i sorta, ain’t knows what i’m writing about here, just making it up as i go sorta thing, after having read Nassim Taleb’s book, Antifragile, just sort of tinkering around, as the book suggests. been trying to see if the ideas put forth in the book can be useful within the walls of the casino. but i sorta think it’s ok to make this stuff up, since it’s my own gobbly goop and i been sincerely trying to have it make sense to me, as i do have skin in the game, when it comes to casino exploits. so anyway, just saying, take this stuff with a grain of salt.
wrote a bit about antifragility in the links below:
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/probably-be-a-good-read.54840/#post-490622
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/probably-be-a-good-read.54840/#post-490677
also have written about the pareto principle 80/20 rule in the links below:
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/its-all-about-time.54841/#post-490668
and further wrote this excerpt regarding the pareto principle:
also far as pareto principle, as previously stated, from my experience and data far as advantage play types engaged in, it takes on average 17% of 100% previous winnings to win another 100%. so 83%/17% ratio sorta thing on value won and value extended.
this can be visualized looking at this histogram graph depicting win/loss data, win only data & loss only data. it's obviously demonstrative of the pareto principle, imho. link to histogram below:
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/attachments/summarygraph-jpg.8985/
anyway i wanted to post an image that i believe sheds some light regarding the existence of antifragile states within the walls of the casino, something that i think Taleb would say shouldn’t exist (due to the artificially, mathematically rule driven set up of games in the casino), but i believe extreme events and antifragility is present in casinos, albeit constrained and limited by those mathematical rule sets, unlike the ‘wild west’ nature of things outside the walls of casinos, where black swan events are surprisingly as common as the birthday paradox (which isn’t really a paradox) is, however seemingly unlikely. the image below also interestingly enough shows a possible link between the pareto principle and antifragility. that link has further been hinted at by seven different games that i’ve analyzed with respect to antifragility. each of those games, when restricted or adjusted to an antifragile state at its transition point have an advantage = 20% (give or take a few percentage points). that 20% advantage occurs at the ‘transition’ point wherein the condition of the game transcends from a robust state to an antifragile state, further adjusting the game condition for ever more antifragility up to the limit for which it can be adjusted imparts an asymptotic rise (smiley face curve, such as mentioned by Nassim Taleb in his book Antifragile) in advantage approaching a 300% advantage or more for the game types analyzed. not meaning too paint to rosey of a picture, these game states do not represent a ‘good’ black swan sort of event (where an advantage would be described as astronomical), although unfortunately they are rare events, especially for those states where the advantage is near 300%, none the less, they do occur. there is a ‘spectrum’ of antifragile states between the 20% advantage state and the upper bound limit > 300%. not bad prospects for the typical advantage play scenario. there is optionality with respect to decision making regarding the making of an antifragile play and the degree to which it is antifragile. a certainty equivalent sort of decision, except there is no downside to influence the decision, sorta thing, other than the options may dissipate, as in opportunity risk.
having essentially nothing to go by other than having read the book, Antifragile by Nassim Taleb, i’ve had to set my own parameters far as what i’m calling, fragile, robust and antifragile, with respect to the games i’ve analyzed. just been kind of going by what makes sense to me, sorta thing.
this is pretty much what i’ve come up with for the games analyzed:
advantage%, best case, worst case expectation & expected value all have variable states and vary, increasing value wise as play is conducted.
a game state is antifragile if it has no downside, that is you can bet away at it and can’t possibly lose money. it also loves volatility, whereas volatility for the game in a robust or fragile state would normally expose you to the possibility of loss, as well as gain, the game when in an antifragile state can actually only yield better results as a result of volatility. the worst case expectation at this point only gets more and more positive in value as play ensues. the best case can always pop up at any time as a result of volitility. both the value of the best case and the value of the worst case expectation become more and more positive under antifragile state conditions as plays are made.
