[TNixon]

Good god. Please make it stop.

How can you *really* be so far off, after *so* much explanation.

[ QUOTE ]
Tnixon already posted his side of the argument (in the probability forum) and was told that he was wrong from one of the most highly respected statisticians in this forum .

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, WTF are you even talking about here? Do you even know? Did you actually even read the thread?

He certainly did tell me I was very wrong about *something*, that is absolutely true. In the thread you're talking about, I attempted to come up with a method for measuring the chance of a drop of size X, based on something somebody else had said previously.

That method (for reasons that I understand perfectly now) was a completely hopeless waste of time, and even attempting it was a complete brainfart on my part.

*That* is what your expert from the probability forum told me I was wrong about.

Which also has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on anything I've said in this thread, because I didn't claim that particular method was valid, or use it at any point.

[ QUOTE ]
Jason1990's solution gives you the probability that you will achieve a downswing of size x commencing after time t .
This is very different from dropping x buy-ins commencing from t=0 .

[/ QUOTE ]

I applied Jason199's solution in EXACTLY the same way he did, answering EXACTLY the same question, and he himself agreed that I applied the solution correctly.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words , Jason's solution determines the probability that you have a downswing of b big blinds commencing from some t for t>=0 . This means you can have a downswing of size b after you've already accumulated some positive amount to your bankroll .

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is EXACTLY the question being asked. How much more clear can this really be?

When asking "what are the odds of having an X buyin downswing over 10k hands", we're not asking if the drop STARTS at the beginning. Just if there's one of that size AT SOME POINT.

The fact that you *still* don't seem to understand this, despite the fact that it's been stated explicitly probably half a dozen times now, just completely boggles me.

[ QUOTE ]
Your clever tricks do not impress me .

[/ QUOTE ]
I am completely in awe of *your* "clever" tricks.

I have made many attempts to un-confuse you (you STILL don't understand the question being asked), and you are thicker than any brick wall I've ever heard of.

You, on the other hand, keep restating the same things, in the face of new evidence (I've proved in terms that even you should be able to understand that the risk of ruin is *not* a good approximation for the chance of a drop over X hands), with absolutely zero backing for any of them, except for claims that "the experts at the probability forum have already told you you're wrong", when what I was told I was wrong about has nothing to whatsoever with anything I've said in this thread.

I honestly do not understand how somebody can be so pigheaded, while being so utterly wrong.

I mean, you still don't understand the question we're trying to answer here, for hell's sake.

[ QUOTE ]
There will be no more discussion in this thread on my part after this .

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably a very good thing.

Everything you've said so far in this thread has been either explicitly disproved (that RoR calculations can be used to approximate the chance of a drop), or has been so completely incorrect and hopelessly baseless (that I was told I was "wrong" by an expert in the probability forum, when what I was "wrong" about was something that hasn't even been brought into this discussion), that by now, it has to be absolutely clear to anybody who is still reading that you truly have reached a new plateau of stubborn idiocy here.

You can't quit while you're ahead (because you're so far behind in understanding here that it's starting to make me ill), but you can, and should, stop digging the hole deeper.