Quote:
Originally Posted by 13_Xerxes
Winning at 2PTBB, with my standard deviation, I got 28.46% chances to lose after 12k hands.
http://pokerdope.com/poker-variance-calculator/
So, if I made 8 sessions of 12k hands, I got only 71.54% chance to win ONE session, after 8 sessions, chances are 6.86% to winning this bet. And I only ask 2.5:1 (lol, I am such a fish).
I am OK to lower the max hands par day, but I will ask like 30:1, so... And I will get zero action of course.
(winning at 3PTBB -lol- : chances are 80.34% to win ONE session, 17.35% to win the bet)
(winning at 4PTBB -welcome back in 2003- : chances are respectivly 87.25% and 33.58% after 8 sessions)
And that is the best case scenario, where I made 8 sessions of 12k hands. I will probably make a lot of sessions about 2-3k hands, so variance should be a lot higher : chances to lose a session with 2PTBB and 3k hands = 38.80%.
You cant analyse this bet like this, these simulations are very, very misleading.
At th start of each session, you wont know how many hands you're going to play. Obviously you'll only keep playing beyond the session minimum when stuck, you can then quit at any point if you get to zero.
So to simulate this accurately, you'd need to take th chances of winning after th minimum number of hands, then th chances of being at zero or above AT ANY POINT from then to th max number of hands. Th combined probabilities of neither of these things happening would be your chance of a winning day = substantially higher than th numbers you quoted.
This is kind of obvious, your 'i'm such a fish only asking for x:1' seems like a hustle if you've spent any time thinking about this.
Idk how to simulate what i described above, maybe someone cleverer than me could do it
Sent from my GT-I9100 using 2+2 Forums