the games that i’ve analyzed can transcend from, worthless, to fragile, to robust and then to an antifragile state.
the transition from robust to antifragile occurs right about the 20% advantage point and when the worst case expectation becomes >= $0.00 .
the transition from fragile to robust occurs right about the 10% thru 11% advantage point and when the expected value = (-1 * worst case expectation) . at this robust point there is money to be made if expected value is realized, volatility can help greatly, but it can also bring about harm in the case that volatility brings about the worst case expectation rather than the expected value , while volatility can bring about the best case wherein substantial gain can be realized. in other words, expected value is what we expect, and hope for, but the other more volatile expectations can occur. fine for the long run, not so much so for the current play as the actual results are up for grabs, sorta thing. that’s the nature of a robust state, it can blow up or be broken, or it can produce as expected. expected value and advantage% for the robust state are lower than those values for the antifragile state.
the fragile state exists when the advantage is > 0 < 8% thru 10% advantage point and when expected value < (-1 * worst case expectation) . at this fragile state there is money to be made if expected value is realized, volatility can help greatly, but it can also bring about harm in the case that volatility brings about the worst case expectation rather than the expected value , while volatility can bring about the best case wherein substantial gain can be realized. similar to the robust state, expected value is what we expect, and hope for, but the other more volatile expectations can occur. fine for the long run, not so much so for the current play as the actual results are up for grabs, sorta thing. that’s the nature of a fragile state, it can blow up or be broken, even more so than the robust state. expected value and advantage% for the fragile state is less than that of the robust state and much less than that of the antifragile state.
a final note of caution, the parameter worst case expectation, is just that, as it is worded, an expectation. any expectation is either an average, or is based upon an average, that fact implies fluctuation may be existent. in other words, even a worst case expectation can allow for worse than worst case expectation results, much, much, much worse. to the tune of a $4,000.00 loss, worse, should the worst of the worst case happen for the above mentioned game condition at the antifragile transition point. that said it’s a winning game in the robust state, lol. essentially for the $4,000.00 loss to happen one of two things would have to happen, either the casino is cheating or the Cubs won the 2016 world series.
well anyway, see the graph below:
i would have shared the data as well, but there is nearly 5,000 rows of data about 13 columns across.
wrote a bit about antifragility in the links below:
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/probably-be-a-good-read.54840/#post-490622
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/probably-be-a-good-read.54840/#post-490677
also have written about the pareto principle 80/20 rule in the links below:
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/threads/its-all-about-time.54841/#post-490668
and further wrote this excerpt regarding the pareto principle:
also far as pareto principle, as previously stated, from my experience and data far as advantage play types engaged in, it takes on average 17% of 100% previous winnings to win another 100%. so 83%/17% ratio sorta thing on value won and value extended.
this can be visualized looking at this histogram graph depicting win/loss data, win only data & loss only data. it's obviously demonstrative of the pareto principle, imho. link to histogram below:
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/community/attachments/summarygraph-jpg.8985/
anyway i wanted to post an image that i believe sheds some light regarding the existence of antifragile states within the walls of the casino, something that i think Taleb would say shouldn’t exist (due to the artificially, mathematically rule driven set up of games in the casino), but i believe extreme events and antifragility is present in casinos, albeit constrained and limited by those mathematical rule sets, unlike the ‘wild west’ nature of things outside the walls of casinos, where black swan events are surprisingly as common as the birthday paradox (which isn’t really a paradox) is, however seemingly unlikely. the image below also interestingly enough shows a possible link between the pareto principle and antifragility. that link has further been hinted at by seven different games that i’ve analyzed with respect to antifragility. each of those games, when restricted or adjusted to an antifragile state at its transition point have an advantage = 20% (give or take a few percentage points). that 20% advantage occurs at the ‘transition’ point wherein the condition of the game transcends from a robust state to an antifragile state, further adjusting the game condition for ever more antifragility up to the limit for which it can be adjusted imparts an asymptotic rise (smiley face curve, such as mentioned by Nassim Taleb in his book Antifragile) in advantage approaching a 300% advantage or more for the game types analyzed. not meaning too paint to rosey of a picture, these game states do not represent a ‘good’ black swan sort of event (where an advantage would be described as astronomical), although unfortunately they are rare events, especially for those states where the advantage is near 300%, none the less, they do occur. there is a ‘spectrum’ of antifragile states between the 20% advantage state and the upper bound limit > 300%. not bad prospects for the typical advantage play scenario. there is optionality with respect to decision making regarding the making of an antifragile play and the degree to which it is antifragile. a certainty equivalent sort of decision, except there is no downside to influence the decision, sorta thing, other than the options may dissipate, as in opportunity risk.
