funny you should mention that

Discussion in 'General' started by sagefr0g, Dec 4, 2011.

  1. sagefr0g

    sagefr0g Well-Known Member

    was watching a chit chat news show this morning, news folks interviewing doctors about this arsenic in apple juice thing.....
    got me to pondering toxicology, a subject i know virtually nuthin about, among many, lol.
    but the dr's were saying "parts/million sorta thing about arsenic in water, and apple juice, no big deal. far as apple juice and kids, maybe limit how much they drink a day, sorta thing.":rolleyes:
    whatever, it made me want to maybe study up a little on the maths of toxicology, maybe.
    maybe get a clue as to how much 'toxic' gambling stuff an AP can handle, as well as variance issues for AP's. handled i know by Kelly stuff, but maybe just me, thought it was interesting.
  2. blackjack avenger

    blackjack avenger Well-Known Member


    One could look at a -EV game as an expense, but its worse then that because of variance.
  3. sagefr0g

    sagefr0g Well-Known Member

    there yah go.
    if we play all bj, then we have, errhh i think it's about 70% of the time or so playing at negative ev, an expense.
    so why you say it's worse than that because of variance? do you mean because the variance involved in the positive ev part of play could completely destroy our bankroll, or significantly cripple it?
  4. PierceNation

    PierceNation Well-Known Member

    I've started to view variance as an even more critical factor than EV itself. Variance is what can turn a winning game into a loser. Double Kelly exemplifies this perfectly.
  5. blackjack avenger

    blackjack avenger Well-Known Member

    its all about the variance

    & the -EV ;)

    The -EV game would have variance. Those negative BJ hands also have variance. Even though; hopefully, the negative bets are small & few. The N0 is damaged regardless if the negative hands are BJ or another game.

    Your bank could be crippled by the -EV of bets or the variance.
  6. blackjack avenger

    blackjack avenger Well-Known Member


    Double Kelly betting no long term growth
    over double Kelly bank shrinks long term
  7. aslan

    aslan Well-Known Member

    I saw that, too. The one doctor was of the opinion that is wasn't even a close call-- his advice-- fagetaboutit. The other doctor just could help himself. Agreed it wasn't close....but.... just to be sure.... don't give the children any more than one 6 oz. glass a day. <--- Now, that's exactly what causes all this concern. One doctor tells it like it is (I think), but the other doctor doesn't want to say definitively... he shoulda been a lawyer. This second guy planted more questions in one's mind--- don't sue me--- I didn't say it was safe! :flame: The urge to kill!!!! :joker:j/k

    PS-- the criterion should not be your professional opinion, it should be what you would do if your own children were involved. Then we might get to the truth! instead of CYA.
  8. shadroch

    shadroch Well-Known Member

    Your body flushs most minerals on a daily basis, so very small amounts in water or food is not a problem. Some minerals are not flushed and build up over time. Ingesting tiny, trace, amounts of these over fifty or so years can lead to problems. I have no idea which group arsenic falls into, and am too lazy to bother looking it up.
  9. metronome

    metronome Well-Known Member

    call ZG

    c'mon... pesticide residue... GMO Seed stock...Fukushima Daiichai..
    Chernobyl,still not "fixed"...Gulf Oil Spill... Arsenic, one more catalyst to increased mortality.
    We are not wise enough to be stewards of this Earth, much less our human societies.
  10. sagefr0g

    sagefr0g Well-Known Member

    just for clarification of my lack of knowledge about N0, lemme ask.
    the one standard deviation of bad luck that Brett Harris writes about in this link: (Archive copy)
    where he says "Hence, N0 can be seen as the number of rounds required to overcome one standard deviation of 'bad luck'.", is that 'one standard deviation of 'bad luck' the same thing as 'one low standard deviation' ( ie. where 1lowSD = EV - 1SD)?

    does part of what reaching N0 means that you have a 68% chance of actually realizing EV or better?
    and so like for this N0 calculator: (Archive copy)
    errhh, if you get in 4*N0 hands, you'd have a 95% chance of actually realizing EV or better?
    & if you get in 9*N0 hands, you'd have a 99% chance of actually realizing EV or better?
  11. blackjack avenger

    blackjack avenger Well-Known Member

    N0 problem?

    Reach N0 with a fixed spread and one has an 84% chance of being ahead.
    4 N0 = 97.7%? 2Sd
    9 N0 = 99.8%? 3Sd

    I take it to mean as stated:
    The number of hands needed to overcome one SD of bad luck.
  12. sagefr0g

    sagefr0g Well-Known Member

    N0 problem

    k...., damm i might learn something here, hopefully won't forget it soon as i learn it, lol.......

    84% chance of being ahead, that's interesting, errrhhh i mean interesting to me, cause like i posted, i'd of thought it would of been a circa 68% chance of being ahead. what the heck am i missing here?:confused::whip:
    where's that extra 16% chances coming from? lol
    hmmm, maybe he really does mean overcoming 1SD (like you say) of bad luck instead of 1lowSD, cause after all, 1SD of bad luck > 1lowSD of bad luck, errhh at least i think it is . :rolleyes:
  13. blackjack avenger

    blackjack avenger Well-Known Member

    N0 problem

    :eek:At 1 SD of N0 you have only a 16% chance of results falling below the 68% 1 SD range and the 16% above the range or 84% chance of winning.

    100% of total results - 16% of losing results = 84% chance of winning.

    Errr umm
    I think;)

    I also edited my previous post to include 4n0 & 9n0.
  14. sagefr0g

    sagefr0g Well-Known Member

    lmao, well that was easy, but at least i learned something.:grin:
  15. sagefr0g

    sagefr0g Well-Known Member

    toxicity levels

    in this post :
    i was alluding to something, that i'm not even sure what the heck i'm alluding to, lol.
    errhhh, i think in a nutshell, what i'm trying to ask is:
    essentially is it possible to have some positive EV for some play and concurrent to that is it possible to have concurrently some 'standard deviation', such that the worst negative standard deviation one might expect to possibly happen, can never really happen because of the fact that the worst case scenario is so much less of a disaster than the standard deviation (derived from data) would lead one to expect?
    if so, i'd think the bell curve would look sort of warped, errhh kind of skinny on the 'evil' side of the curve and fatter on the 'blessed' side of the curve. no?
    edit: one thing that is happening data-wise is that relatively high variance has been happening of the 'good luck' nature, data-wise this drives up the standard deviation, but the thing is, i know the worst case scenario for a given play, and it can't even come close to the 'good luck' stuff that does happen.
    so to me, it's as if the standard deviation derived from my data can't properly reflect the 'evil' side of the bell curve, sorta thing.

Share This Page