Something I've been thinking about

[Rainclouds]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is, yes you make the samea mount of money on each of the 4 cases.

However, I would prefer the second situation. Because of how you get there. You would have a better chance of seeing the 75%ers in the short run. So you would feel better. If you did the first option, you could very well get a result of 0, 0, 0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1. Although the 1's would feel awesome and all, I'd prefer to have the 75% chance of winning, and then sometimes he wins.

For the second example, it could look something like:

0,25,75,75,25,0,75,75

with the 25's meaning he's shipped the pot. The 0's meaning he's shipped it. And the 75's you hold up. I guess it could come out

0,25,25,0,25,75,75,75,75,75

And its the same as the above. However, this outcome is more rare. Remember, the 75% should occur 3 times as often as the 25%. Since a 75% shot happens 3 times as often as a 25% chance (3:1 odds). Here there are 3 25's and 5 75's. Not very common. Five 75's and Five 0's would also be rare. Remember all three occurances in the set are equally likely (you have 0% equity, 75% equity, 75%). So for the 0 to occure an equal number of times as the 75 would be more rare as well.

My definition of rare is somewhat loose. But you can see that the first example, the 1's and 0's could likely come out all 0's at the start. Where with the 75/75/25, when you look at the entire population, this happens less often.

Hopefully this shows that the variance in the 75/25 is better than the 100/0. Simply because the data sets where you dont' win anything for a long time are more rare.

I'll do the calculation out now for both if you want. Each slot represents the chance of this event occuring.

0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1
50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Easy enough, 0.5^6=0.015625

Ok and now:

0 0 25 75 75 75

33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%

also easy, 0.33^6=0.0012915

3 choose 1 way to do this (25 0 0, 0 25 0, 0 0 25)

Also these combinations add another 4 ways, (0 0 0, or 25 25 25, or 25 25 0)

So that's 7 ways in all

7x0.0012915=0.0090405

So you can see that in the first one its much more likely to get a string of 0's (which would obviously suck).

[/ QUOTE ]
JESUS [censored] CHRIST

THE CHANCE OF WINNING A POT (1) IN EXAMPLE 1 IS 50%
THE CHANCE OF LOSING A POT (0) IN EXAMPLE 1 IS 50%
THE CHANCE OF WINNING A POT (75) IN EXAMPLE 2 IS 50%
THE CHANCE OF LOSING A POT (0, 25) IN EXAMPLE 2 IS 50%

THEREFORE, THE CHANCE OF A CERTAIN STRING OF 0's IS EXACTLY THE SAME IN BOTH EXAMPLES

$#^#$^&$#&#% HOW HARD IS IT TO GRASP THAT

I AM [censored] DONE NOW, someone else may take over.

[Rainclouds]

[ QUOTE ]
Ring,

I just showed that its more likely to get this string:

0,0,0,1,1,1

With the 100/0 than the 75/75/25. I did it mathematically. Go ahead, argue it.

So ok you can say you dont' care which one. But I prefer two for sure, because I'm less likely to get 0,0,0,1,1,1. This is ultimately the worst possible combination of outcomes that is somewhat likely.

[/ QUOTE ]
I just did.

[Ratamahatta]

It would be so much easy if yop set losing a pot to -1...

[Check_The_Nuts]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be so much easy if yop set losing a pot to -1...

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree...

I did the calc's wrong. The numbers are just in the wrong spot. 24 should be in the last spot (its cubed every time). The 33% and 8. whatever should be the other two that are changing slightly. The final percentage chance is 0.001022.

This is wasting too much of my time.

[Ringmaster]

Rainclouds, I think we've explained things more than adequately.

Check_The_Nuts, just stop. You're wrong. Lots of people have already explained why. You have yet to refute any of my posts. At this point I have to believe either you're trolling, or you're too stubborn or too obtuse to get it.

In any case, I'm finished trying to explain things to you.

[Check_The_Nuts]

[ QUOTE ]
Rainclouds, I think we've explained things more than adequately.

Check_The_Nuts, just stop. You're wrong. Lots of people have already explained why. You have yet to refute any of my posts. At this point I have to believe either you're trolling, or you're too stubborn or too obtuse to get it.

In any case, I'm finished trying to explain things to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much ignored you because you were so vague. I don't care anymore. You guys probably haven't taken much statistics or math in school. I have. Its not a big deal.

[Ratamahatta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rainclouds, I think we've explained things more than adequately.

Check_The_Nuts, just stop. You're wrong. Lots of people have already explained why. You have yet to refute any of my posts. At this point I have to believe either you're trolling, or you're too stubborn or too obtuse to get it.

In any case, I'm finished trying to explain things to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much ignored you because you were so vague. I don't care anymore. You guys probably haven't taken much statistics or math in school. I have. Its not a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a bachelor in statistics from university...

[Ringmaster]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys probably haven't taken much statistics or math in school. I have. Its not a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, just lol.

If you've taken a stats class, you should ask for a refund.

BTW, I have a Masters in Econometrics.

[Check_The_Nuts]

great! do out the math for my case then.

[Ringmaster]

[ QUOTE ]
great! do out the math for my case then.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no math that supports your case, LDO.