having essentially nothing to go by other than having read the book, Antifragile by Nassim Taleb, i’ve had to set my own parameters far as what i’m calling, fragile, robust and antifragile, with respect to the games i’ve analyzed. just been kind of going by what makes sense to me, sorta thing.
this is pretty much what i’ve come up with for the games analyzed:
advantage%, best case, worst case expectation & expected value all have variable states and vary, increasing value wise as play is conducted.
a game state is antifragile if it has no downside, that is you can bet away at it and can’t possibly lose money. it also loves volatility, whereas volatility for the game in a robust or fragile state would normally expose you to the possibility of loss, as well as gain, the game when in an antifragile state can actually only yield better results as a result of volatility. the worst case expectation at this point only gets more and more positive in value as play ensues. the best case can always pop up at any time as a result of volitility. both the value of the best case and the value of the worst case expectation become more and more positive under antifragile state conditions as plays are made.
the games that i’ve analyzed can transcend from, worthless, to fragile, to robust and then to an antifragile state.
the transition from robust to antifragile occurs right about the 20% advantage point and when the worst case expectation becomes >= $0.00 .
the transition from fragile to robust occurs right about the 10% thru 11% advantage point and when the expected value = (-1 * worst case expectation) . at this robust point there is money to be made if expected value is realized, volatility can help greatly, but it can also bring about harm in the case that volatility brings about the worst case expectation rather than the expected value , while volatility can bring about the best case wherein substantial gain can be realized. in other words, expected value is what we expect, and hope for, but the other more volatile expectations can occur. fine for the long run, not so much so for the current play as the actual results are up for grabs, sorta thing. that’s the nature of a robust state, it can blow up or be broken, or it can produce as expected. expected value and advantage% for the robust state are lower than those values for the antifragile state.
the fragile state exists when the advantage is > 0 < 8% thru 10% advantage point and when expected value < (-1 * worst case expectation) . at this fragile state there is money to be made if expected value is realized, volatility can help greatly, but it can also bring about harm in the case that volatility brings about the worst case expectation rather than the expected value , while volatility can bring about the best case wherein substantial gain can be realized. similar to the robust state, expected value is what we expect, and hope for, but the other more volatile expectations can occur. fine for the long run, not so much so for the current play as the actual results are up for grabs, sorta thing. that’s the nature of a fragile state, it can blow up or be broken, even more so than the robust state. expected value and advantage% for the fragile state is less than that of the robust state and much less than that of the antifragile state.
a final note of caution, the parameter worst case expectation, is just that, as it is worded, an expectation. any expectation is either an average, or is based upon an average, that fact implies fluctuation may be existent. in other words, even a worst case expectation can allow for worse than worst case expectation results, much, much, much worse. to the tune of a $4,000.00 loss, worse, should the worst of the worst case happen for the above mentioned game condition at the antifragile transition point. that said it’s a winning game in the robust state, lol. essentially for the $4,000.00 loss to happen one of two things would have to happen, either the casino is cheating or the Cubs won the 2016 world series.
well anyway, see the graph below:
i would have shared the data as well, but there is nearly 5,000 rows of data about 13 columns across.
