Page 102 of 501 FirstFirst ... 252929899100101102103104105106112152202 ... LastLast
Results 2,021 to 2,040 of 10013

Thread: The WoV Thread

  1. #2021
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    And since the game must converge to to its expectation, then the player will win at a rate greater than expectation after a loss is incurred. Isn't that what you're claiming?
    The above is about as stupid as it gets.
    That's because coach belly is playing his usual trolling games. Pretending he doesn't understand, when he understands completely. He just doesn't want to understand so he trolls, wasting everyone's time. "There is no one so blind as he who refuses see".

  2. #2022
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Why must the game converge to expectation for the year ?
    I don't know why.

    The players are reporting their results for a year, and comparing the results to expectation for the year.

    Above there's an example of results for 4 months, and expectation for 4 months.

    Is there no way to measure EV for a defined period of time?

    I'm trying to understand how, after a losing start to the year, the player knows he will win for the year.

    Does he know that since his results are well below expectation, that he will begin to win at a rate equally above expectation?
    Saying I've never had a losing year is not saying I will never have a losing year. That's all in your stupid ass head.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  3. #2023
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by Bill Yung View Post
    Gambling forums should be about a release from all of that.
    Have you considered gambler's anonymous?
    Ha ha, I much prefer the Idiots Anonymous site. (This one.)
    78255585899=317*13723*17989=(310+7)*[(13730-7)*(100*100+7979+10)]-->LOVE avatar@137_371_179_791, or 137_371_17[3^2]_7[3^2]1, 1=V-->Ace, low. 78255585899-->99858555287=(99858555288-1)=[-1+(72*2227)*(722777-100000)]={-1+(72*2227)*[(2000+700777+20000)-100000]}-->1_722_227_277_772_1. 7×8×2×5×5×5×8×5×8×9×9=362880000=(1000000000-6√97020000-100000)-->169_721. (7/8×2/5×5/5×8/5×8/9×9)={[(-.1+.9)]^2×(6+1)}-->1961=√4*2.24; (1/7×8/2×5/5×5/8×5/8×9/9)={1/[7×(-.2+1)^2]}-->1721=[(10*10/4)/(√4+110)].

  4. #2024
    I've just been catching up on some reading over at Wizardland. Seems GlenG outed Professional AP Richard Munchkin by posting his real name. This kind of doxing is supposed to be against the rules. It was pointed out to GlenG just minutes after he did so, and he basically responded with an F-U. So the information stayed up for some 12 hours at which Shackleford, final took it down and suspended GlenG for 3 day. Then after friends of GlenG pmed Wizard, Mike reversed course and lifted the suspension.

    O. M. G. ! Where do I begin?

    1.) Intentionally outing a professional AP should be a nuke offense not a 3 day suspension. I mean you are trying to damage that person's career and ability to earn money from the casino. And since GlenG responded with a basic F-U after it was immediately brought to his attention, yes this was intentional outing/doxing.

    2.) The damaging information remained on the site for 12 hours! I will give Mike a pass in that maybe he hadn't read the site during that time, but isn't that why that site has like 12 moderators? Where the hell were they all? It's funny that site is severely overmoderated except when it should be moderated and then all the mods conveniently disappear.

    3.) Friends of GlenG PMed Mike and bullied him into reversing course. This one sounds very familiar to me as I witnessed Qfit PM Mike and bully and manipulate him in the same way.

    4.) the reverse course thing is kind of funny. I didn't know Mike had that ability. He hasn't show it often. I guess he needs to be bullied into doing so (even when proven wrong).

    Conclusion: WoV is no friend to AP's. This has been proven time and time again, with Mike blowing up AP plays and now allowing the outing of a professional AP.

  5. #2025
    His personal info is on his own site. It's HIS problem and is public record. I say tough shit to Munchkin.

  6. #2026
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    You have to create positive expectation in order to have a chance to capture it.
    Any reason this wouldn't apply to negative expectation games?

    The EV for mX hands = Y

    Can't Y be a negative number? Like VP for instance, where the EV is negative.

  7. #2027
    Originally Posted by jbjb View Post
    His personal info is on his own site. It's HIS problem and is public record. I say tough shit to Munchkin.
    That may be. That is no excuse for a supposedly AP friendly site (with many AP participating) to allow reposting of that information and be a party to outing an AP.

