|
|
| Author |
Message |
Brash
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 20 Oct 2002
Posts: 3958
|
 Posted: 08/24/05 - 14:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | This is faulty logic; running out of money is not an event, it's an outcome. |
ok call it whatever you want . it is an inevitable "outcome"
on a infinite time line , sooner or later a string or loses large enough to bankrupt you will happen , there is no arguing this ..... event, outcome , whatever you will be bankrupt. it may be one zillion to one that you will lose but on a infinite time line you will cross that one zillion eventually....
however unlikely it is that you lose ,on a infinite time line every possible thing will happen . one of the possible options is you go bankrupt. It doesnt take any fancy programs or math problems to prove this. i just don't see how anyone can argue this point or why this post even got to page two ...
where is my five bucks
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
IceIsFun
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 781
Location: Orlando, FL
|
|
Posted: 08/24/05 - 15:39 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Devook wrote: | | Brash wrote: | finite event = when you run out of money.
on a long enough time line (infinite) you will flip heads 8 trillion times or 800,000,000,000,000,000,000 times, whatever it takes to get you to the finite event of running out of money so you can't play anymore .
*edit*
| Quote: | | It is true that in an infinite amount of time, every random event will occur |
one of the random events will be you running out of money. when you run out of money you are done and have sustained loses ...
f**k i want the $5 now |
This is faulty logic; running out of money is not an event, it's an outcome.
Over an infinite amount of time, there is only one outcome: whichever has the highest probability. I don't remember any formulas since I haven't done this kind of work in about 4 years, but it would seem to me the odds of coming out ahead after 100 hands are 23:17, or 57.5% probability. The odds of bankrupting overall are dependent on the amount of money you hold. Over an infinite timeline, assuming that you didn't hit the infinitesimally small chance that you bankrupt your trillion dollar roll through a series of losses ranging from rougly 1-20 dollars, the probability of never going bankrupt rises to 100% and the probability of losing it all goes to 0. |
The thing you're missing here is that eventually, given a sufficiently long duration, you will hit zero dollars. At that point, the game stops, no more coin-tosses or poker-hands. Now, you're right that given an infinitely long period of time the more likely outcome will prevail, but that's only if you don't have a condition that prevents further outcomes.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 08/24/05 - 15:54 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
This post is missing due to a database problem. Database recovery is on the way. Please do not edit this entry!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 08/24/05 - 16:40 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Devook wrote: | | Brash wrote: | finite event = when you run out of money.
on a long enough time line (infinite) you will flip heads 8 trillion times or 800,000,000,000,000,000,000 times, whatever it takes to get you to the finite event of running out of money so you can't play anymore .
*edit*
| Quote: | | It is true that in an infinite amount of time, every random event will occur |
one of the random events will be you running out of money. when you run out of money you are done and have sustained loses ...
f**k i want the $5 now |
This is faulty logic; running out of money is not an event, it's an outcome.
Over an infinite amount of time, there is only one outcome: whichever has the highest probability. I don't remember any formulas since I haven't done this kind of work in about 4 years, but it would seem to me the odds of coming out ahead after 100 hands are 23:17, or 57.5% probability. The odds of bankrupting overall are dependent on the amount of money you hold. Over an infinite timeline, assuming that you didn't hit the infinitesimally small chance that you bankrupt your trillion dollar roll through a series of losses ranging from rougly 1-20 dollars, the probability of never going bankrupt rises to 100% and the probability of losing it all goes to 0. |
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 08/24/05 - 17:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
The cool thing about math is that ultimately, everyone doesn't get to have his own opinion. You're either right or you're not 
