Poll:
- Thread starter Thunder
- Start date
AussiePlayer
Well-Known Member
Depends whether the BR is replenishable or not. (But with Australia's BJ rules, I'd probably take the 90% chance of 80% return)
Southpaw
Well-Known Member
EV = (Probability of Win)(Win) - (Probability of Loss)(Loss) = (.90)(.80BR) - (.10)(BR) = .72BR - .10BR = .62BR
From the calculations, we see that this is a huge plus EV move. However, this assumes that when you lose, you are only losing the value of the initial bankroll and that when you win, you are only winning 80% of the original BR. The calculation indicates that every time you accept this proposition, you are expected to win 62% of the value of the original bankroll. This is an exceptional offer, provided you are not like required to play for 100,000 hours to achieve. It would be awesome if you could accept the proposition every time you snapped your fingers. Imagine the SCORE if you then just snapped your fingers 1000 times per hour!
Spaw
From the calculations, we see that this is a huge plus EV move. However, this assumes that when you lose, you are only losing the value of the initial bankroll and that when you win, you are only winning 80% of the original BR. The calculation indicates that every time you accept this proposition, you are expected to win 62% of the value of the original bankroll. This is an exceptional offer, provided you are not like required to play for 100,000 hours to achieve. It would be awesome if you could accept the proposition every time you snapped your fingers. Imagine the SCORE if you then just snapped your fingers 1000 times per hour!
Spaw
zengrifter
Banned
How would one verify the validity of the offer?Thunder said:
All that you polled here is that "...if you were offered...?" zg
zengrifter
Banned
Okay, so it's hypothetically validated. Hypothetically speaking, what is it? zgThunder said:Zg, this is a hypothetical situation. No verification of the validity of the offer is needed! Obviously you wouldn't choose the offer if it couldn't be verified
Brock Windsor
Well-Known Member
What is the hypothetical offer of chance? Let's assume an unfair coin toss that lands heads 90% of the time and returns 89% of amount risked if correct. (Taking Heads at -111)
With no information on the requirement in hours to achieve the return, or if losing your entire BR is a life changing event, it is hard to answer.
For simplicity I'll assume BR is 100k (no resizing) and max bet is 1K. I'll also assume the BJ player counts cards. If one flat bets 1K (on one hand) in all counts TC3+ on a six deck game with good rules/pen, it will take roughly 320 hours to increse BR by 80k and the ROR will be in the same ball park as 10%. Obviously an unfair coin toss can achieve this result much more quickly but you also stipulated giving up BJ for a full year, So if the hero plays 1000 hours of BJ a year and is otherwise unemployable there is an opportunity cost.
With no information on the requirement in hours to achieve the return, or if losing your entire BR is a life changing event, it is hard to answer.
For simplicity I'll assume BR is 100k (no resizing) and max bet is 1K. I'll also assume the BJ player counts cards. If one flat bets 1K (on one hand) in all counts TC3+ on a six deck game with good rules/pen, it will take roughly 320 hours to increse BR by 80k and the ROR will be in the same ball park as 10%. Obviously an unfair coin toss can achieve this result much more quickly but you also stipulated giving up BJ for a full year, So if the hero plays 1000 hours of BJ a year and is otherwise unemployable there is an opportunity cost.
Last edited:
Eye of the Tiger
Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
It is what it is.
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
not kelly
Doesn't the term, "lose it all" make it not Kelly? For some the loss of bank would be devastating, for others not so much. I think this is the heart of the decision and not so much the math.
A conservative kelly fraction bettor can increase their bets and in theory up their EV, if they want to take on more risk.
Doesn't the term, "lose it all" make it not Kelly? For some the loss of bank would be devastating, for others not so much. I think this is the heart of the decision and not so much the math.
A conservative kelly fraction bettor can increase their bets and in theory up their EV, if they want to take on more risk.
Depends on how many bullets there were in the pistol and how many empty chambers there are as well as what would I get in return for this. If there were a 90% chance I wouldn't die and I would get a lifetime of complete health, happiness, and financial security, that might be a gamble worth taking.sagefr0g said:i'd be willing to bet if you have x bullets in a pistol and y chambers empty you wouldn't pull the trigger.
Small caliber pistols have up to nine chambers in the cylinder. I don't know every firearm but I think you need to include grenade launcher attachments for a long gun to find revolving cylinders with 10 or more chambers. Maybe you want an automatic with one in the chamber and an empty clip.:laugh:Thunder said:
AussiePlayer
Well-Known Member
Don't laugh. I've seen a news report of this being done before!tthree said:
aslan
Well-Known Member
We had a security guard in the shopping center I frequented who was showing off to some girls. He was pretending to play Russian roulette. From what I heard, he was noting where the bullet was in his revolver, but made the mistake that he thought it should be under the firing pin to discharge, when in actuality, as the trigger was pulled the cylinder advanced causing the empty under the firing pin to move forward and the cylinder to advance the bullet under the pin which came forward and fired the bullet into his head. So much for just folling around.
