Variance is a @#$%&*

B

Blue Efficacy

Well-Known Member
I agree. It sucks losing when you've made mistakes.

But losing when you were on top of your game... that's a whole 'nother animal.... :(
 
Automatic Monkey

Automatic Monkey

Banned
She's a bitch, but sometimes she's passed out in your room nude. Remember what she did to you at the last party and take advantage.

(With apologies in advance to the ladies of the site.)
 
bj bob

bj bob

Well-Known Member
Automatic Monkey said:
She's a bitch, but sometimes she's passed out in your room nude. Remember what she did to you at the last party and take advantage.

(With apologies in advance to the ladies of the site.) *
Click to expand...
* Apologies 1/2 accepted....TinaSparx.
 
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
The longer we play, the bigger extremes we will see. zg
Click to expand...
Or, just maybe, on the other hand, over any fixed length of play, 10 rounds, 100 rounds, 100MM rounds, whatever, the liklihood of ending results being within 1SD, 2SD, 3SD, 4SD, etc will always be the same for however many rounds we have played.
 
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
Automatic Monkey said:
(With apologies in advance to the ladies of the site.)
Click to expand...
How about also for the men of this site, who, possibly, weird as this may seem to you in your universe, conclude that taking advantage of a passed-out woman, be she Lady Luck or not, about the creepiest thing imaginable?

Would you even bother to check for a pulse first? Maybe not because it wouldn't matter anyway?

Sorry, just really creeped me out big time.
 
Sonny

Sonny

Well-Known Member
If it makes you feel any better, the variance is only negative half the time.

-Sonny-
 
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
blackjack avenger said:
Hmmmmm
Negative half the time or less then?!:joker::whip:
Click to expand...
I'm just trying to say 1 sd means your results will fall within that range 68.3% of the time or whatever it is. I geuss maybe you have to spend some time at sd=0 too though lol.

Maybe 1 SD would be more dollars with more hands but so would EV.

Your SD per round in units or dollars can't change in the same game?

But, I'll go with experiencing extreme variance absolutely calls for @#$%^&*(
:)

Or, maybe like you and zg meant, play 1000 100 hand sessions, and you are likely to experience some of those extremes for some of those 100 hand sessions lol.
 
R

rukus

Well-Known Member
Kasi said:
I'm just trying to say 1 sd means your results will fall within that range 68.3% of the time or whatever it is. I geuss maybe you have to spend some time at sd=0 too though lol.
Click to expand...
you spend exactly 0 "time" at any one particular SD or spot on the expectation curve. you can only measure time above or below that but not "at" it. the area under an infinitely thin point in the curve is 0. just busting some balls! :eek: :eek:
 
Last edited:
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
rukus said:
just busting some balls! :eek: :eek:
Click to expand...
That brought back so many wonderful memories.

Playing a beautiful nationally-ranked full-figured blonde with a passing back-hand you couldn't believe. Absolutely cleaned my clock 6-3, 6-4 in a tournament.

I said "Beat me again baby". Again and again. In non-tournament conditions. God how she would "glow". You know, men "sweat", horses "perspire" and women "glow". She always obliged and thus was borne true love.

O God, then there was this 16 yr-old blonde that just absolutely, mercilessly, flagellated me on the golf course for 2 weeks when I could actually break 80 most of the time. A swing like Sam Snead, Ernie Els and Freddie Couples put together. The vacation ended but not the memories lol.

That was ball-busting. :grin:

So, after x hands and results at exactly EV, should I say "chances of losing this much or more"=50% or, if I said, "chances of losing this much or more" would also =50%? both statements would be equally true ? :confused:

Apparently I couldn't say "chances of losing less than this" =50% or ""chances of losing more than this"=50% :confused:

Regardless, thx for the memories lmao.
 
R

rukus

Well-Known Member
Kasi said:
That brought back so many wonderful memories.

Playing a beautiful nationally-ranked full-figured blonde with a passing back-hand you couldn't believe. Absolutely cleaned my clock 6-3, 6-4 in a tournament.

I said "Beat me again baby". Again and again. In non-tournament conditions. God how she would "glow". You know, men "sweat", horses "perspire" and women "glow". She always obliged and thus was borne true love.

O God, then there was this 16 yr-old blonde that just absolutely, mercilessly, flagellated me on the golf course for 2 weeks when I could actually break 80 most of the time. A swing like Sam Snead, Ernie Els and Freddie Couples put together. The vacation ended but not the memories lol.

That was ball-busting. :grin:

So, after x hands and results at exactly EV, should I say "chances of losing this much or more"=50% or, if I said, "chances of losing this much or more" would also =50%? both statements would be equally true ? :confused:

Apparently I couldn't say "chances of losing less than this" =50% or ""chances of losing more than this"=50% :confused:

Regardless, thx for the memories lmao.
Click to expand...
kasi, are you so bored you dig up old posts to respond to :grin:? that's two in one day! you're lucky i have cvdata already running and am not able to do much else besides responding to these old posts as well ;).


you could indeed say after x hands and results at exactly EV, should I say "chances of losing this much or more"=50% only if your EV was negative! if your EV was something positive, you'd have to say "chances of winning less than this or losing something" = 50%. alternatively you could say "chances of winning more than this"=50%, again, only if your EV was positive. if it was negative you would have to say chances of losing less than this or winning something"=50%.

wow, with all this proper english talk im afraid Don S. will appear and start correcting some grammar!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top