Two Plus Two Poker Forums Baffling Math Paradox
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Video Directory TwoPlusTwo.com

 Notices

 Poker Theory General poker theory

06-26-2012, 07:54 AM   #91
grinder

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 421
~

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Scouse Rob Isn't this like saying I should fold aces pre-flop rather than call an all-in as when folding P(V>=0)=1 Of course if losing any money meant I would die then I'd throw away the Aces. But setting a lower death limit on the slip score is surely cheating and changing the rules of the game. You are basically saying that folding dominates calling because by folding you are 100% sure to not be less than an arbitrary value 0. In other words by switching anything other than 1 you are taking a gamble, risking some points to (on average) gain more. So sticking with N>1 is the least risky.
No it's not like saying that at all. It's much stronger than that (if its right). I am saying StayExcept1 beats AlwaysSwitch when trying for \$3 and ties AlwaysSwitch when trying for any larger amount. It's like having 2 types of lottery tickets. One has a better chance of winning \$3 and and equal chance of winning any of the larger amounts.

I am saying in a single trial

Prob(win at least \$1 | StayExcept1) = 1.000
Prob(win at least \$1 | AlwaySwitch) = 1.000

Prob(win at least \$3 | StayExcept1) = 1.000
Prob(win at least \$3 | AlwaySwitch) = 0.750

Prob(win at least \$9 | StayExcept1) = 3/8
Prob(win at least \$9 | AlwaySwitch) = 3/8

Prob(win at least \$27 | StayExcept1) = 3/16
Prob(win at least \$27 | AlwaySwitch) = 3/16

Prob(win at least \$81 | StayExcept1) = 3/32
Prob(win at least \$81 | AlwaySwitch) = 3/32

Prob(win at least 3^T | StayExcept1) = 3/2^(T+1)
Prob(win at least 3^T | AlwaySwitch) = 3/2^(T+1)

I realize this seems to contradict the EV calc. But even if the above is right, I still believe the EV calc is correct but I think the interpretation of it is messed up.

Last edited by bobf; 06-26-2012 at 08:00 AM.

 06-26-2012, 09:14 AM #92 centurion     Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Sheffield Posts: 105 Re: Baffling Math Paradox Your probabilities disguise too much information. We want the most value out of our strategy not just to reach a lower bound. If the other slip always had 0.5 extra in it then the probabilities of both strategies reaching each of your bounds would be identical whilst switching is clearly a better strategy. Let E(t) be the expected value gain of switching only for any slip with 3^t or less on it. (Gain over purely sticking.) Then E(0) = 1/2 E(1) = 1/2 + 1/4 > E(0) E(2) = 1/2 + 1/4 + (1/4)(1.5) > E(1) E(3) = 1/2 + 1/4 + (1/4)(1.5) + (1/4)(1.5^2) > E(2) .... E(t) = 1/2 + (1/4)(sum[i=1 to t](1.5^(i-1))) > E(t-1) In fact for any t>=0, E(t) is positive and the larger the value of t the larger the expected gain. These expected values can be calculated explicitly. In fact if you repeatedly simulate 2^(t+8) trials you should see the expected gain predicted by the maths above. Repeated Simulation over groups of 100,000 trials: E(8) = 12.81 Actual Gains: 12.37, 12.34, 14.08, 13.35, 12.56, 15.33, 11.91, 13.13, ... Last edited by Scouse Rob; 06-26-2012 at 09:30 AM.
 06-26-2012, 01:17 PM #93 enthusiast   Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 94 Re: Baffling Math Paradox For all cases when n isn't 1 n = 3^T T = (log n)/(log 3) T+1 = (log n)/(log 3) +1 T-1 = (log n)/(log 3) - 1 p(T) = 0.5^(T+1) = 0.5^[(log n/log 3) + 1] p(T+1) = 0.5^[(log n/log 3) + 2] p(T-1) = 0.5^[(log n/log 3)] p(T+1)/p(T-1) = 0.5^2 = 0.25 EV(change) = 0.25*(3 n) + 0.75*(1/3 n) = n So I agree it doesn't matter unless N =1 when you should switch
06-26-2012, 01:18 PM   #94
grinder

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 421

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Scouse Rob Your probabilities disguise too much information. We want the most value out of our strategy not just to reach a lower bound. If the other slip always had 0.5 extra in it then the probabilities of both strategies reaching each of your bounds would be identical whilst switching is clearly a better strategy.
But in this game they don't have 0.5 extra written on them.