In this case, the probability of going bankrupt while playing for an infinite amount of time is non-zero, but far from 100%. In fact, in the trillion dollar bankroll case with EV 3 and SD 20, the probability of going bankrupt while playing for an infinite amount of time is on the order of one divided by the number of atoms in the universe. Well, actually it's on the order of one divided by two to the 10 billionth power; I'm not sure how many atoms there are in the universe. But (1/2)^10,000,000,000 is a pretty small number.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Mugaaz
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3576
|
|
Posted: 08/24/05 - 17:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Sinrakin got close enough to the real answer, so he can give me his paypal or neteller address for the $5. The answer is that even over an infinite amount of time there is only a finite chance of you going bankrupt in this scenario, and it really doesn't change that much betweeen 10,000 hand and infinity of them.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
IceIsFun
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 781
Location: Orlando, FL
|
|
Posted: 08/24/05 - 17:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Mugaaz wrote: | | Sinrakin got close enough to the real answer, so he can give me his paypal or neteller address for the $5. The answer is that even over an infinite amount of time there is only a finite chance of you going bankrupt in this scenario, and it really doesn't change that much betweeen 10,000 hand and infinity of them. |
Of course the chance of going bust is finite. Probabilities can only be in the range of 0-100%.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Thrallt
Luke Warm
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 185
|
|
Posted: 08/24/05 - 17:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Sounds to me like you might want to calculate some 99% or 95% confidence intervals but I can't be more specific than that without plugging numbers.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 08/24/05 - 18:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Mugaaz wrote: | | Sinrakin got close enough to the real answer, so he can give me his paypal or neteller address for the $5. The answer is that even over an infinite amount of time there is only a finite chance of you going bankrupt in this scenario, and it really doesn't change that much betweeen 10,000 hand and infinity of them. |
Heh, that's ok. It was worth $5 for the fun of thinking about it; I got to relearn some of my old infinite series stuff that I'd forgotten
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Mugaaz
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3576
|
|
Posted: 08/24/05 - 19:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
| IceIsFun wrote: | | Mugaaz wrote: | | Sinrakin got close enough to the real answer, so he can give me his paypal or neteller address for the $5. The answer is that even over an infinite amount of time there is only a finite chance of you going bankrupt in this scenario, and it really doesn't change that much betweeen 10,000 hand and infinity of them. |
Of course the chance of going bust is finite. Probabilities can only be in the range of 0-100%. |
I meant the chance was less than 100%
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 08/24/05 - 19:45 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | | The cool thing about math is that ultimately, everyone doesn't get to have his own opinion. You're either right or you're not |
Ummm, by its very definition, "probability" is far from an exact science.
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Devook
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Posts: 2373
Location: Ypsilanti or Troy, MI
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 01:34 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nahualli wrote: | | sinrakin wrote: | | The cool thing about math is that ultimately, everyone doesn't get to have his own opinion. You're either right or you're not |
Ummm, by its very definition, "probability" is far from an exact science.
-Nah- |
and you can be either right about probability or wrong about probability... It may not be exact, but it's very far from opinion-based.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 01:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Devook wrote: | | Nahualli wrote: | | sinrakin wrote: | | The cool thing about math is that ultimately, everyone doesn't get to have his own opinion. You're either right or you're not |
Ummm, by its very definition, "probability" is far from an exact science.
-Nah- |
and you can be either right about probability or wrong about probability... It may not be exact, but it's very far from opinion-based. |
That's what I'm saying... with probability you're never right or wrong about something. You're simply more likely to be right or wrong about somthing.
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Faerdal
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 954