    If I were to find your identity somewhere on the internet, would it be OK for me to repost it, especially on a site that is supposedly a friend to AP's?

  8. #2028
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    And since the game must converge to to its expectation, then the player will win at a rate greater than expectation after a loss is incurred. Isn't that what you're claiming?
    The above is about as stupid as it gets.
    How can a player achieve positive expectation after a loss without results greater than expectation after the loss?

    tableplay confirms that is necessary right here...

    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post

    If a loss is incurred after X hands, in order for results to meet expectation after mX hands,
    then the player must win at a rate above expectation for the remaining (m-1)X hands.

    Is this correct?
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    The answer to your question (by the central limit theorem) is yes

  9. #2029
    Kj, you need to get over the fact that that site is an AP site. Its nothing close to one.

    Munchkin has the same info on IMDB and wiki. Its all there for ANYONE to see. Hell, even this sites favorite punching bag, Bob Dancers' info is there. I've even found his house. If these AP's were so worried about this info getting posted, REMOVE IT!!

  10. #2030
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    I've just been catching up on some reading over at Wizardland. Seems GlenG outed Professional AP Richard Munchkin by posting his real name. This kind of doxing is supposed to be against the rules. It was pointed out to GlenG just minutes after he did so, and he basically responded with an F-U. So the information stayed up for some 12 hours at which Shackleford, final took it down and suspended GlenG for 3 day. Then after friends of GlenG pmed Wizard, Mike reversed course and lifted the suspension.

    O. M. G. ! Where do I begin?

    1.) Intentionally outing a professional AP should be a nuke offense not a 3 day suspension. I mean you are trying to damage that person's career and ability to earn money from the casino. And since GlenG responded with a basic F-U after it was immediately brought to his attention, yes this was intentional outing/doxing.

    2.) The damaging information remained on the site for 12 hours! I will give Mike a pass in that maybe he hadn't read the site during that time, but isn't that why that site has like 12 moderators? Where the hell were they all? It's funny that site is severely overmoderated except when it should be moderated and then all the mods conveniently disappear.

    3.) Friends of GlenG PMed Mike and bullied him into reversing course. This one sounds very familiar to me as I witnessed Qfit PM Mike and bully and manipulate him in the same way.

    4.) the reverse course thing is kind of funny. I didn't know Mike had that ability. He hasn't show it often. I guess he needs to be bullied into doing so (even when proven wrong).

    Conclusion: WoV is no friend to AP's. This has been proven time and time again, with Mike blowing up AP plays and now allowing the outing of a professional AP.
    There have been people with 3 ,7,14,and 30 day suspensions who have gotten those penalties for sarcastically calling someone "a real genius" or" "stupid"

    Yet to doxx someone, and possibly cause alot more harm, its only 3 days suspension with time time served for good behavior.

    More proof that there are different rules for people on different sides of the fence....and for people who sit on the fence.

    So the people who slapped the wiz on the back as amazing when he did a blog about prostitutes in panama,,,, or when he degrades his wife, or when he brags about suspending for his mental health,....they get a pass. The folks that tell him how great he was and how proper it was for him and his mods to punish individual members gets brownie points. In fact MrV has accumulated a treasure chest of points with his "they deserved it" after shocks of praise he gives the mods after punishment is doled out. As long as you are a yes man to the wiz, or are friends to the right people....you are golden.
    Once I saw that the site is run by a fraternity of nerds......then it all makes sense and I have no appetite to bre a "member".

    If there was ever a fraternity house , filled with nerdy socially backward people...this is what you would have. Conversations about your favorite womans body part. Discussion of good deals in prostitution. Belittling women.. Dumb blonde jokes. and silly boyish antisocial behavior. Silly crying about being insulted by a fellow frater, and in the absence of mommy like they had at home....they now have the nerdy frat prez(wiz)....to cry to and do their bidding.

  11. #2031
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    The player doesn't have to win at an equal rate to a loss rate - this is a random walk, not some tit-for-tat scenario. Through a series of random wins and losses, the player will get to the expectation.
    Whatever the incremental wins or losses may be, the overall rate can be determined for each period.

    Don't you use the sum of the series of random wins and losses over a period to determine the rate for that period?

    If the player has lost Y over a period of X months, then in order to meet expectation for the year the result must be a win of (Y + EV) for the next (12-X) months.
    So the player has to meet their expectation over a year ? Who made up that rule ?

