trying to solve a problem for a possible book (dream)

[EXTRAPOLATER]

Will stick with the problem.

The paradise casino just opened a different game.
I've been sitting here all day cleaning up at the coin-toss table making +150 each winner.
Of course, in this joint, the odds of winning and the expected return on investment is on a handy card for all players.
My two cards reads as follows:

A)
Coin-toss game
50% winners
pays +150
(40% wins needed to break-even, therefore a
+10 value indicator (50-40))
ROI=
50 wins at +150 or 7500 profit
50 losses at -100 or 5000 in losses
leaves 2500 profit / 10,000 risk or a
+25% return on investment

Second table that opened is a correct-suit prediction from a deck of 52.
B)
Correct suit game
25% winners
pays +500
(16.66% wins reguired to break-even, therefore a
+8 value indicator (and change))
ROI=
25 wins at +500 or 12,500 profit
75 losses at -100 or -7500
leaves 5000 profit / 10,000 risk or a
+50% return on investment


I need to decide if I should change tables.
I don't think so but that ROI is funking with me.

What should I do?

 

[MadJack]

Coin-toss game
50% winners
pays +150

:shrug:

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

Please--if I'm not explaining something properly then let me know.

I've been making a killing at this +150 payout on the coin-toss, but it looks like something better has arisen.

50% winners quote just relects your odds to win.
That means I need +100 to break even (hypothetically).
The +150 has been paying me well.

 

[MadJack]

Please--if I'm not explaining something properly then let me know.

I've been making a killing at this +150 payout on the coin-toss, but it looks like something better has arisen.

50% winners quote just relects your odds to win.
That means I need +100 to break even (hypothetically).
The +150 has been paying me well.

i'm not understanding because no way a coin flip (50/50 chance of winning) pays +150 but that's how i'm reading it.

 

[MadJack]

btw, don't you ever sleep anymore?

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

Will sleep when tired or the equivalent. Would pass if able.

You're reading it correctly.
This is a casino in paradise so that's why I'm getting +150.
Two even teams at a neutral site and sure you'll take a +150.

I just don't know if I should change tables, increase my return on investment, and then leave this place earlier than I had anticipated (the barwenches here are too easy, anyways...this is paradise, after all).

Hopefully that helps instead of obscuring matters further.
I'm trying to measure the relative values of the two games.

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

this just does not compute

:help:

I'm missing something important here.
Seriously--must be.

My value indicator sorta defends my decision to stay put but every other measure that I try suggests that I'm missing out.

I feel compelled to take a marker.

:help:

 

[Riskbreaker]

Stick to A), keeps morale high and freak streaks wont hit u as hard as on table B)

Dont tease (B) unless u dont have to (table A is open).

If table A is closed there's always the option to pass table B and sit down at table C with a drinkslinger behind it.

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

My marker will be good until whenever I awaken tomorrow (this is paradise, after all) after which I'll probably stick to table A.

I just feel like I need a legitimate reason.
That ROI pisses me off.
Wish I had some stuff on probability theory but maybe I'll do a search tomorrow.
I was hoping that this would simpler than that.

If it is then somebody clue me in.
I'm pretty sure that my math was okay.
Reasoning might be faulty.

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

I figured out a way to stay at table A but improve my ROI by changing my strategy. I'd been playing $100 a flip but came up with a way to get +56.25% ROI--more than double what I've been getting and more than the basic on table B.

Theoretically I could use this strategy on table B also, but I'm thinking that the high failure rate makes the greater return less attractive...I'm screwed if I go on a bad run.

Can't change tables.
Only partly understanding the reason.

Maybe movers & shakers will help.
(see post)

:shrug:

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

I'm drowning in apathy here, apparently.
Shirley someone must have an onion.

Anyway, here's the latest...

They're getting no action on table B.
They're talking about raising the payout.
Currently at +500 which I passed on.
I have a feeling that they'll do it incrementally until they have some action.
First step to +600. Should I switch then?
Then maybe +700. Might wait that long.
Possibly to +800. Switcheroo?

How would you measure the relative values.
Surely there is value--house advantage is negative as shown.
I'm on to something but it's way too subjective.
Must be some analysis that I'm missing.
I think that there is one that others are missing (if anyone gives two puffs) and if you could see it then you could see my problem.

(I mean the problem herein)



Risk assessment will be crucial to whatever conclusion I reach. My risk is greater at table B, for example (greater chance to lose per play). Another example is that I do not see greater risk in playing a -150 than playing a +100--my potential return will be lower but my risk has to be based more on my probability to win.

I need a measure of the overall value based on potential risk and the possible reward. I can proove that ROI is not an appropriate measure of reward. That leaves me the value indicator which has been useful in the past, but unlike the A & B examples (which maybe argue for A), I've seen others that show that even this VI can be misleading. I found one way around that that might work--takes into account the risk but maybe simply accounts for it twice (doesn't consider payout). Perhaps the payout on the dollar (e.g. 0.67 on a -150, 1.0 on a +100, 1.5 on a +150) should be included but most measures that I do indicate the greater payout as always having the higher returns (e.g. ROI) while not really including the potential risk.

Just some thoughts that might or might not help.
Maybe I'll trying a different thread with a similar problem.

 

[LetsMakeMoney]

btw, don't you ever sleep anymore?

the raccoon doesn't let him sleep :shrug:

 

[EXTRAPOLATER]

The following keeps me up:

The raccoons are pretty quiet.

This other stuff is confusing.

Continually illuminating the absurd.