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 02:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: |
Behaviour with different starting bankrolls:
| Code: |
initial_bankroll 100, even odds, win 31, lose 25
bankrupties 0.306636, 0.000000 from mean, 2*bankroll (w/l 251247 250800)
bankrupties 0.406521, 0.049942 from mean, 4*bankroll (w/l 581970 582054)
bankrupties 0.431723, 0.050097 from mean, 8*bankroll (w/l 1382295 1381762)
bankrupties 0.429960, 0.036250 from mean, 16*bankroll (w/l 3152046 3149304)
bankrupties 0.434934, 0.032979 from mean, 32*bankroll (w/l 6548053 6544967)
bankrupties 0.423280, 0.017772 from mean, 64*bankroll (w/l 14114020 14103890)
initial_bankroll 200, even odds, win 31, lose 25
bankrupties 0.167847, 0.000000 from mean, 2*bankroll (w/l 1432769 1436579)
bankrupties 0.195088, 0.013620 from mean, 4*bankroll (w/l 3868262 3867386)
bankrupties 0.197824, 0.010904 from mean, 8*bankroll (w/l 9203847 9203439)
bankrupties 0.197789, 0.008152 from mean, 16*bankroll (w/l 20015606 20013699)
bankrupties 0.198228, 0.006873 from mean, 32*bankroll (w/l 41512069 41505425)
bankrupties 0.197044, 0.004741 from mean, 64*bankroll (w/l 85288833 85281437)
initial_bankroll 300, even odds, win 31, lose 25
bankrupties 0.083014, 0.000000 from mean, 2*bankroll (w/l 5268458 5270004)
bankrupties 0.092298, 0.004642 from mean, 4*bankroll (w/l 14458609 14457088)
bankrupties 0.090396, 0.001827 from mean, 8*bankroll (w/l 34919116 34914789)
bankrupties 0.091216, 0.001985 from mean, 16*bankroll (w/l 74309169 74278113)
bankrupties 0.091971, 0.002192 from mean, 32*bankroll (w/l 152855891 152882923)
bankrupties 0.090390, 0.000509 from mean, 64*bankroll (w/l 316701731 316700003)
initial_bankroll 400, even odds, win 31, lose 25
bankrupties 0.039625, 0.000000 from mean, 2*bankroll (w/l 16033036 16030974)
bankrupties 0.041201, 0.000788 from mean, 4*bankroll (w/l 46388078 46384792)
bankrupties 0.040788, 0.000250 from mean, 8*bankroll (w/l 109626799 109630179)
bankrupties 0.041795, 0.000943 from mean, 16*bankroll (w/l 229141359 229147488)
|
|
Here's the mathematical proof, or as close as you will realistically come to it. As long as you have a known positive EV (which is entirely circumstantial and thus irrational in the first place, but anyway...), and an SD that is relatively small compared to your bankroll (as it will be in limit poker), you will very quickly reach a point where your bankroll can smooth out any fluctuations in bet outcomes. Look at the % of bankrupcies given your standard EV/SD data points versus a small bankroll. Even going from $200 to 300 to 400 makes a tremendous difference. The odds of going bankrupt are already down to about 4% with a $400 bankroll. Increase that to an effectively infinite number (you chose 1 trillion arbitrarily), and the chances of busting out are so infinitesimal that any rational mind would consider it impossible. The amount of time it would take to play out the real time poker-simulation in order to reach bankrupcy and "prove" this wrong would exceed the scientifically estimated lifetime of the universe.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
IceIsFun
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 781
Location: Orlando, FL
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 10:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Faerdal wrote: | | sinrakin wrote: |
Behaviour with different starting bankrolls:
| Code: |
initial_bankroll 100, even odds, win 31, lose 25
bankrupties 0.306636, 0.000000 from mean, 2*bankroll (w/l 251247 250800)
bankrupties 0.406521, 0.049942 from mean, 4*bankroll (w/l 581970 582054)
bankrupties 0.431723, 0.050097 from mean, 8*bankroll (w/l 1382295 1381762)
bankrupties 0.429960, 0.036250 from mean, 16*bankroll (w/l 3152046 3149304)
bankrupties 0.434934, 0.032979 from mean, 32*bankroll (w/l 6548053 6544967)
bankrupties 0.423280, 0.017772 from mean, 64*bankroll (w/l 14114020 14103890)
initial_bankroll 200, even odds, win 31, lose 25
bankrupties 0.167847, 0.000000 from mean, 2*bankroll (w/l 1432769 1436579)
bankrupties 0.195088, 0.013620 from mean, 4*bankroll (w/l 3868262 3867386)
bankrupties 0.197824, 0.010904 from mean, 8*bankroll (w/l 9203847 9203439)
bankrupties 0.197789, 0.008152 from mean, 16*bankroll (w/l 20015606 20013699)
bankrupties 0.198228, 0.006873 from mean, 32*bankroll (w/l 41512069 41505425)
bankrupties 0.197044, 0.004741 from mean, 64*bankroll (w/l 85288833 85281437)
initial_bankroll 300, even odds, win 31, lose 25
bankrupties 0.083014, 0.000000 from mean, 2*bankroll (w/l 5268458 5270004)
bankrupties 0.092298, 0.004642 from mean, 4*bankroll (w/l 14458609 14457088)
bankrupties 0.090396, 0.001827 from mean, 8*bankroll (w/l 34919116 34914789)
bankrupties 0.091216, 0.001985 from mean, 16*bankroll (w/l 74309169 74278113)
bankrupties 0.091971, 0.002192 from mean, 32*bankroll (w/l 152855891 152882923)
