Variance is Fractal

[opteek]

You clearly have a very dodgy understanding of fractals and chaotic systems. Please don't waste anyones time by trying to claim the contrary. It seems to me that you might have skimmed a book and filled in the rest with your own imagination, which can be fun but ultimately is useless. This is not to say that what you are doing isn't a worthy pursuit of your time, simply try to be more sincere with yourself and others as to the depth of your understanding. That way, we can all learn. And if you post ridiculous conclusions in the future, be prepared to be ridiculed accordingly.

[onesandzeros]

[ QUOTE ]
You clearly have a very dodgy understanding of fractals and chaotic systems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know enough about fractals to know that the variance in "card" distribution is not fractal in nature.

What does become fractal is our individual results which is a reflection of our "play of the cards", not the cards themselves.

This variance created by our play is what we call +/- EV and this IS fractal.

[bomberGR]

The same idea was spinning in my mind about Fractals and Poker, but how better playing decisions could be made with the help of fractal theory. This could be maybe made by explaining the variance through fractals and extract conclusions. I mean everybody knows that playing by the book and always calculating the odds and the implied odds doesn't always help you. Experts say to mix up your game etc. But where is all this based on? You cannot measure these by statistics. You cannot calculate how many times to bluff for example. But a bluff is based an a pattern.

[RustyBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot calculate how many times to bluff for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you can. See Theory of Poker, for examples.

[DarkMagus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It certainly does not repeat patterns on all scales, since there exist patterns for N hands that CANNOT be duplicated for N/2 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct assuming "hands" are played correct defined by "the fundamental therom of poker". Of course this is not how we play poker so discussing variance based on "cards" and their distribution is useless. I obviously didn't clarify my ideas into a comprehensible post, which I apologize. Definatly am not the best at getting my ideas out in writing as they are often abstract and non-logical.

I'll try and clarify my points.

Variance is made up of at least 2 main parts. One real (hands/cards) and the other imaginary (our individual "play").

The "variance" you are referring to Tom would represent "real part" of "i" (hands) which could be an integer, fraction, decimal, positive or negative number. Examples are 6, -5, 10.5, 3/4 and so on.

The part of variance I'm talking about is of the "imaginary side" of "i" (-1). Could this not represent our "play" If we let i stand for the square root of -1, ie., i=square root (-1), then any number like 3i, -5i, 1.77i, i/5 is an imaginary number. This being the "chaotic", self similar, recursive and non linear nature of "the game". This area of the game is also infinitively complex and full of detail (infinite and complex styles).

If variance can be expressed as "i", the "real part" would be represented as ("hands") while the "imaginary part" our play. Maybe this imaginary side is what people refer to as "luck" in variance. Luck would then be math as many pros refer to it as...

If true, I have no idea as to how this information could be used to better ones play, other then the awareness of how importance "our play" of the cards is, rather then the cards themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Er - my understanding is that imaginary numbers are used in the calculation of quantities that are sinusoidal in nature. AC current, quantum wavefunctions, and so forth. I see what you're saying about the two different types of luck, but I don't see how they can be related to each other like this.

I think you may be confusing two different definitions of the word complex. The mathematical construct of "complex" numbers has nothing to do with the complexity of something. They're just a way of treating two pieces of information (phase and amplitude) as a single scalar.

On the topic of fractals, you've said that fractals have been observed in poker charts, without really providing any sort of citation for this. You haven't explained clearly at all what you mean by variance "being" fractal. It might be helpful if you could give us the evidence for fractals in poker results, and perhaps develop some sort of mathematical formalism to represent your ideas more clearly.

[onesandzeros]

Trying to explain the dynamic actions that are behind the scenes creating these chaotic yet orderly fractal turning points that show up in our "play based +/- variance" statistics (Quantum Metaphysics related..), is not a simple task...

When I get something cohesive together I'll update the thread.