This retard is a closeted homosexual.
Printable View
This retard is a closeted homosexual.
You've gotten yourself so twisted up, that you've apparently forgotten your original point....Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Theoretical analogies aren't appropriate, we have millions of actual events available to use for evaluation.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Human coin flips are random to 2 decimal places, football passes are not random.
If you plotted the accuracy of millions of football passes to the intended target, the result would essentially be a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
No, I don't stipulate to that being correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
You are referring to information about one specific game, the concept of EV is based on long-term or large sample size.
I'm still laughing at kew constantly being agitated (oh what fun!) by mdawg and myself being winners at gambling, while he and his inimitable mathematical wisdom believing everyone who plays mostly -EV games automatically loses over time.
May his nightmares continue... :)
No, I don't believe that he would have an advantage betting the yes over and over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
The action involved in resolving the bet is not random, there's no expectation of random results in the future, I wouldn't characterize the yes bet as advantageous or +EV.
The idiot that looks like Leo the dry cleaner from Get Shorty Movie thinks that "special" LESS OPTIMAL plays, playing negative EV equals a winning strategy. ;):D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
There is a reason why people like Singer and Dawg get good offers from the casinos. Does anyone think that reason is because they are big winners? :confused: Or is it that the casinos can't wait to get them back on property to lose some more money. :rolleyes:
Seriously, who is fooling who here?
The day isn't over so I'll finish this out.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyYou've gotten yourself so twisted up, that you've apparently forgotten your original point....Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Theoretical analogies aren't appropriate, we have millions of actual events available to use for evaluation.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Human coin flips are random to 2 decimal places, football passes are not random.
If you plotted the accuracy of millions of football passes to the intended target, the result would essentially be a point.
Let me start off by saying - You're such an annoying idiot. I know you're proud of this.
If you plot the value of a coin flip it'll be a point too. Randomness converges.
What are you even talking about plotting accuracy of a football? It is called an "average". Huh? Like you take a gun and shoot a target, it will converge to the bullseye in the same way. That doesn't mean it isn't "random". Having biases doesn't mean something isn't random. If something is 95% skill and 5% random it is still random even if skillful. It is just that the random element has a far lesser effect than the skill component.
You talk about getting twisted up.. you never even had anything to twist up, buddy.
Just go away. Have some pride for once and show some shame and walk away from the keyboard.
So if you don't believe betting skill player shooting 50/50 over 5k trials while paying +115 is an Advantage/+EV, why do you think someome like Red has an advantage betting college football? I can guarantee you he doesn't come close to what should be a 15% edge.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyNo, I don't believe that he would have an advantage betting the yes over and over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
The action involved in resolving the bet is not random, there's no expectation of random results in the future, I wouldn't characterize the yes bet as advantageous or +EV.
Not absolutely. The net number of wins, or loses, may approach as many as you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
That is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
You are confusing the results, for when each trial is a series of coin flips, and the plotted values are the proportion of heads (or tails) for the trial, with the results when the trial (and plotted values) are individual flips.
If there are only 2 possible outcomes for a random trial (heads or tails) then what point would the outcomes converge to?
For a non-random event (such a football pass) there are a number (greater than 2) of possible outcomes for the distance between the pass and the target.
If you plot the outcomes of individual trials, for 80% of the passes, the distance will be zero...the pass hits the target.
That's not a random distribution.
For the remaining 20% the accuracy won't resemble a random distribution either.
The plotted values will cluster such that the representation appears to be a point.
That won't happen with fair coin flips, the results will not converge to a point.
Throwing a pass is not a random act, there is no representation of random elements involved that can reasonably characterize the act as random over a large number of trials.
I haven't stipulated that Red has an advantage betting college football.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
But I wouldn't evaluate Red's advantage based on the hypothesis of your if/then pool shot scenario, I don't consider that relevant.
Are you asserting that the future results of the pool shot will be, or should be, random, such that a +115 betting opportunity is advantageous?
Coach, you should look into prop betting.
The result of a pass is a good example of something not ordinarily described as random but clearly random in the sense of "the mathematics of randomness".
You would wind up with a scatter plot concentrated around the exact intended spot, from which data points you could calculate the standard deviation and likely calculate quite accurately (across the entire class of throws) how likely a throw is to be off by 1 inch or more, 2 inches or more, etc.
And if you wanted more accurate predictions you would subdivide the data set by distance from target and if you had enough data individual throwers. Or left handed vs right handed or whatever.
(There might be a practical problem of determining the exact intended target accurately but this would be true of coach belly's hypothetical as well).
The point I think redietz wants to make but has had difficulty expressing is that the historical data you use in such an analysis is not as reliable as the data for something like a coin flip would be, because of the problem of exogenous variables (for example the possibility of the NFL changing the dimensions of the ball, or for an individual player the possibility that he slightly changes his technique, or gets a very minor unreported hand injury that affects his throws but doesn't take him out of the game).
But that's a problem that exists in many fields that routinely employ statistics, for example finance and insurance. It doesn't render "the mathematics of random events" useless.
+115 on a 50/50 is not a 15% edge. This is a Wendy's.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Very good, sir. 57.5 for 7.5%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Perignom+115 on a 50/50 is not a 15% edge. This is a Wendy's.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Not to be outdone by the "“Burger King Power Chip”. Ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfVery good, sir. 57.5 for 7.5%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Perignom+115 on a 50/50 is not a 15% edge. This is a Wendy's.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Quote:
This series, the rules include something called the “Burger King Power Chip.” Or as I have come to think of it “The Abomination Unto the Lord Power Chip.” Each player gets one BKPC per game and the BKPC allows them to swap out one card per game for the next card in the shoe. So for example if they get dealt K-5 they can ditch the 5 and hope for a better draw.
What about a prop bet of over/under 21 pass completions in a game by a certain quarterback? Is it non random whether it goes over or under?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyThat is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
You are confusing the results, for when each trial is a series of coin flips, and the plotted values are the proportion of heads (or tails) for the trial, with the results when the trial (and plotted values) are individual flips.
If there are only 2 possible outcomes for a random trial (heads or tails) then what point would the outcomes converge to?
For a non-random event (such a football pass) there are a number (greater than 2) of possible outcomes for the distance between the pass and the target.
If you plot the outcomes of individual trials, for 80% of the passes, the distance will be zero...the pass hits the target.
That's not a random distribution.
For the remaining 20% the accuracy won't resemble a random distribution either.
The plotted values will cluster such that the representation appears to be a point.
That won't happen with fair coin flips, the results will not converge to a point.
Throwing a pass is not a random act, there is no representation of random elements involved that can reasonably characterize the act as random over a large number of trials.