to switch to case #2.

Is it +EV to switch to case #2? and if so why?

Most people would probably say that it doesn't matter if you switch or not. However there is a lot of math out there saying it is +EV to switch. Can you please give your opinion/ analysis of this problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "opinion" on this, it's +EV to switch cases.

"The probability of winning by using the switching technique is 2/3 while the odds of winning by not switching is 1/3. The probability of picking the wrong door in the initial stage of the game is 2/3. If the contestant picks the wrong door initially, the host must reveal the remaining empty door in the second stage of the game. Thus, if the contestant switches after picking the wrong door initially, the contestant will win the prize. The probability of winning by switching then reduces to the probability of picking the wrong door in the initial stage which is clearly 2/3."

Cut and pasted from the dept. of statistics at Univ. of South Carolina.

[leaponthis]

I just heard a U.S. Army General testify before congress. He was questioned about the recent rash of Helicopter downings in Iraq.

He replied that he wasn't sure if it was just the "Law of Averages" catching up with us or if it was some other reason.

What do you feel about his statement oh mighty one?

leaponthis

[theblitz]

[ QUOTE ]
SNGs are essentially a "solved" game in the SNG forum

[/ QUOTE ]
What does that mean exactly?

[Chomp]

Can you discern national characteristics in the way people from different countries play poker and/or gamble?

If you decide to take up this question, I'd be particularly interested in comments about French and Russian players.

......

Perhaps related, I remember hearing a fascinating theory once.

Throughout Russian history there have been a series of autocratic hard-man leaders, punctuated every few decades by violent revolution, leading to the ousting of the hard man.

But inevitably, before too long, once the revolution has run its course, yet another hard-man autocrat ends up in charge and so the cycle continues.

This can be explained, the theory goes, by the way Russian babies were swaddled: they are wrapped very, very tight from head to toe as infants. This constriction is relieved intermitently when the baby is changed/fed/washed...this in turn means the grown-up Russian is capable of bearing long periods of oppression followed by fits of intermitent revolution/release.

Vrai ou faux?