In this exact game:
- AlwaysSwitch is dominated by StayExcept1
- There is no value that AlwaysSwitch is more likely to win than StayExcept1 on the next trial.
- There is a value (\$3) that StayExcept1 is more likely to win that AlwaysSwitch on the next trial.
- After any finite number of games, StayExcept1 is more likely to be ahead of AlwaysSwitch in new worth than vice versa.

Quote:
 Let E(t) be the expected value gain of switching only for any slip with 3^t or less on it. (Gain over purely sticking.) Then E(0) = 1/2 E(1) = 1/2 + 1/4 > E(0) E(2) = 1/2 + 1/4 + (1/4)(1.5) > E(1) E(3) = 1/2 + 1/4 + (1/4)(1.5) + (1/4)(1.5^2) > E(2) .... E(t) = 1/2 + (1/4)(sum[i=1 to t](1.5^(i-1))) > E(t-1) In fact for any t>=0, E(t) is positive and the larger the value of t the larger the expected gain. These expected values can be calculated explicitly. In fact if you repeatedly simulate 2^(t+8) trials you should see the expected gain predicted by the maths above. Repeated Simulation over groups of 100,000 trials: E(8) = 12.81 Actual Gains: 12.37, 12.34, 14.08, 13.35, 12.56, 15.33, 11.91, 13.13, ...
Rob, can you outline how your simulation works?

I trust that the EV calcuatlions are correct. I do not trust the interpretation of those EV calculations. I do not trust the conclusion that says "therefore you should always switch".

One reason I don't trust this conclusion is that I can construct a situation where the EV says "open any envelope with number N written on it" because envelopes with number N written on them are positive EV for all N and yet when you open the envelopes you end up getting poorer and poorer.

Last edited by bobf; 06-26-2012 at 01:25 PM.

 06-26-2012, 01:29 PM #95 grinder   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 421 Re: Baffling Math Paradox 1 million trials for each GameLength. Who ever is ahead in net worth at the end of the game gets a win. Code: ```GameLength = 1 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.25014 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.49995 GameLength = 2 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.35453 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.54158 GameLength = 3 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.40725 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.54599 GameLength = 4 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.42678 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.54098 GameLength = 5 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.43995 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.53689 GameLength = 6 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.44713 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.53387 GameLength = 7 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.45272 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.53137 GameLength = 8 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.45698 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.52948 GameLength = 9 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.46070 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.52717 GameLength = 10 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.46310 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.52647 GameLength = 11 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.46613 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.52452 GameLength = 12 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.46746 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.52416 GameLength = 13 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.46907 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.52357 GameLength = 14 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.47089 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.52242 GameLength = 15 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.47142 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.52266 GameLength = 16 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.47294 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.52174 GameLength = 17 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.47478 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.52010 GameLength = 18 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.47425 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.52110 GameLength = 19 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.47516 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.52056 GameLength = 20 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.47588 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.52023 GameLength = 21 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.47734 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51905 GameLength = 22 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.47860 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51814 GameLength = 23 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.47828 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51845 GameLength = 24 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.47895 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51797 GameLength = 25 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48000 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51720 GameLength = 26 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48017 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51718 GameLength = 27 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48033 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51711 GameLength = 28 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48153 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51609 GameLength = 29 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48212 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51562 GameLength = 30 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48270 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51511 GameLength = 31 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48319 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51483 GameLength = 32 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48286 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51519 GameLength = 33 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48293 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51524 GameLength = 34 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48253 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51570 GameLength = 35 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48392 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51444 GameLength = 36 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48352 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51489 GameLength = 37 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48368 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51478 GameLength = 38 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48424 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51425 GameLength = 39 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48525 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51331 GameLength = 40 Prob(AlwaysSwitch wins) = 0.48471 Prob(StayExcept1 wins) = 0.51388```
06-26-2012, 01:51 PM   #96
Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 5,659

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bobf I'm not using EV's. I deliberately avoided EV's because the EV of the game diverges. I am using probabilites I am saying that - if you need \$1 or you die, any strategy works 100% of the time. - if you need \$3 or you die, StayExcept1 beats AlwaysSwitch by 100% to 75%. - if you need any V>\$3 or you die, StayExcept1 = AlwaysSwitch, probabilitywise No matter what amount I need, StayExcept1 is at least as good as AlwaysSwitch. StayExcept1,3 does not dominate StayExcept1. If I need exactly \$3 StayExcept1 always works. StayExcept1,3 fails 25% of the time.
You've modified the game though. If you only care about getting at least V dollars, then the payouts aren't 1, 3, 9, 27, etc., they are a step function 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, ... This new game is going to have a different strategy and a finite EV.

