Swings in NLCASH

[jay_shark]

[ QUOTE ]
2 simple questions.

#1: Do you believe jason's formula is valid for computing the value it is attempting to compute?

#2: Do you believe the value jason's formula is attempting to compute is the probability of having a downswing of size X in Y hands?

In the interest of not wasting anybody's time, a simple yes or no will suffice. If your answer is no in either case, feel free to explain, but it is not necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not at liberty to comment . These are not my formulas so you should be asking Jason , even though my name is Jason too lol .

[shipurstack]

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
Pzhon has told you that your argument is a mess .

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes...and? Maybe *you* should reread that thread, including recent comments.

I already said I agreed with him in the end. Everything I tried to do on my own was absolutely a complete mess. Once again, I'm not the one here who's afraid to appear anything less than perfect.

But at least I *tried* to get *something*. All you've done is say "there's no easy solution", and tried to imply an upper bound on the solution (the RoR calculation) which is PROVABLY false, as in it is very easy to prove (which I have done 2 or 3 times now in this thread) that the chance of a downswing of size X can be greater than the RoR for that many buyins.

[ QUOTE ]
I already informed you that there is no simple formula to give you an exact answer to these problems . Jason's solution is only said to be valid for large b , but how large does it have to be ? What is the margin of error ?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's only valid for large values of b, but he thought it was valid for 360BB, then it should certainly be be valid for 20 buyins (2KBB).

And an approximation is better than nothing (which is exactly what you have contributed to this thread, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING).

Especially since it's not exactly a precise question to begin with. It's a sanity question (can it possibly be this bad?). Exactness is not required.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe you even understand anything that was written .

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand exactly as much as I need to understand to be a monkey. Do I understand how the formula was derived? Absolutely not. If I could have derived it myself, I would have. But do I believe you have a deeper understanding of it than I do? ABSOFREAKINGLUTELY NOT. You've already proved yourself to be a monkey.

And since you have already argued that jason's formula doesn't actually give us what we're looking for (when the end result is clearly EXACTLY what we're looking for, whether the formula itself is valid or not), I'm still not convinced you know what the question is. You probably still want to tie it to RoR calculations. If you can't understand what a very simple question is asking, after multiple explicit recitations of the question, then honestly, what hope do you have of understanding anything about that formula other than how to plug the numbers in?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not at liberty to comment . These are not my formulas so you should be asking Jason , even though my name is Jason too lol .

[/ QUOTE ]
So you feel completely at liberty to call me an idiot for attempting to *use* the formula, but not to say why?

I think the appropriate term for that is cowardice.

And as far as asking him directly, he obviously believes it is at least somewhat valid, since he gave me the link to it himself.

[TNixon]

Here are jason1990's comments on the validity of the formula I used.

[ QUOTE ]
If 20 buy-ins is 1000 PTBB, then it appears you have used the formula correctly.

Here are some comments on the validity of the formula. It is based on a Brownian motion model. Brownian motion is the scaling limit of a random walk. This model is appropriate in situations where you are considering a large number of hands/sessions which are independent and over which game conditions do not change. It is an idealization. However, it is the same model from which one can derive the standard risk of ruin formulas that everyone relies on. I think it is a reasonable model, though not perfect.

Within this model, the formula itself is valid only for "large" b. As I said, I have not computed any margins of error. However, I did post the exact Laplace transform of the time T until the downswing. This is valid for any b (within the Brownian motion model, of course). In principle, one could use a computer to numerically invert the transform and calculate the exact probabilities.

I realize that these comments may be over your head, but I wanted to post them anyway. Perhaps someone else out there might be interested in this formula, and may even want to try the numerical inversion I mentioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yes, his comments are mostly over my head, but I thought this one in particular was interesting:

[ QUOTE ]
However, it is the same model from which one can derive the standard risk of ruin formulas that everyone relies on.

[/ QUOTE ]

[dying2win]

wow you guys need to get a life, who cares whos right

[TNixon]

I will go almost certainly go hopelessly insane and probably embark on a mass murder spree if *edit* jay_shark is not wrong.

So obviously, I care. And so does every potential victim of said spree. (who knows, you might be one)

I don't actually care about being right. I do care about showing somebody who has been so utterly ignorant and pigheaded as jay_shark has been in this thread, to be wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt, though.

And you obviously cared enough to tell us to "get a life". Thanks for the bump.

[kosher]

He's asking you to prove yourself jay_shark and to prove your point of view.

You seem unable to do this.

I award TNixon the winner.

[dying2win]

[ QUOTE ]


And you obviously cared enough to tell us to "get a life". Thanks for the bump.

[/ QUOTE ]

im glad you didnt fire thousands and thousands of words and numbers at me. thanks

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
im glad you didnt fire thousands and thousands of words and numbers at me. thanks

[/ QUOTE ]
np.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Majik]

double-post