I would not pull the trigger on a revolver with a 1,000 chambers (if that were possible) and only one bullet. It is deliberately taking an action that might end your life for monetary gain and no other redeeming value. I might go to work on a job that could kill me, such as a policeman or firefighter, but that has redeeming value. I would not go to work everyday and do nothing but pull that trigger for x number of dollars. I see a big difference.
It's reminds me of a hypothetical my 11th grade English teacher proposed. Say 40,000 people a year die of automobile accidents. Would it be all right to execute 20,000 people a year, if by so doing we could guarantee that not one life would be lost by automobile accident?
I would not pull the trigger on a revolver with a 1,000 chambers (if that were possible) and only one bullet. It is deliberately taking an action that might end your life for monetary gain and no other redeeming value. I might go to work on a job that could kill me, such as a policeman or firefighter, but that has redeeming value. I would not go to work everyday and do nothing but pull that trigger for x number of dollars. I see a big difference.
It's reminds me of a hypothetical my 11th grade English teacher proposed. Say 40,000 people a year die of automobile accidents. Would it be all right to execute 20,000 people a year, if by so doing we could guarantee that not one life would be lost by automobile accident?
The idiot plays "fake" russian roulette and doesn't know enough about his gun to know it is a double action revolver? Did he win a Darwin award? For all you amateurs out there. Treat any gun like it is loaded and the safety is off. Don't point it at anything you don't mind being shot. Almost every person shot by accident is shot by an "unloaded" gun.aslan said:We had a security guard in the shopping center I frequented who was showing off to some girls. He was pretending to play Russian roulette. From what I heard, he was noting where the bullet was in his revolver, but made the mistake that he thought it should be under the firing pin to discharge, when in actuality, as the trigger was pulled the cylinder advanced causing the empty under the firing pin to move forward and the cylinder to advance the bullet under the pin which came forward and fired the bullet into his head. So much for just folling around.
I would not pull the trigger on a revolver with a 1,000 chambers (if that were possible) and only one bullet. It is deliberately taking an action that might end your life for monetary gain and no other redeeming value. I might go to work on a job that could kill me, such as a policeman or firefighter, but that has redeeming value. I would not go to work everyday and do nothing but pull that trigger for x number of dollars. I see a big difference.
It's reminds me of a hypothetical my 11th grade English teacher proposed. Say 40,000 people a year die of automobile accidents. Would it be all right to execute 20,000 people a year, if by so doing we could guarantee that not one life would be lost by automobile accident?
blackriver
Well-Known Member
If this made it safe to drink text eat be distracted or fatigued this would be too good deal to pass upaslan said:We had a security guard in the shopping center I frequented who was showing off to some girls. He was pretending to play Russian roulette. From what I heard, he was noting where the bullet was in his revolver, but made the mistake that he thought it should be under the firing pin to discharge, when in actuality, as the trigger was pulled the cylinder advanced causing the empty under the firing pin to move forward and the cylinder to advance the bullet under the pin which came forward and fired the bullet into his head. So much for just folling around.
I would not pull the trigger on a revolver with a 1,000 chambers (if that were possible) and only one bullet. It is deliberately taking an action that might end your life for monetary gain and no other redeeming value. I might go to work on a job that could kill me, such as a policeman or firefighter, but that has redeeming value. I would not go to work everyday and do nothing but pull that trigger for x number of dollars. I see a big difference.
It's reminds me of a hypothetical my 11th grade English teacher proposed. Say 40,000 people a year die of automobile accidents. Would it be all right to execute 20,000 people a year, if by so doing we could guarantee that not one life would be lost by automobile accident?
Tthree,tthree said:
And these are the idiots that lead the headlines for gun control. I have had one gun in my lifetime that I accidentally discharged. It was a 22 semiauto pistol that I wasn't familiar with. I was trying to make sure it was unloaded, a friend handed it to me to look at. I asked is it unloaded.....answer "yes".
So as I was taught at at the age of 12 in hunters safety school, I was pointing it away from everybody upward since I was in a room with a concrete floor. I was trying to figure out the safety and such, pulled the action back and to this day I have no idea how it went off!!!! The clip was out and obviously a shell was still in the chamber!!! Wow,!!! Talk about a shock!!!!
But since I had grown up with a HUGE respect for guns, and the handling of guns, this situation ended up with a small hole to patch in the roof.
This was not the first time I have run into a gun that wqs supposedly unloaded. Ugghhh
I'm with Aslan, NEVER in a million years would you get me to put a weapon to my head for a chance at money. Life is just to much fun!!!!
Thunder????? Your joking right???
Machinist