06-26-2012, 02:01 PM   #97
grinder

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 421

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DarkMagus You've modified the game though. If you only care about getting at least V dollars, then the payouts aren't 1, 3, 9, 27, etc., they are a step function 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, ... This new game is going to have a different strategy and a finite EV.
I'm not saying you only care about getting V dollars. I am saying there exists no dollar amount preference at all for which AlwaysSwitch beats StayExcept1. But there is a dollar amount for which StayExcept1 beats AlwaysSwitch.

Choosing between AlwaysSwitch and StayExcept1 is exactly like being given a choice between two lottery tickets who payout structures are identical except that StayExcept1 will pay you at least \$3 always but AlwaysSwitch will sometimes pay you only \$1.

All of this ^^^ assumes I didn't blunder in some calculation. So if someone can confirm the following that would be nice....

Prob(win at least \$1 | StayExcept1) = 1.000
Prob(win at least \$1 | AlwaySwitch) = 1.000

Prob(win at least \$3 | StayExcept1) = 1.000
Prob(win at least \$3 | AlwaySwitch) = 0.750

....

Prob(win at least 3^T | StayExcept1) = 3/2^(T+1)
Prob(win at least 3^T | AlwaySwitch) = 3/2^(T+1)

for T >1 on a single game trial.

Last edited by bobf; 06-26-2012 at 02:09 PM.

06-26-2012, 02:16 PM   #98
Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 5,659

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bobf I'm not saying you only care about getting V dollars.
Yes, this is exactly what you're saying. Your logic assumes that getting \$3 100% of the time is better than getting \$9 99% of the time and \$1 1% of the time.

06-26-2012, 02:22 PM   #99
grinder

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 421

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DarkMagus Yes, this is exactly what you're saying. Your logic assumes that getting \$3 100% of the time is better than getting \$9 99% of the time and \$1 1% of the time.
No

In the next trial StayExcept1 is just as likely to win \$9 as AlwaysSwitch.
In the next trial StayExcept1 is just as likely to win \$27 as AlwaysSwitch.
In the next trial StayExcept1 is just as likely to win \$81 as AlwaysSwitch.
In the next trial StayExcept1 is just as likely to win \$243 as AlwaysSwitch.
...
forever

But
In the next trial StayExcept1 is more likely to win \$3 than AlwaysSwitch.

06-26-2012, 02:23 PM   #100

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 701

Quote:
 Originally Posted by DarkMagus You've modified the game though. If you only care about getting at least V dollars, then the payouts aren't 1, 3, 9, 27, etc., they are a step function 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, ... This new game is going to have a different strategy and a finite EV.
It's the same game, but he is computing a different metric. AlwaysStayExcept1 does better 75% of the time, but this is very misleading. It performs better only when what is at stake is minimal. The rest of the time it is break-even. It's what happens the rest of the time that matters most.

I think that considering AlwaysStayExcept1 is needlessly confusing. If you compare AlwaysStay with AlwaysSwitch, it is easier to see that these perform equivalently. They each do better than the other 50% of the time. The improvement in AlwaysStayExcept1 is so miniscule in dollar terms that it can be considered virtually negligible.