bankrupties 0.090390, 0.000509 from mean, 64*bankroll (w/l 316701731 316700003)
initial_bankroll 400, even odds, win 31, lose 25
bankrupties 0.039625, 0.000000 from mean, 2*bankroll (w/l 16033036 16030974)
bankrupties 0.041201, 0.000788 from mean, 4*bankroll (w/l 46388078 46384792)
bankrupties 0.040788, 0.000250 from mean, 8*bankroll (w/l 109626799 109630179)
bankrupties 0.041795, 0.000943 from mean, 16*bankroll (w/l 229141359 229147488)
|
|
Here's the mathematical proof, or as close as you will realistically come to it. As long as you have a known positive EV (which is entirely circumstantial and thus irrational in the first place, but anyway...), and an SD that is relatively small compared to your bankroll (as it will be in limit poker), you will very quickly reach a point where your bankroll can smooth out any fluctuations in bet outcomes. Look at the % of bankrupcies given your standard EV/SD data points versus a small bankroll. Even going from $200 to 300 to 400 makes a tremendous difference. The odds of going bankrupt are already down to about 4% with a $400 bankroll. Increase that to an effectively infinite number (you chose 1 trillion arbitrarily), and the chances of busting out are so infinitesimal that any rational mind would consider it impossible. The amount of time it would take to play out the real time poker-simulation in order to reach bankrupcy and "prove" this wrong would exceed the scientifically estimated lifetime of the universe. |
Right, but the question wasn't for the probability. It was for a yes/no response to: "will you eventually bust out?". To which the answer is: yes.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 10:59 Post subject:
|
|
|
| IceIsFun wrote: | | [Right, but the question wasn't for the probability. It was for a yes/no response to: "will you eventually bust out?". To which the answer is: yes. |
That's not right. The whole point of the original question is to prove that the answer to "will you eventually bust out?" is "probably not". Even if you played infinitely long, there's a very good chance that you will never bust out, no matter how long you play.
If you compare something that's infinite to something that's finite (e.g. playing infinitely long (infinite) vs tossing a coin as heads a million times in a row (big, but finite)), the infinity always dominates (so eventually, you'll toss a million heads in a row).
But this question compares two things that are infinite: playing infinitely long, vs a bankroll which is increasing infinitely. When you compare two infinities, it's dominated by which quantity is approaching infinity faster. In this case, the bankroll is increasing as a linear function of time, while the amount of money you'll probably lose is increasing roughly as the square root of time. The linear term dominates, and while there's a non-zero chance of going bankrupt, the chance, even over infinite time, is less than 100%.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Brash
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 20 Oct 2002
Posts: 3958
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 11:28 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | | IceIsFun wrote: | [Right, but the question wasn't for the probability. It was for a yes/no response to: "will you eventually bust out?". To which the answer is: yes.
|
That's not right. The whole point of the original question is to prove that the answer to "will you eventually bust out?" is "probably not". Even if you played infinitely long, there's a very good chance that you will never bust out, no matter how long you play.
|
there is absolutely zero chance that you wont go bankrupt !@!!!!!@@!@!@!!! on a infinite time line there is simply no way getting around the fact that it will happen eventually .... it is a possibility and on a infinite time line every possible thing will happen ... you can't argue that and if you try your weak mind hasn't truly grasped the idea of what the word "infinite" really means.
the only valid argument against this that has been said is the universe might end before this happens but then we are talking about a finite amount of time and no longer talking about infinite ... the moment you add any type of limits to the equation the possibility of you going bankrupt become extremely remote. fact is we are dealing with a theoretical question that states the time line is infinite not till the end of the universe so we must treat it as truly infinite . on a truly infinite time line you will as some point ho bankrupt no matter what the odds are against it ....
if you want to argue this is wrong you need to take a moment and try to understand what infinite really means ... infinite isn't a really long time its theoretically beyond the end of time .... its forever . sometime between now and forever , every possible thing in an equation will happen ... there is no getting around this ....
