*** Official joining every $4/180man until I win one ***

[Sherman]

Forgive me, but this makes no sense to me.

The probabilities ought to be additive.

That is, if his chance of winning a single 180-person MTT is 1/180, he chances of winning 1 of 2 180-person MTTs ought to be 2/180. And so forth. So his probability of winning 1 180 person tournament given 90 tournaments ought to be exactly 90/180 or 50%. Please explain how I am wrong.

Sherman

PS - FWIW, I know what you were doing by using his current data, I am just pointing out that unless he is a losing player (which he probably isn't) or is trying to lose, his probability of winning a single 180 tournament is surely better than 1 out of 200+.

[McMelchior]

[ QUOTE ]
The probabilities ought to be additive.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not correct.

Each tournament is an independent event. Just because you didn't win 179 in a row doesn't mean you're guaranteed to win #180.

As with any other grouping of independent events you have to calculate the risk of not winning one specific tournament:

NW(1) = (180 - 1)/180 = 179/180 = 0.9944444 ....

From there you can calculate the risk of not winning any of X tournaments:

NW(X) = NW(1) raised to the power X = NW(1) * ... * NW(1) (that reads: NW(1) multiplied with itself X times).

This gives us the chance of winning (at least) one out of X tournaments:

CW = 1 - NW(X)

We're looking for the number of (random outcome) 180/$4.40 to play to have exactly 50% chance of winning one:

X = log(0.5) / log(NW(1)) = 124.4

So to have 50% chance of winning (at least) one tournament in a completely random universe (which doesn't seem too far off when it comes to $4.40 buy-ins) you have to play a little more than 124 of them.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The probabilities ought to be additive.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not correct.

Each tournament is an independent event.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I'm an idiot. U win.

[Killingbird]

if my math teacher would have told me that math could help me in poker, I would have actually paid attention.

[Lord_Strife]

[ QUOTE ]
So to have 50% chance of winning (at least) one tournament in a completely random universe (which doesn't seem too far off when it comes to $4.40 buy-ins) you have to play a little more than 124 of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is suggesting that I'm approximately 50% to win one if I play 124 in a row? That sounds about right.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So to have 50% chance of winning (at least) one tournament in a completely random universe (which doesn't seem too far off when it comes to $4.40 buy-ins) you have to play a little more than 124 of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is suggesting that I'm approximately 50% to win one if I play 124 in a row? That sounds about right.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's right if you really suck...somehow I doubt you do.

IMO, you ought to be able to win 1 in 90-150 on average.

[Lord_Strife]

[ QUOTE ]
It's right if you really suck...somehow I doubt you do.

IMO, you ought to be able to win 1 in 90-150 on average.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon Sherman, you railed the one where I got 2nd place in. I'm awful... floating and then double barrelling someone that is gonna call me with an underpair to the board that is paired and four straighted. I'm awful

[Ontario_Tory]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's right if you really suck...somehow I doubt you do.

IMO, you ought to be able to win 1 in 90-150 on average.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon Sherman, you railed the one where I got 2nd place in. I'm awful... floating and then double barrelling someone that is gonna call me with an underpair to the board that is paired and four straighted. I'm awful

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL - If you're going to try to get the betting line to shift, you should be a bit more subtle than this... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Lord_Strife]

He's already wussed out even though everybody has pretty much proved what the odds are... I'd still love to get action at 2:1 instead of GIVING 7:1 for god sakes