 06-26-2012, 02:39 PM #101 grinder   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 421 Re: Baffling Math Paradox Repeat 1 million times 1. Flip coins until H comes. Let T = Number of tails. 2. Write down A = 3^T and B=3^(T+1) 3. Fiip an additional coin to decide who gets what slip. 4. Give AlwaysSwitch A on heads, B on tails 5. Give StayExcept1 B on heads, A on tails 6. Apply strategies 7. Accumulate net worths StayExcept1 will win this game with Prob close to 1. Code: ```Flips Slips AS Sees SX1 Sees AS Wins SX1 Wins Delta Hh (1,3) 1 3 3 3 0 Ht (3,1) 3 1 1 3 +2 THh (3,9) 3 9 9 9 0 THt (9,3) 9 3 3 3 0 TTHh (9,27) 9 27 27 27 0 TTHt (27,9) 27 9 9 9 0 ..... all the rest of the deltas are zero``` Last edited by bobf; 06-26-2012 at 02:52 PM.
06-26-2012, 03:49 PM   #102
centurion

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 105

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bobf Rob, can you outline how your simulation works? I trust that the EV calcuatlions are correct. I do not trust the interpretation of those EV calculations. I do not trust the conclusion that says "therefore you should always switch". One reason I don't trust this conclusion is that I can construct a situation where the EV says "open any envelope with number N written on it" because envelopes with number N written on them are positive EV for all N and yet when you open the envelopes you end up getting poorer and poorer.
I simply create 100,000 trials where the number of consecutive tails is constructed.
(Limit maximum tails to 21, which is more than enough as any number of tails greater than t in E(t) contributes zero as we stick by definition.)

Then place the two values randomly for each trial.

Then to calculate E(t) add the gains (positive or negative) for each switch when the number on the envelope is less than or equal to 3^t.

Of course when t gets too high the variance of the small amount of the higher numbers takes over making the simulated gain range from hugely positive to hugely negative and anything in between.

But if t is low enough so there are enough expected occurrences of 3^t then the average simulated gain is close to E(t).

I am VERY interested by your result that over repeated small numbers of trials that always switch perform so badly.

My intuition tells me this may be because the rare highest numbers we see over all the of trials simulated are weighted 2-1 to lose big rather than win big and this skews the results due to the fact they are geometrically bigger than anything else.

Increasing the number of trials or reruns of trials to get a better average for this high number of tails just creates a small number of the next amount of tails and the problem re-manifests itself.

(Complete speculation. And only regarding the result above. The other reason is that always switching gains you nothing as switching and sticking are equivalent over all envelopes, but always changing 1 is a gain. Thus the paradox.)

I never stated that always switch should be better. (Or maybe I did but not in that last reply. )
Only that E(t) is better than E(0) for any integer t>0.
(And this can be simulated given enough trials.)

I am convinced by my simulation that this is true.
I could PM the excel file to you if you wish but it is easy enough to construct, and probably even easier for you to do in code.

Just modify your program from always switch with 1 to always switch with 1 or 3 and see the difference over the million trials.

And so on to about 3^12.

You'll probably need more trials for higher numbers of t but by this stage you'll be convinced.

Last edited by Scouse Rob; 06-26-2012 at 03:57 PM.

06-26-2012, 04:03 PM   #103
Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 5,659

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bobf Repeat 1 million times 1. Flip coins until H comes. Let T = Number of tails. 2. Write down A = 3^T and B=3^(T+1) 3. Fiip an additional coin to decide who gets what slip. 4. Give AlwaysSwitch A on heads, B on tails 5. Give StayExcept1 B on heads, A on tails 6. Apply strategies 7. Accumulate net worths StayExcept1 will win this game with Prob close to 1. Code: ```Flips Slips AS Sees SX1 Sees AS Wins SX1 Wins Delta Hh (1,3) 1 3 3 3 0 Ht (3,1) 3 1 1 3 +2 THh (3,9) 3 9 9 9 0 THt (9,3) 9 3 3 3 0 TTHh (9,27) 9 27 27 27 0 TTHt (27,9) 27 9 9 9 0 ..... all the rest of the deltas are zero```
Ok but the probability of winning does not detemine what makes the best strategy. The EV does. I could sit at a NLHE table and go allin every hand and I'd win very often, does that make it the best possible strategy?

Both strategies have an undefined EV so saying one is "better" than the other just doesn't make any mathematical sense.