  12. #2032
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    So the player has to meet their expectation over a year ? Who made up that rule ?
    I don't know...is it a rule? Does it have to be a rule?

    The players are reporting their results for a year, so I'm asking if these are the conditions to meet expectation over a year.

    I'm referencing real examples of early losses and subsequent recovery to results that meet yearly expectation.

    I believe it was Romes who wrote that he was down $60K after the first few months of one year.

  13. #2033
    KJ unloads brand spanking new information that the dominant poster on this forum (next to Mr. Mendelson) has been promoting a completely fictional biographical storyline, and lying about his personal accomplishments and behavioral discipline.

    Now some folks may post previously debated old oblique arguments as distractions, but I will continue to ask:

    Argentino, Argentino, wherefore art thou, Argentino?

    No word from Argentino. No word from Mr. Mendelson. The longer they wait to respond, the more curious things become. These are the two highest volume posters on this forum. Thus far -- crickets.
    Last edited by redietz; 05-16-2018 at 07:56 PM.

  14. #2034
    It's possible, of course, that Argentino did everything he claimed to have done, except he fell victim to his own addictions, whether those addictions were behavioral, pharmacological, or simply needing to own a fleet of Hellcats while going on the dole.

    I'm just wondering how the pension and 401K fit into the storyline.
    Last edited by redietz; 05-16-2018 at 07:57 PM.

  15. #2035
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    So the player has to meet their expectation over a year ? Who made up that rule ?
    I don't know...is it a rule? Does it have to be a rule?

    The players are reporting their results for a year, so I'm asking if these are the conditions to meet expectation over a year.

    I'm referencing real examples of early losses and subsequent recovery to results that meet yearly expectation.

    I believe it was Romes who wrote that he was down $60K after the first few months of one year.
    It seems like you are asking if a year the long-term? There is no one answer for that. Long-term is measured in rounds played. In blackjack, long-term really has to do with N0 (that is cap N zero) and that differs by rules/condition of each game the player is playing.

    One of the MIT books defined Law of Large Numbers as 50,000 rounds. I think it is larger than that because as I have posted many times, I have had four (4) different 6 month "losing" periods ranging from 40,000 to 50,000 rounds, so I think that 50,000 is a bit small, unless you are playing really good (deep penetration games).

    Out of my 4 five/six month losing periods, 3 of those years still ended pretty close to expectation, one did not. The year that did not, was 2014 and I shared that experience as I was going through it on WoV. My blackjack win for the year was $27,345 vs expectation of $87,000. Less than 1/3 expectation.

    I play a lot because I am a grinder type player playing mid stakes. I would expect few blackjack AP put in the rounds I do annually. Most are playing higher stakes and just can't get in that number of rounds.

    So the answer is NO, a year is not long-term. Not for me, who plays a lot and certainly not for most professional players. But it is a start. I mean we have to come up with some period of measurement and since the government requires reporting by year, that is a good measure to pick. And more often than not for most players that play a reasonable amount, actual results will come in reasonably close to expectation for a year, with a few outliers like my 2014.

    And BTW, I have also had an outlier in the other (positive) direction where actual results were $35,000 more than expectation, so outliers work both ways.
    Last edited by kewlJ; 05-16-2018 at 08:58 PM.

  16. #2036
    Originally Posted by jbjb View Post
    Kj, you need to get over the fact that that site is an AP site. Its nothing close to one.

    Munchkin has the same info on IMDB and wiki. Its all there for ANYONE to see. Hell, even this sites favorite punching bag, Bob Dancers' info is there. I've even found his house. If these AP's were so worried about this info getting posted, REMOVE IT!!
    Or you can DELETE it !!(remove all posts)

  17. #2037
    I ain’t reading all this shit. Idk if y’all are even on this topic anymore, but I’ll give a (hopefully) quick answer that’s easy to understand and no weird formulas so you can see how it works....if anyone’s actually interested (I doubt coach is, he usually just looks for a “gotcha!” moment and hopes 2 APs disagree on something or don’t explain themselves well). Without further ado...


    Let’s say the game is a 50/50 coin flip. You bet $100 and either win $102 or lose $100. The advantage is 1% and the EV per play is $1.

    If after 100 flips there have been 60 losers and 40 winners, the player would be down $1,920. (Btw a 60-40 outcome after 100 flips is fairly unlikely.) The player has made $100 in EV at this point. His actual win/loss % is 1,920/10,000 = -19.2%.

