14th November 2005, 08:46 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Mt Tamborine
Posts: 574
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Silver_and_sand
For instance, in a test over 10,000 trials System A, with a strike rate of 22%, has a 45% probability of having a maximum losing streak of 33 outs. In a test over 10,000 trials System B, with a strike rate of 6%, has a 40% probability of having a maximum losing streak of 114 outs.
To make things difficult though, there's nothing saying that you could have a run of 114 outs, have a small win, followed by another run of say 96 outs! With these lengthy runs of outs possible, it would obviously be foolish to be betting say 5% of the bank as the standard bet size.
|
This seems to be the trouble with all the statistics based answers I've ever seen to this question. I know enough basic statistics myself to be able to work out the theoretical maximum number of outs (as per above) but as you point out that figure isn't a great deal of use. Possibly a deeper knowledge of stats would give a value to the worse loosing streak which is the important thing here. The worst loosing streak (as I see it) is the greatest amount of money lost from your bank at any time. So if you start with $1000, build to $1200, then at some point get down to $800 before rising again to $1300 your worst losing streak is $400 (1200 - 800). If you are betting a percentage of bank you must assume this worst run could happen at the start of betting and not after you have some winnings to cushion the fall. Anyway, to stop rambling and ask the question I wanted to ask at the start, does anyone know enough stats to work out this theoretical likely loosing streak? I think that is the answer Duritz' question really seeks.
KV
|