06-26-2012, 04:33 PM   #104
grinder

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 421

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Scouse Rob I simply create 100,000 trials where the number of consecutive tails is constructed. (Limit maximum tails to 21, which is more than enough as any number of tails greater than t in E(t) contributes zero as we stick by definition.) Then place the two values randomly for each trial. Then to calculate E(t) add the gains (positive or negative) for each switch when the number on the envelope is less than or equal to 3^t. Of course when t gets too high the variance of the small amount of the higher numbers takes over making the simulated gain range from hugely positive to hugely negative and anything in between. But if t is low enough so there are enough expected occurrences of 3^t then the average simulated gain is close to E(t). I am VERY interested by your result that over repeated small numbers of trials that always switch perform so badly. My intuition tells me this may be because the rare highest numbers we see over all the of trials simulated are weighted 2-1 to lose big rather than win big and this skews the results due to the fact they are geometrically bigger than anything else. Increasing the number of trials or reruns of trials to get a better average for this high number of tails just creates a small number of the next amount of tails and the problem re-manifests itself. (Complete speculation. And only regarding the result above. The other reason is that always switching gains you nothing as switching and sticking are equivalent over all envelopes, but always changing 1 is a gain. Thus the paradox.) I never stated that always switch should be better. (Or maybe I did but not in that last reply. ) Only that E(t) is better than E(0) for any integer t>0. (And this can be simulated given enough trials.) I am convinced by my simulation that this is true. I could PM the excel file to you if you wish but it is easy enough to construct, and probably even easier for you to do in code. Just modify your program from always switch with 1 to always switch with 1 or 3 and see the difference over the million trials. And so on to about 3^12. You'll probably need more trials for higher numbers of t but by this stage you'll be convinced.
Ok thanks. I agree that switching for any value N produces a positive EV relative to staying. But I believe that it is wrong to conclude anything about how we should play the game from that fact.

Let me try to illustrate. Let's generate some number pairs we might encounter when trying to calculate these EV's.

(1,3) (1,3) (1,3) (1,3) (1,3)(1,3)(1,3)(1,3)
(3,9) (3,9) (3,9) (3,9)
(9,27)(9,27)
(27,81)

an EV calculator for switching would conclude
EV(switch | see 1) = 2
EV(switch | see 3) = (-16 + 24) / 12 = 2/3
EV(switch | see 9) = (-24 + 36) / 6 = 2
EV(switch | see 27) = (-36 + 54) / 3 = 6
EV(switch | see 81) = -54 OOPS

that last "oops" will alwyas be there while you are playijng AlwaysSwitch for a finite length of time. Play longer and EV(switch | 81) will converge correctly but a new "oops" will pop up for higher and higher N's. No matter how long you play, you never realize any advantage from switching even though more and more N's are converging to their proper EV.

Quote:
 My intuition tells me this may be because the rare highest numbers we see over all the of trials simulated are weighted 2-1 to lose big rather than win big and this skews the results due to the fact they are geometrically bigger than anything else.
If I understand you, I believe this is the case too. But I believe that it's the EV calculator that is scewing the results by not mimicing reality of actually playing. In the actual game, no matter how long we play, there is always a largest number on any slip of paper so far. Any switch from that paper is guaranteed to lose a huge sum of money because there is no larger number to switch to yet. In my example above, a person playing AlwaysSwitch loses \$54 when he sees 81 and switches. The EV calculator just says, that's ok, I know this will eventually be corrected by switching to some 243's. And that's true. That will happen. But by the time that happens, a new biggest number will appear, like 243, with a new guaranteed loss.

Last edited by bobf; 06-26-2012 at 04:40 PM.

06-26-2012, 04:38 PM   #105
Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 5,659

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bobf Ok thanks. I agree that switching for any value N produces a positive EV relative to staying. But I believe that it is wrong to conclude anything about how we should play the game from that fact. Let me try to illustrate. Let's generate some number pairs we might encounter when trying to calculate these EV's. (1,3) (1,3) (1,3) (1,3) (1,3)(1,3)(1,3)(1,3) (3,9) (3,9) (3,9) (3,9) (9,27)(9,27) (27,81) an EV calculator for switching would conclude EV(switch | see 1) = 2 EV(switch | see 3) = (-16 + 24) / 12 = 2/3 EV(switch | see 9) = (-24 + 36) / 6 = 2 EV(switch | see 27) = (-36 + 54) / 3 = 6 EV(switch | see 81) = -54 OOPS
Here you are taking the results and then calculating the EV based on already knowing the results. This makes no sense. You really need to rethink your logic on this.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are Off Forum Rules

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:26 PM.

 Contact Us - Two Plus Two Publishing LLC - Privacy Statement - Top