Variance is Fractal

[mgsimpleton]

[ QUOTE ]
The very nature of what variance "IS", is fractal. This makes every process both of the transparent and non transparent kind also fractal.


[/ QUOTE ]

variance is due to randomness, fractals are not randomly generated

[ShaneP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The very nature of what variance "IS", is fractal. This makes every process both of the transparent and non transparent kind also fractal.


[/ QUOTE ]

variance is due to randomness, fractals are not randomly generated

[/ QUOTE ]

actually fractals can be randomly determined, or deterministic. In some sense, I think the OP could be close to correct, though his thinking may be off a bit. The returns from a stock market can be approximated by fractals (once you remove the base 12% or so expected annual return), and I would think poker winnings would look fairly close to stock returns. I know most Sharkscope graphs look similar.

Though to be honest, I have no idea what that metaphysical BS is in the grandparent. Nor do I think applying a fractal process to the modeling of poker returns gives significantly better results than an approximation by a normal distribution. In the stock market example, the biggest difference in the two approximations is that the tails of the distribution of stock returns is slightly larger than expected from a normal distribution. But those are low probability events, and at least the downward swing of the negative outliers would probably be interrupted by a player stopping for the day or some other external factor.

Shane

[onesandzeros]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The very nature of what variance "IS", is fractal. This makes every process both of the transparent and non transparent kind also fractal.
"

[/ QUOTE ]

variance is due to randomness, fractals are not randomly generated

[/ QUOTE ]

The "randomness" is an element in poker and the variance on that is random. BUT this only when the cards themselves are randomly played. Since we can do anything from muck to shove, this game is hardly random.

Poker being a minus sum game (if played purely random) would have JUST normal variance. However, ,most topics of "variance" are talked about in a purely Linear model while 90% of the game is nonlinear, and chaotic.

Poker is not a minus sum game for all, due to the part of the game that allows for an "edge" to be possible. This part of the game IS nonlinear, and chaotic.

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

[onesandzeros]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The very nature of what variance "IS", is fractal. This makes every process both of the transparent and non transparent kind also fractal.


[/ QUOTE ]

variance is due to randomness, fractals are not randomly generated

[/ QUOTE ]

actually fractals can be randomly determined, or deterministic. In some sense, I think the OP could be close to correct, though his thinking may be off a bit. The returns from a stock market can be approximated by fractals (once you remove the base 12% or so expected annual return), and I would think poker winnings would look fairly close to stock returns. I know most Sharkscope graphs look similar.

Though to be honest, I have no idea what that metaphysical BS is in the grandparent. Nor do I think applying a fractal process to the modeling of poker returns gives significantly better results than an approximation by a normal distribution. In the stock market example, the biggest difference in the two approximations is that the tails of the distribution of stock returns is slightly larger than expected from a normal distribution. But those are low probability events, and at least the downward swing of the negative outliers would probably be interrupted by a player stopping for the day or some other external factor.

Shane

[/ QUOTE ]

The outliers in the "tails" of markets bell curves are either unforeseen events and or manipulation.

The tails on a bell curve for poker hands and distributions is random of course are normal because all that is being measured is the fixed static odds of the cards playing out randomly.Since starting cards only matter to a small degree, naturally most of poker is fractal, thus, most variance is fractal.

P.S Whats with this comment here ---> "I have no idea what that metaphysical BS is in the grandparent."

What is this supposed to mean? Clarify please?

Maybe you and Tom are board pals?

[ShaneP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The very nature of what variance "IS", is fractal. This makes every process both of the transparent and non transparent kind also fractal.


[/ QUOTE ]

variance is due to randomness, fractals are not randomly generated

[/ QUOTE ]

actually fractals can be randomly determined, or deterministic. In some sense, I think the OP could be close to correct, though his thinking may be off a bit. The returns from a stock market can be approximated by fractals (once you remove the base 12% or so expected annual return), and I would think poker winnings would look fairly close to stock returns. I know most Sharkscope graphs look similar.

Though to be honest, I have no idea what that metaphysical BS is in the grandparent. Nor do I think applying a fractal process to the modeling of poker returns gives significantly better results than an approximation by a normal distribution. In the stock market example, the biggest difference in the two approximations is that the tails of the distribution of stock returns is slightly larger than expected from a normal distribution. But those are low probability events, and at least the downward swing of the negative outliers would probably be interrupted by a player stopping for the day or some other external factor.