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Soriak
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 952
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 12:07 Post subject:
|
|
|
nm :p
Last edited by Soriak on 08/25/05 - 12:37; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Mugaaz
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3576
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 12:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Brash wrote: | | sinrakin wrote: | | IceIsFun wrote: | [Right, but the question wasn't for the probability. It was for a yes/no response to: "will you eventually bust out?". To which the answer is: yes.
|
That's not right. The whole point of the original question is to prove that the answer to "will you eventually bust out?" is "probably not". Even if you played infinitely long, there's a very good chance that you will never bust out, no matter how long you play.
|
there is absolutely zero chance that you wont go bankrupt !@!!!!!@@!@!@!!! on a infinite time line there is simply no way getting around the fact that it will happen eventually .... it is a possibility and on a infinite time line every possible thing will happen ... you can't argue that and if you try your weak mind hasn't truly grasped the idea of what the word "infinite" really means.
the only valid argument against this that has been said is the universe might end before this happens but then we are talking about a finite amount of time and no longer talking about infinite ... the moment you add any type of limits to the equation the possibility of you going bankrupt become extremely remote. fact is we are dealing with a theoretical question that states the time line is infinite not till the end of the universe so we must treat it as truly infinite . on a truly infinite time line you will as some point ho bankrupt no matter what the odds are against it ....
if you want to argue this is wrong you need to take a moment and try to understand what infinite really means ... infinite isn't a really long time its theoretically beyond the end of time .... its forever . sometime between now and forever , every possible thing in an equation will happen ... there is no getting around this .... |
You're ignoring the fact that you have positive ev, because of the chance of going bust is exactly the same 10 years from now or 10 billion, or 10............................................................lion years from now. if you think were all wrong is shouldn't be hard to prove us wrong mathmatically.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Brash
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 20 Oct 2002
Posts: 3958
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 13:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
"You're ignoring the fact that you have positive ev"
doesn't matter , its still a game of chance ...... things can go bad and against all odds for an extremely long time . on a long enough time line (INFINITE) you will run into the extremely improbable losing streak that will bankrupt you, it's inevetable ...
*EDIT* there is no need to make a long ass equation to prove this, is freaking common sense ....
Last edited by Brash on 08/25/05 - 13:15; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Soriak
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 952
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 13:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
I actually think Brash is right... looking at it from a very basic point of view, the odds of striking out are always positive.
100 losses in a row
101 losses and one win (minus the odds of winning on the 101st roll, since you'll be broke)
102 losses and two wins (minus the odds of winning on the last two)
etc
since you have to add up the odds (each scenario = you strike out), your number will keep growing. While it will always be VERY small, it will grow nontheless.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Cardnyl
Luke Warm
Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 397
Location: FL
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 13:34 Post subject: Re: Since everyone on Realpoor has an IQ of 160, easy questi
|
|
|
| Mugaaz wrote: | If you start with 1 trillion dollars and play a gambling game where your average positive expectation is 3 dollars every 100 games, with a standard devation of 20 dollars every 100 games.
Summary:
Bankroll = 1 Trillion
EV = +3/100 games
SD = 20
If you played this game for an infinite amount of time, would you eventually bust out?
If anyone is able to provide a proof of their answer which is not identical to what I find doing random google searches, I will paypal or neteller you 5 dollars. |
before even reading any of the responses, is this by any chance a homework assignment for the following college level classes:
Statistics
Information Theory
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Faerdal
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 954
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 13:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Brash wrote: | "You're ignoring the fact that you have positive ev"
doesn't matter , its still a game of chance ...... things can go bad and against all odds for an extremely long time .....
*EDIT* there is no need to make a long ass equation to prove this, is freaking common sense .... |
You can't ignore the fact that you have +EV, it's the variable that makes this entire thing even a valid argument in the first place. If you know that, over a small fraction of time playing a pseudo-random outcome game, you will average financial gain, and then apply this to an infinite timeline, it does not diminish in effect. In fact, it becomes the dominating factor. Soriak is right, just think about it for a minute. You are starting off at a poker table at Time Zero (hours), with $1tril, and trying to foresee a point in the near-infinite future where you would be bankrupt. However, given the laws of probability and the values for the variables that we're starting with, at time 10,000 (hours) you will likely be up approximately $15,000 over your initial bankroll (assuming 50 hands/hr, which is a good average of live and online play, and irrelevant in a theoretical sense, but necessary to provide some concrete math to make this easier to explain to the people who don't get it). The SD is small enough that it becomes basically irrelevant on an infinite timeline.
