New book; HBR, The Success Equation: Untangling Skill and Luck in Business, Sports, a

[raybo]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Lastly...I agree that winning players become losers because of changing conditions -- rather than an erosion of their skills -- but these changing conditiond do not necessarilly have to occur in the game; they could -- as Robert Goren has already pointed out -- just as easily occur in the life of the gambler himself.

I have seen it repeatedly where a player's life changes in some unfortunate way...and he is no longer able to operate with the coolheadedness that he employed prior -- which is what our games demand.

His skills may remain intact...but his edge on the competition is gone.

My best wishes to you and yours for a happy and prosperous New Year.

Well, heck, I thought that's what I was saying in my earlier post. I guess I was wrong, or nobody read it.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by lansdale

For blackjack players, a 99+% confidence interval, three standard deviations, is considered an acceptable measure of the long run. I believe that this is the CI used to determine N0, the number of rounds required to double for a given BJ bank, which varies according to rules and conditions - worse games will have higher N0. This could range for 12k rounds for a very good game, to 75k or 100k for the opposite.

From anecdotal evidence of horseplayers with successful betting models (and I would appreciate any input on this), 2,500-3,000 races seems to be the established measure of long run performance, although it's clear that ROI is clearly correlated with the number of required races.



lansdale

Are you seriously trying to compare black jack gambling to horse race gambling? IMO, they cannot be compared directly, only very generally, because there are so many more variables involved in horse racing.

"Long term" is dependent on the frequency a player plays, the type of bet he is making, the tracks he plays, etc.. Once a player becomes consistently profitable, meet after meet, or year after year, the type of wagers he is making, and his capacity to continue to evolve with the game and remain consistent in all aspects of his play, usually will determine how long he must remain profitable, in order for future success to to be logically expected.

Changes in the conditions of racing is a given, and the successful player overcomes those changes. When he ceases to be able to overcome those changes, and/or the other changes in his life, he is no longer successful, and his skill as a player has diminished. In other words, he has ceased to continue evolving with the game and in his play, and/or, can no longer perform at previous levels, in all aspects of his play.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by raybo

Are you seriously trying to compare black jack gambling to horse race gambling?

I do not think that Thaskalos meant that he will handicap a race using some mutation of a card counting method nor that he will play black jack following a handicapping method resembling a port of speed figures to it.

By definition there are 'many variables' involved in any form of gambling (otherwise it would have been called something else).

Aside from the technicalities though all forms of gambling share the same fundamental characteristics, those of risk and reward. Based on this principle we create an abstraction level encapsulating any possible stochastic event in such a way that the game specific procedures just become an implementation detail to a higher level macroscopic view.

Conclusions drawn from this abstraction level are by default applicable to any underlined game, serving as generic and global rules.

[raybo]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

I do not think that Thaskalos meant that he will handicap a race using some mutation of a card counting method nor that he will play black jack following a handicapping method resembling a port of speed figures to it.

By definition there are 'many variables' involved in any form of gambling (otherwise it would have been called something else).

Aside from the technicalities though all forms of gambling share the same fundamental characteristics, those of risk and reward. Based on this principle we create an abstraction level encapsulating any possible stochastic event in such a way that the game specific procedures just become an implementation detail to a higher level macroscopic view.

Conclusions drawn from this abstraction level are by default applicable to any underlined game, serving as generic and global rules.

I quoted lansdale, not Thaskalos. Your post means very little to my "uneducated" mind, and obvious lack of vocabulary. In other words I have almost no idea what the heck you said, and the little bit I did understand, I think, has nothing to do with my posting.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by raybo

I quoted lansdale, not Thaskalos. Your post means very little to my "uneducated" mind, and obvious lack of vocabulary. In other words I have almost no idea what the heck you said, and the little bit I did understand, I think, has nothing to do with my posting.

I am trying to say that all forms of gambling have enough communalties allowing them to be treated homeomorphically to a certain extend.

This means that we can define rules and behaviors that are applicable to BJ, horses and baccarat regardless of their obvious differences...

Originally Posted by raybo

I quoted lansdale, not Thaskalos.

sorry, I got confused...

[raybo]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

I am trying to say that all forms of gambling have enough communalties allowing them to be treated homeomorphically to a certain extend.

This means that we can define rules and behaviors that are applicable to BJ, horses and baccarat regardless of their obvious differences...



sorry, I got confused...

Why not tell us what "homeomorphically" means, or are we supposed to look it up in Websters? I've never even seen that word before, much less it's meaning.

Almost anything can be said to have certain things in common, that has very little to do with putting money down on a horse or horses, hopefully with some degree of confidence. In black jack you're not playing against every player in a pool, only against the dealer's hand, without busting out, and the inherent house odds. If you know how to count and don't push it too hard with bet increases over the moon and get banned, you can beat BJ enough to be profitable. Horse racing has hundreds more variables than BJ, the 2 "games" are not on the same level at all, IMHO.

[DeltaLover]

homeomorphically: close similarity (mostly used in Chemistry)

homeo: means same, similar (like in the word homeopathy)

morphical: means shape, face (since you do some programming you probably nowthe word polymorphism which is using the same root)

[raybo]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

homeomorphically: close similarity (mostly used in Chemistry)

homeo: means same, similar (like in the word homeopathy)

morphical: means shape, face (since you do some programming you probably nowthe word polymorphism which is using the same root)

Thanks for the word knowledge, but I do very little programming, and usually have to have some help via Excel tutorial sites. But, even though I can't compete with you scholars in vocabulary, I do know a thing or two about horse racing, and black jack.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by raybo

Thanks for the word knowledge, but I do very little programming, and usually have to have some help via Excel tutorial sites. But, even though I can't compete with you scholars in vocabulary, I do know a thing or two about horse racing, and black jack.

Certainly I am not even close to a scholar in vocabulary (or anything else) and more than this, there is absolutely no competition going on here, we leave it for the selections threads

As far as knowing about horse racing, again I still do not feel I know enough and I am always learning new things here at PA....

[dkithore]

Originally Posted by raybo

Why not tell us what "homeomorphically" means, or are we supposed to look it up in Websters? I've never even seen that word before, much less it's meaning.

I certainly enjoy your wit and implied humor that goes with it. Not to mention your desire to help others.

[Pace Cap'n]

Words that mean what you want them to mean...

homeomorphically

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homeomorphically





"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."




Never use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by Pace Cap'n

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.

try this :

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/homeomorphism

[traynor]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

try this :

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/homeomorphism

Try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_community

He who controls the discourse controls the community. He who defines the discourse as "acceptable" or "unacceptable" in a particular discourse community--if those definitions are mindlessly accepted by others in the community--becomes the gatekeeper. All incredibly tacky, boring, and unfit behavior for anyone who made it past Comm 101 or an introductory course in rhetoric.

[lansdale]

Hi Pace Cap'n,

Probably more accurate to say that the word is not in any dictionary of less than 500k words. Or, as here, in a math dictionary.

Worth remembering that there is much more to handicapping than can be found on Pace & Cap.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Homeomorphic.html

Cheers,

lansdale

Originally Posted by Pace Cap'n

Words that mean what you want them to mean...

homeomorphically

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homeomorphically





"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."




Never use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice.

[traynor]

Everyone should be able to post their postings in whatever syntax they are comfortable with, without regard for playing to the audience. Sometimes simplifying concepts destroys their ability to illuminate those who want most to understand them. Specifically, "dumbing down" often obscures more than it clarifies.

Conversely, it should be understood (and usefully accepted) by readers that not all concepts can be adequately converted into junior high school vocabulary and syntax. One should consider the value of the posting, and the concept(s), not whether or not the terminology can be absorbed mindlessly. If winning required no more than junior high school intelligence or cognitive abilities, there would be no profit left for anyone. It would have all been taken already by the bubblegummers and mallcrawlers.