GWAE had a AP on the had a 300 hr losing streak. From my understanding of the bell curve there should be an equal and opposite effect on the winning side also. Why would it not be possible for a player that has a slightly losing game to encounter a long winning streak of even 300 hrs. be ahead and appear to have a positive EV just be a lucky loser.
Variance (the winning loser)
- Thread starter Dopple
- Start date
I am confused by your use of some phrases here. Positive EV and winning or losing are two completely different things. So why would someone "appear to have positive EV" just because they are ahead at some point?
It seems like you already addressed the positive or negative EV question when you stated "a player that has a slightly losing game". If the player is playing a slightly losing game, he is playing -EV. Period.
I guess it is that "appear to have positive EV" phrase, that I just can't wrap my head around.
It seems like you already addressed the positive or negative EV question when you stated "a player that has a slightly losing game". If the player is playing a slightly losing game, he is playing -EV. Period.
I guess it is that "appear to have positive EV" phrase, that I just can't wrap my head around.
This too is interesting. 20 years ago, I would say these numbers were spot on. Today, I wonder. Both close enough that you saying "about" probably still covers it. But worsening conditions over the last 20 years have made both these numbers (without the "about") questionable in 2019.
I mean most shoe games, with standard h17 and no late surrender have house edges above .60 now. And I would guess that a high percentage of counters, playing the games just mentioned are having a harder time hitting that 1% total advantage. Anyone playing any kind of the old "play all" approach is going to have a real hard time hitting 1% total advantage without a really big spread.
I think today's players have to find a way to get out of at least some of the really negative counts (and still have a decent spread) to hit 1% now-a-days. Getting out of some of the negative counts and directly into more positive or advantageous counts....even better.
I mean most shoe games, with standard h17 and no late surrender have house edges above .60 now. And I would guess that a high percentage of counters, playing the games just mentioned are having a harder time hitting that 1% total advantage. Anyone playing any kind of the old "play all" approach is going to have a real hard time hitting 1% total advantage without a really big spread.
I think today's players have to find a way to get out of at least some of the really negative counts (and still have a decent spread) to hit 1% now-a-days. Getting out of some of the negative counts and directly into more positive or advantageous counts....even better.
KewlJ said:
I am confused by your use of some phrases here. Positive EV and winning or losing are two completely different things. So why would someone "appear to have positive EV" just because they are ahead at some point?
It seems like you already addressed the positive or negative EV question when you stated "a player that has a slightly losing game". If the player is playing a slightly losing game, he is playing -EV. Period.
I guess it is that "appear to have positive EV" phrase, that I just can't wrap my head around.
It seems like you already addressed the positive or negative EV question when you stated "a player that has a slightly losing game". If the player is playing a slightly losing game, he is playing -EV. Period.
I guess it is that "appear to have positive EV" phrase, that I just can't wrap my head around.
Ahh....NO! This is exactly what I reject and am objecting to. Short-term losing results does not mean you are playing a losing game, just the same as short-term winning results does not mean one is playing a winning game.
We now have definitive ways (mathematical) to determine whether we are playing a winning game or losing game and in this computer era, that is easier than ever to determine.
We now have definitive ways (mathematical) to determine whether we are playing a winning game or losing game and in this computer era, that is easier than ever to determine.