Shane

[/ QUOTE ]

The outliers in the "tails" of markets bell curves are either unforeseen events and or manipulation.

The tails on a bell curve for poker hands and distributions is random of course are normal because all that is being measured is the fixed static odds of the cards playing out randomly.Since starting cards only matter to a small degree, naturally most of poker is fractal, thus, most variance is fractal.

P.S Whats with this comment here ---> "I have no idea what that metaphysical BS is in the grandparent."

What is this supposed to mean? Clarify please?

Maybe you and Tom are board pals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually everything is an unforeseen event in the return of stocks. If you want to say otherwise, either you're wrong, or I want you to PM me which stocks are going to increase in value tomorrow. I'll be happy either way.

The 'metaphysical BS' is just because it has seemed like you're throwing around a few words, but not actually applying them to anything, or maybe even knowing what they mean. What is the process that generates the returns, and what does it look like mathematically? If you're talking about looking at the return of KK versus AA (or any other hand), then I don't think there's anything fractal in there at all. The Law of Large Numbers says that in the long run, the actual probability of a win will approach the theoretical probability. So the graph will have lots of fluctuation on the smaller scales, but none on the larger scales.

Eh, just saw Gonzo's response to you. I'll heed his warning.

But I do enjoy being accused of being 'board pals' with someone when an irrational poster has a couple of people disagree with him. Hilarious stuff.

Bye

[jakrpanda]

I think that variance could be a fractal according to the definition of a fractal where a subset would be exhibit the same pattern of the larger set. So you could see small trends exhibit the same patterns as larger trends. That's possible.

But like someone above stated - what does this information, noting the cyclical/wave type of pattern in variance over both small and large sets, do for you? How can we apply this to be useful?

[onesandzeros]

[ QUOTE ]
The 'metaphysical BS' is just because it has seemed like you're throwing around a few words, but not actually applying them to anything, or maybe even knowing what they I mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

What words am I throwing around sir? And how am I "not applying them to anything"? What is it that you think you get that I do not?

[ QUOTE ]
If you're talking about looking at the return of KK versus AA (or any other hand), then I don't think there's anything fractal in there at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

The aa vs kk was merely an example of the mechanical static side of "variance". This "side" assumes mechanical play, preflop to showdown. Like I said you are correct here but refusing to discuss the other 90% of the "game" which is fractal. Understanding this will lead to plugging leaks that you used to blow off as "variance".

[ QUOTE ]
Eh, just saw Gonzo's response to you. I'll heed his warning.

[/ QUOTE ]

A "warning" laced of biased perception, ego, hersey! I guess we know why you and him are here.

[ QUOTE ]
But I do enjoy being accused of being 'board pals' with someone when an irrational poster has a couple of people disagree with him. Hilarious stuff

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you "disagree" when you are not willing to discuss the relevant issues? Since you are accusing me of being irrational, I'd like you to prove it.

I'll be waiting Shaun.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eh, just saw Gonzo's response to you. I'll heed his warning.

[/ QUOTE ]

A "warning" laced of biased perception, ego, hersey! I guess we know why you and him are here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, my perception is based on what you've written in the threads you've opened. Most of it is so incoherent and nonsensical I can only guess you're writing it high.

Philosophically Speaking, Who Are You, Who Am I, Who Is Who?
WWIII The Setup
Is All Organized Religion Santanic?
Scientiifc Proof of Survival After Death

[onesandzeros]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eh, just saw Gonzo's response to you. I'll heed his warning.

[/ QUOTE ]

A "warning" laced of biased perception, ego, hersey! I guess we know why you and him are here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, my perception is based on what you've written in the threads you've opened. Most of it is so incoherent and nonsensical I can only guess you're writing it high.

Philosophically Speaking, Who Are You, Who Am I, Who Is Who?
WWIII The Setup
Is All Organized Religion Santanic?
Scientiifc Proof of Survival After Death

[/ QUOTE ]

If the subjects you are referring to are such nonsense why do you freely waste your time opening, reading following and replying? Are you a troll?

I do write like to write when baked. I'd be lying if I said otherwise.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
If the subjects you are referring to are such nonsense why do you freely waste your time opening, reading following and replying?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't reply in your other threads IIRC. I posted in this thread inititally thinking it was legit, then I remembered you. I posted to give the other PT posters a heads up.

[ QUOTE ]
I do write like to write when baked. I'd be lying if I said otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding