121–130 of 131 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EV = "Earned Value"? Could you outline the process or point to a place to read up on it WRT poker?
@General is right. Here's a great link about what this process generally involves and why you would do it: http://www.pokerology.com/lessons/calculating-expected-value...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think thousands of hours playing roulette places you in the 'rational and detached follower of the scientific method' camp, somehow
Thanks for your opinion. Observation is observation and it makes one a bit of an expert. Was it "confirmation bias" and "delusion" when I saw a practicing dealer place the ball on the green zero 4 times in a row? Was it "imagination" when I took advantage of that and won a bunch of money? I have a lot of stories like this. You weren't there. You don't know. You don't have to believe me. If you want to take the time..…
Absolutely. That is a classic case of observational or confirmation bias, with a sample size of one, it shows absolutely nothing. At odds of 36-1 there will be, randomly, one time in 36 when you make an incorrect hypothesis about the way a roulette ball is going to land, and yet by chance it happens the way you 'predicted'. To confirm your hypothesis with any degree of certainty, one would need to have multiple situations of this kind happen repeatedly. You aren't doing that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think thousands of hours playing roulette places you in the 'rational and detached follower of the scientific method' camp, somehow
Thanks for your opinion. Observation is observation and it makes one a bit of an expert. Was it "confirmation bias" and "delusion" when I saw a practicing dealer place the ball on the green zero 4 times in a row? Was it "imagination" when I took advantage of that and won a bunch of money? I have a lot of stories like this. You weren't there. You don't know. You don't have to believe me. If you want to take the time..…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for your opinion. Observation is observation and it makes one a bit of an expert. Was it "confirmation bias" and "delusion" when I saw a practicing dealer place the ball on the green zero 4 times in a row? Was it "imagination" when I took advantage of that and won a bunch of money? I have a lot of stories like this. You weren't there. You don't know. You don't have to believe me. If you want to take the time..…
> Was it "confirmation bias" and "delusion" when I saw a practicing dealer place the ball on the green zero 4 times in a row? Was it "imagination" when I took advantage of that and won a bunch of money? Absolutely. That is a classic case of observational or confirmation bias, with a sample size of one, it shows absolutely nothing. At odds of 36-1 there will be, randomly, one time in 36 when you make an incorrect hypo…
So... a one in 36 chance. Actually, I'll give you one in 18 as there are two sets of green zeros... 0 and 00.
So what is the chance of this happening 4 times in a row?
1/18 cubed = .000000952 chance of occurring. Probably not confirmation bias. Probably not something one is likely to EVER encounter. (Never mind that I encountered similar many times). If you read the post, I watched her practice doing this. No one was playing at the moment. Then she did it again and I burned her for a lot of money. Read my posts if you care. Or, believe whatever you wish. Roulette is not always random. And if you spent the time I have you would know this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for your opinion. Observation is observation and it makes one a bit of an expert. Was it "confirmation bias" and "delusion" when I saw a practicing dealer place the ball on the green zero 4 times in a row? Was it "imagination" when I took advantage of that and won a bunch of money? I have a lot of stories like this. You weren't there. You don't know. You don't have to believe me. If you want to take the time..…
> Was it "confirmation bias" and "delusion" when I saw a practicing dealer place the ball on the green zero 4 times in a row? Was it "imagination" when I took advantage of that and won a bunch of money? Absolutely. That is a classic case of observational or confirmation bias, with a sample size of one, it shows absolutely nothing. At odds of 36-1 there will be, randomly, one time in 36 when you make an incorrect hypo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for your opinion. Observation is observation and it makes one a bit of an expert. Was it "confirmation bias" and "delusion" when I saw a practicing dealer place the ball on the green zero 4 times in a row? Was it "imagination" when I took advantage of that and won a bunch of money? I have a lot of stories like this. You weren't there. You don't know. You don't have to believe me. If you want to take the time..…
[deleted]
On any one set of four throws. Even if you used the smaller probability of the exact result (rather than grouping the two sets of green zeroes), its exactly the same as the chance of any other result of the four throws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for your opinion. Observation is observation and it makes one a bit of an expert. Was it "confirmation bias" and "delusion" when I saw a practicing dealer place the ball on the green zero 4 times in a row? Was it "imagination" when I took advantage of that and won a bunch of money? I have a lot of stories like this. You weren't there. You don't know. You don't have to believe me. If you want to take the time..…
> Was it "confirmation bias" and "delusion" when I saw a practicing dealer place the ball on the green zero 4 times in a row? Was it "imagination" when I took advantage of that and won a bunch of money? Absolutely. That is a classic case of observational or confirmation bias, with a sample size of one, it shows absolutely nothing. At odds of 36-1 there will be, randomly, one time in 36 when you make an incorrect hypo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, I'll bite. Why is having a naked futures contract in the S&P500 (which costs around $100,000 for the e-mini) any more risky than owning $100,000 of stocks? [0] http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/us-index/e-mini...
Well when you own $100,000 of stock, that's the most you can lose. But vary rarely will ever go down to $0. With futures contracts and derivatives you can potentially lose infinity dollars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
> 1/184 = .000000952 chance of that occurring. Probably not confirmation bias. On any one set of four throws. Even if you used the smaller probability of the exact result (rather than grouping the two sets of green zeroes), its exactly the same as the chance of any other result of the four throws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without double checking your math, I'm pretty sure the significant error in your conclusion here is modeling the games he's playing as coin flipping with even payouts. The specific game he's playing is actually dropping a percentage each time and is more accurately modeled as "heads I win .98, tails I lose 1". (Technically he's betting $15 for a chance to win $14.69). With that in mind, many fewer than 1 in 28 player…
Typically in poker, you win quickly and lose slowly. This is especially true of tournaments - finishing in the money suddenly does wonders for your balance. So, I would guess that more than 1 in 28 players would show these results, having experienced a random "win quickly" phase that has yet to dissipate. (This might not apply if parent is talking only about 2 player tournaments, but applies to poker generally)