Extend this to time 1,000,000, and look where you will be. Now take it further. At time one-trillion hours, you should be at over twice your original bankroll. You are averaging $1.50 profit every hour. There are times when you will go on a long streak where you lose money in the medium-term, even the long term. However, the further you are from Time Zero the more ability you have to absorb those cold streaks, both in duration and severity.
You would not only have to extend this over an infinite timeline, you would also need a near-infinite number of "case players" at individual tables, all playing in their own version of our near-infinite number of parallel universes, in order to have just one person who manages to lose consistently every hour and does it from the beginning of their timeline where their bankroll is still small. You are not just extending this problem linearly through time, you are expanding it laterally through infinitely many parallel case simulations in order to force the result you want.
In short, get off the whole I Really Just Wanted To See If Anyone Could Define The Word "Infinite", and start thinking logically and realistically here.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Brash
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 20 Oct 2002
Posts: 3958
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 14:50 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
i don't think you understand the concept of infinite ...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Faerdal
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 954
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 18:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Brash wrote: | | i don't think you understand the concept of infinite ... |
I understand exactly what it means. However, I find it rather pretentious to ask the question that was proposed in the original post, and then later justifying it with some pseudo-intellectual b******t about how it's sooooo terribly hard to figure this out logically for most people. We know what the f**k the definition of "infinite" means, and how it relates to probability. Let me recap:
| Faerdal wrote: |
You would not only have to extend this over an infinite timeline, you would also need a near-infinite number of "case players" at individual tables, all playing in their own version of our near-infinite number of parallel universes, in order to have just one person who manages to lose consistently every hour and does it from the beginning of their timeline where their bankroll is still small. You are not just extending this problem linearly through time, you are expanding it laterally through infinitely many parallel case simulations in order to force the result you want. |
The important point here is not the fact that you need an infinite timeline, because you actually don't. If you're trying to prove that this can happen, what you essentially need is an infinite number of players all starting at Time Zero and letting the numbers roll from there. Think laterally, not linearly. The actual time required to fulfill the lose-condition is finite (and likely very short.)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Devook
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Posts: 2373
Location: Ypsilanti or Troy, MI
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 21:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Brash wrote: | | i don't think you understand the concept of infinite ... |
No Brash. On an infinite timeline, eventually the probability of going bankrupt drops to 0. At that point, it is no longer possible. The answer is you will not go bankrupt.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 08/25/05 - 22:58 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Brash wrote: | "You're ignoring the fact that you have positive ev"
doesn't matter , its still a game of chance ...... things can go bad and against all odds for an extremely long time . on a long enough time line (INFINITE) you will run into the extremely improbable losing streak that will bankrupt you, it's inevetable ...
|
It's not inevitable. There will always be a chance but that does not mean it will happen.
If I roll a die 6 times, that does not mean I will hit every number once even though statistically, I should. If I roll it 60 times, I can't guarantee that I will roll each number 10 times. Same for 600, 6000, 60000, etc etc through infinity. My results should converge on the average but there's no guarantee it will.
In Mugaaz's example, your greatest chance of going bankrupt is right at the beginning. After that, your odds of going bankrupt are actually decreasing as you get further and further away from zero. This is exactly the point that Sinrakin and Faerdal were making. There will always be a chance but it will continue to converge on zero as your bankroll increases to infinity.
Again as Faerdal pointed out, you need to add infinite players to assure that someone goes bankrupt. Adding more hands only decreases your odds of ending at zero.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Faerdal
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 954
|
|
Posted: 08/26/05 - 16:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan, talking logic to these people is risky business.. you're better off sticking to fallacies and blubbering nonsense!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 08/26/05 - 16:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Faerdal wrote: | | Nuldaan, talking logic to these people is risky business.. you're better off sticking to fallacies and blubbering nonsense! |
And yet you still try...
Tell me that part about being hyper-intelligent, again?
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Faerdal
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 954
|
|
Posted: 08/26/05 - 17:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
it requires no explaining
also, please keep bringing that up every time you respond to one of my posts.. it's good publicity
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