    The next 100 flips, you would expect 50 winners and 50 losers, for another $100 in EV. At this point, your expectation would be -1820/20,000 = -9.1%.

    Another 100 flips and you’d expect another $100 in EV to put him at -1720, for an actual win/loss percentage of -1,720/30,000 = -5.73%.

    As you can see, his % win/loss is getting closer and closer to his EV %. The EV in terms of $$$, going forward, is constant ($1/round).

    After another 9,700 games, he’d expect to make $9700 on those games, leaving him at +7980. That’d be $1M in action. 7980/1,000,000 = +0.798%.

    After 90,000 more games, he’d expect to be up $97,980, for a total of $10M in action. 97,980/10,000,000 = 0.9798%.

    The more you play, the %’s should get closer and closer. The dollar amount, from an expectation point of view, won’t change. You’ll still be down $2,020 in $$$ terms in EV.


    You’re never due to win nor due to lose. Slight caveat is if a change in the game is made (EG: blackjack, cards get removed). If you’re playing something like FPDW, even if you hit 3 royals your first session, your future EV going forward is still going to be 0.76% of your FUTURE action; whatever you won or lost earlier today, yesterday, or last year — has no bearing on your future EV (in terms of $$$, NOT %).


    There are obviously different ways to look at it, but IMO the healthiest way to look at it is to see it as a success if you generated EV and didn’t make mistakes and view it as a failure or bad if you made mistakes or gave up EV.

    Here’s an example, kinda. I was on a play a while back where we had done a few million coin in at this casino (over a period of time) and getting cash back / freeplay. One day I hit dealt four deuces for $2.5k. It bumped up our actual return on the coin in from something like 99.1% to 99.25%. At that point you realize, the day-to-day small wins and losses don’t really have an impact on a play, if you put in enough time on the game. And eventually those royals or big dealt hands....or those “terrible” losses, hardly even put a dent in the overall return.

  18. #2038
    Between tableplay and RS's explanations, there are no gotcha moments available. Some people will have to go back to attacking personal attributes of people using math and skill, as the math itself isn't budging.

    Surprise, surprise, to quote Gomer Pyle.

  19. #2039
    Mathematics "budges" most to the extent that a few lonely persons think they can build a life of it alone. Only God's math is perfect, eternal, and immutable. We wouldn't be here without math's mistakes, developments, and its not always being of much use.
    78255585899=317*13723*17989=(310+7)*[(13730-7)*(100*100+7979+10)]-->LOVE avatar@137_371_179_791, or 137_371_17[3^2]_7[3^2]1, 1=V-->Ace, low. 78255585899-->99858555287=(99858555288-1)=[-1+(72*2227)*(722777-100000)]={-1+(72*2227)*[(2000+700777+20000)-100000]}-->1_722_227_277_772_1. 7×8×2×5×5×5×8×5×8×9×9=362880000=(1000000000-6√97020000-100000)-->169_721. (7/8×2/5×5/5×8/5×8/9×9)={[(-.1+.9)]^2×(6+1)}-->1961=√4*2.24; (1/7×8/2×5/5×5/8×5/8×9/9)={1/[7×(-.2+1)^2]}-->1721=[(10*10/4)/(√4+110)].

  20. #2040
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Between tableplay and RS's explanations, there are no gotcha moments available. Some people will have to go back to attacking personal attributes of people using math and skill, as the math itself isn't budging.

    Surprise, surprise, to quote Gomer Pyle.
    I was thinking the same thing. Here's the methodology for a Gotcha Moment Attempt (GMA):

    Tableplay, do green-spotted flying Unicorns prefer to drink Aqua Regia or Ambrosia (asked by you know who) ?
    Now the question itself is based on a false premise so any answer to it can then be ridiculed once it is given to the asker. The answerer can only point out that the premise is bogus and move on.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 57 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 57 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Genealogy Thread
    By mickeycrimm in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 04-27-2018, 06:29 AM
  2. Closed Thread
    By coach belly in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-30-2017, 08:29 PM
  3. Sportsbetting ONLY thread
    By LoneStarHorse in forum Sports & Sportsbetting
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-05-2016, 04:48 PM
  4. A thread for losses.
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 02:01 AM
  5. The Kicker Thread
    By Rob.Singer in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 02:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •