Swings in NLCASH

[TNixon]

Are you a COMPLETE goddamned idiot jay_shark? Or just pretending?

Because this:

[ QUOTE ]
Jason's solution computes the probability of a downswing of size b given time t which is not necessarily 0 .

[/ QUOTE ]
Is exactly what we want here, where t is equal to a number of hands (or, more specifically, 100s of hands, since winrates and std devs are measured per 100 hands).

I mimicked this section of jason's post:

[ QUOTE ]
where M = E[T]. You have played 163,293 hands, so you would like to know p = P(T < 1632.93), the probability that you would have a 360BB downswing in your first 163,293 hands. Using the above estimate for this probability, here are some numbers.

m = 1.95 and s = 16 ==> p = 0.187
m = 1.95 and s = 18 ==> p = 0.418
m = 1.50 and s = 18 ==> p = 0.616

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and verified that I got the formula into excel correctly by plugging those numbers in (along with 1632 as t, and 360BB as b) and getting those exact same probabilities.

The numbers I've given here were from the same damn formula, and mean the same damn thing, and you absolutely have to be a complete retard to STILL be confused about what is going on here. If you disagree with the formula's applicability for the question at hand, feel free to say so. (If you do, you'll only further prove that you have absolutely no clue about what's actually being discussed here, but please, be my guest). If you feel I've misapplied the formula, then feel free to say so as well. But you better be prepared to defend that statement with a "correct" application, and numbers different from what I just gave.

For hell's sake.

[ QUOTE ]
What I've learned after all this is that you're one of the biggest idiot I know .

[/ QUOTE ]

What I have learned from this is that you are a far bigger idiot than I ever even imagined was POSSIBLE.

STFU monkey.

[jay_shark]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you a COMPLETE goddamned idiot jay_shark? Or just pretending?



[/ QUOTE ]

Just pretending .

[TNixon]

You're doing a great job.

You should get an oscar or something.

Seriously, if you think I've misapplied jason's formula, then apply it "correctly" instead of being a freaking moron.

If you think the formula's wrong, then you're on your own unless you can provide something that works better.

Unless you plan to do one of those two things, then please do not type another word where I can see it, ever again. Because at this point in time, you are the absolute most idiotic of all the internet idiots I've ever seen. You're taking idiocy to completely new levels, so incredible and improbable that I am in complete awe.

[TNixon]

You know what? I said you were a monkey, only capable of plugging numbers into formulas.

I have to take even that much back now, because here's a formula that spits out exactly what we're looking for, and you still somehow manage to not get it.

You're a failure even as a monkey.

You are extremely successful at pissing me off with the hopeless of your idiocy though.

Good job. At least you're capable of something.

[jay_shark]

If I were you , I'd try to get in contact with BruceZ .

[TNixon]

If I were you, I'd try to apply the solution that somebody already developed. Because you look more like an ass with every refusal to show how anything I've done here is incorrect.

Run the numbers yourself if you don't believe me.

Or refute the validity of the solution.

Or stfu.

I don't care which.

[TNixon]

I seriously just do not get your current level of stupidity.

You recommended I go to the probability forum for an answer.

I did, because it was obvious you were incapable of giving one.

I got one. Somebody had already figured out this exact problem previously, and pointed out a thread with a handy formula (based on methods and concepts that I won't even begin to pretend to understand, so if the person posting the formula was full of it, then so am I).

I applied that answer, exercising my own monkey skills.

Still you're acting like a completely ignorant jackass.

But I took one last bit of your advice. I am going to try to get in contact with BruceZ, to get him to comment on my first post in this thread today, showing the actual probabilities.

I fully expect him to look over it and say "that looks right to me", and I will LAUGH MY ASS OFF, because at that point, the truly stupendous level of idiocy you have shown in this thread will have been exposed to it's fullest simply by following steps THAT YOU YOURSELF RECOMMENDED.

And on the off chance that he says I botched the transition to excel, he'll probably give me the right numbers, which I will post here as corrections to my incorrect ones. Because unlike you, I am not actually afraid of retracting past statements, no matter how sure I was of their truth at the time, and I especially am not afraid of being wrong.

The best part is that, no matter what the result is, you win the jackass contest, because this would have been a nice, calm, informative thread had you simply answered the right goddamn question in the first place.

Of course, I'm still not convinced you understand what the question is, despite the fact that it's been quite explicitly clarified half-a-dozen times now.

But just in case, here's yet another refresher.

WE WANT TO KNOW THE PROBABILITY OF HAVING A DOWNSWING OF SIZE X OVER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HANDS.

Which is *exactly* what jason's formula calculates.

[jay_shark]

Pzhon has already informed you that your thinking is off .
I wouldn't doubt him if I were you .

Again , please do not waste my time anymore .