farha vs PA, hsp episode 14

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That is ad hominem. You have lost the argument

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear of my intellectual superiority over you....

What argument did I exactly lose in this thread?


[/ QUOTE ]
You are so confused that you have lost track of what you were saying before the ad hominem? How is that supposed to demonstrate your superiority?

You said, "I tell you what don't post here for a week and put together a cogent argument about how all-in variance goes to zero "quickly". " I explained that the variance is bounded above by c/n. Whether you believe it or not, it is quite reasonable to describe that as "going to 0 quickly."

Your statement, "it doesn't even lower the variance that much," is wrong in the context where it is most naturally interpreted, the variance of the hand under discussion. Running it 4 times (as they did on that hand) cuts the variance to less than 1/4 as much.

[ QUOTE ]

Apparently another problem of yours is that your arrogance blinds you such that you are incapable of framing a logical argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
More ad hominem. One meaning of arrogance is an irritating, unjustified belief in one's superiority. Which of us is exhibiting that here? The mathematician who is making correct mathematical statements, or the one who is insulting people left and right when they point out he is wrong about basic mathematical ideas like limits?

Is your game selection this bad in poker, too? When you meet people who know a hell of a lot more than you, that is a great opportunity for you to learn something. It's not a good time to raise the stakes, insist that you are right, and that you are (incorrectly) convinced you are smarter and that other people are retards, etc. What you are displaying is willful stupidity and unpleasantness. Are you this way every time you are wrong?

You're boring me. I can't tell which of your posts are intentionally stupid, and which are accidentally stupid. I can tell I don't want to waste any more time trying to help you. I'm going to ignore you henceforth.

[Troll_Inc]

Running it 4 times does lower the variance almost exactly 1/4 but that is still "not much" for the metric that matters, namely the net result of playing poker.

The reason is that it is still way above the average winrate.

This is what I mean about not thinking about the problem at hand. You get caught up in your formulas and don't think things through.

So in summary for those that care about the right answer, if you ran into this situation one hundred times and had the choice between running it once or running it four times, it doesn't matter which method you chose because you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.