There is no such thing as beginners luck.
Math doesn’t care if you are doing it for the first time, or the 10,000th time.
Ignore Bait: Highest IQ, Many Questions, Odds makers invited...
- Thread starter straightline
- Start date
There is no such thing as beginners luck.
Math doesn’t care if you are doing it for the first time, or the 10,000th time.
If the player wins on the first try, do you think they will try for two wins in row?
Completely irrelevant to the concept of “beginners luck”…
If I flip a coin 10 times and it comes up heads all 10 times, what are the odds of it coming up heads the 11th time.
Math doesn’t care what happened previously.
That's math, apply the same principal to marriage and divorce rates.
If the first marriage is successful, there will be no other marriages attempted.
If the first marriage is a failure, the second marriage could be the last marriage.
People and players do care what happened before.
None of which has anything to do with the fallacy of “beginners luck“.
DeeDeeCues
Well-known member
Congratulations! I don't know wtf you were attempting to explain, but you just wrote the most elegant explanation of a free-market economy in the history of the universe.
Makes me wonder if we've all been missing something on all of your other posts. Maybe they weren't about pool...
Thanks. I might promote a new billiard product in a few months.
If you saw my video with the stroke trainer for soft stroke practicing, then look out for my power stroke trainer in a few months.
There’s no need to look at empirical data for straight forward things.
That’s why confidence intervals exist.
You can literally predict worst case scenarios to about 95% confidence.
Then you make decisions based on that. If you can afford to fade the worst case scenario, then the decision to put on the game or business is made for you as you can’t lose overall.
If you can only fade the worst case for a certain amount of time, then you have to really crunch numbers and then decide if the risk/reward is worth it.
Let’s take the scenario this thread is about for example.
And let’s say we were going to play nine games. And those games are a metaphor for a business or casino game.
We know that we *should* win 6 of those nine games.
But, when we apply 95% confidence interval, we could win as few as 3 games and in very, very rare scenarios, win zero games.
So, the question is, do we have enough bankroll to comfortably lose 6 games? If the answer is yes, there is no more thinking required. You move ahead with the business or game.
If we can only afford to lose 4 or 5 games, then we need to really crunch numbers.
And if you can only afford to lose 3 games, well, that’s probably not a good idea as the exact odds of 66% have to hold up in a short sample size.
Not LMAD. If proposer's odds drop, why does he make the offer?
Again, you’re now making up different scenarios.
The only reason the proposer would show a goat and offer to swap when they want to win would be either:
-odds on money. See my post above about spending 15 to make 5 on a win
-some other reason such as marketing and such.
You’re basically just making up shit scenarios to justify you not understanding this stuff to begin with.
You can’t start with winning a car and then now saying “well the proposer wants to win.”
Thats a completely different scenario and will have different odds along with different game theory/strategy.
If you want to discuss different scenarios, then outline them properly.
As no one wanting to win would offer the scenario of your first post unless they hate money.
As no one wanting to win would offer the scenario of your first post unless they hate money.
Fatboy = just wants a goat
Me and my wife used to go for walks in our neighborhood and we passed by this house with the garage door open and they had a poker table setup in their garage. I made the passing comment to her that I would love to be able to get in on a home game like that. A few days later, my wife went on a walk by herself and on her own stopped by the house and started talking to the owner, mentioning that I was a poker player.
When she told me I laughed, but a couple of days later the owner of the house pulled up while I was washing my car and told me that they had a weekly poker session and asked if I'd like to come that night. I said sure and went that night.
The game was .25/.50 hold em'. I didn't do anything crazy, just played right. I went home with $87. I wasn't invited back. I guess it goes with the old adage, "You can shear a sheep a 1000 times, but only slaughter it once".....lol.
Now something more directly related is that in a nearby town to my hometown of Redlands Ca, in Highland Ca, there's an indian casino called San Manuel. They used to have their blackjack room setup with a rake, and players could come in and be the bank.
If you had 20 or 30K, you could come in and make some decent money.
Jaden
This should be on page one.
In fancy terms that called “independent trials process”
It’s like the martingale system gambling. Always loses.
Past results have no impact on future results. Flip a coin 100x and get heads 100x in a row which is very hard to do. But the next flip is still 50/50. You get no edge it’s tails because it was just heads 100x times in a row.
Now with removal of cards in 21, you get a dependent trials process. If all the Aces are gone you can’t get a blackjack next hand ever. The past does effect the future because of the card removal.
So with the Monte Hall problem, it’s the removal of one door that changes things.
Maybe that helps clear this up for some people..
Fatboy <———on his way to Fla, and coming to see you
no BS, was talking to Mrs Fatboy about the plans for the next few years yesterday. I need a steer man in Fla please
I have a friend he’s 84, he owned ha huge piece of San Manuel in the mid-late 80’s. He sold his piece for $600,000. He is healthy and seems 50 not 84(strongest 84 year old guy I’ve ever met) anyways he is sick to his stomach about cashing out his piece of his interest in that enterprise. He was in gaming in Vegas back when they set up shop, he had a significant % ownership. Thought the $600K was big chips-at the time it was. But now-wow would it be HUGE. He can’t stand it. Biggest $ mistake he’s ever made he says-I understand.
Anyways, happy Sunday,
Back to the thread. Just a story I thought might be interesting. Oh he’s a great poker player as well.
Fatboy<——-doesn’t play poker
I haven’t read all of the replies so this analysis may have been posted.
The easiest way for me to explain that the correct strategy is to switch is…
You pick one door. With out revealing either of the other two doors, you are given the chance to trade your one door for the other two doors. You would do that every single time even though you know that at least one of them is a loser. That’s the one Monty would have opened….
The easiest way for me to explain that the correct strategy is to switch is…
You pick one door. With out revealing either of the other two doors, you are given the chance to trade your one door for the other two doors. You would do that every single time even though you know that at least one of them is a loser. That’s the one Monty would have opened….
Offering the switch makes it far more intriguing for the contestant and for the home audience, and likely Monty is making the assumption that the contestant doesn’t know that switching doors will double their chances of winning. Who knows, maybe Monty wasn’t even aware of how this changes the odds.
The only thing I care about is you changing your avatar back
And if they lose on the first try they will play again to try to win back their money. This is the psychological principle that is at the heart of the casino business model.