I use "expected return" to mean the average results a person can expect over time in the future. It actually has nothing to do with "optimal play return" which is often called "expected return" in various discussions. However, I think it is important that we make the distinction when getting into details.
None of us play perfectly. Hence, none of us can "expect" to achieve the "optimal play return". Our true "expected return" < "optimal play return". That doesn't mean we won't have an "actual return" > "optimal play return", it simply means the chances of doing so are less than 50%. And, the more errors we have, the lower our chances of beating the "optimal play return". And thus, our "expected return" becomes even worse. Over time we will approach our "expected return" which means the chances of beating the "optimal play return" becomes lower and lower. This is basic statistics.
You may have figured out that "expected return" is different for every player. The use of this term to mean "optimal play return" has probably confused this issue. That is why I have tried to separate them.
Now, what Alan has been saying is that he can be profitable on a negative return game employing win/loss goals. Using our more precise terminology he is saying that his "expected return" > "optimal play return". However, this is precisely what the Richard Reid proof found to be impossible. And, he proved it. That means it is not a matter of discussion. It is a fact. Now, on any given day our actual return, using any strategy, can be > than the "optimal play return". However, over time that "actual return" will approach our personal "expected return" which is always < "optimal play return".
Reply With Quote
