| Author |
Message |
cookie778
High Card
Joined: 17 May 2008
Posts: 12
|
 Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 12:35 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Thats funny.... like I said before, I could care less about poker. I play blackjack myself.
good luck at the tables just dont play the small limit games unless your just lucky... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Honest_Rob
Postmaster General
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 4997
Location: trying to get back to even
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
The only cookie in this thread that is worth anything to the world is directly below this sentence.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cookie778
High Card
Joined: 17 May 2008
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
okay prove me wrong general...
i'm a girl btw... so its understandable why you would'nt be listen anyways.
and as sweet as a cookie can be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Honest_Rob
Postmaster General
Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 4997
Location: trying to get back to even
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You didn't get attacked by a tiger today because I installed my tiger proof system in your house and car so that you would be safe. Don't believe me? Prove me wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cookie778
High Card
Joined: 17 May 2008
Posts: 12
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ? lol we found the janitor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StevieWard
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 1127
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cookie778 wrote: |
Test was conducted by 10 people (9 plus myself) who all attend MIT.
Like i said before... the test prove without a doubt on low limit buy in turneys and sit&go.
The EOQ model assumes that demand is constant, and that inventory( your chips ) is depleted at a fixed rate until it reaches zero. At that point, a specific number of items arrive to return the inventory to its beginning level. Since the model assumes instantaneous replenishment, there are no inventory shortages or associated costs. Therefore, the cost of inventory under the EOQ model involves a tradeoff between inventory holding cost of tying up capital in inventory rather than investing it or using it for other purposes) and order costs( buy in's) Playing a large chip stack at one time will increase a small stack's holding costs, while making more frequent bets of fewer items will reduce holding costs but increase betting costs. The EOQ model finds the quantity that minimizes the sum of these costs.
The basic EOQ formula is as follows:
TC = PD + HQ/2 + SD/Q
where TC is the total cost per turny, PD is the inventory purchase cost per buy in (price P multiplied by demand D in units per year), H is the holding cost, Q is the order quantity, and S is the order cost (in dollars per order). Breaking down the elements of the formula further, the holding cost of inventory( chips) is H multiplied by the average number of units in inventory( your chip stack). Since the model assumes that inventory is depleted at a constant rate, the average number of units is equal to Q/2. The total order cost per turny is S multiplied by the number of orders per bet, which is equal to the annual demand divided by the number of bets, or D/Q. Finally, PD is constant, regardless of the order quantity.
Taking these factors into consideration, solving for the optimal order quantity gives a formula of:
HQ/2 = SD/Q, or Q = the square root of 2DS/H.
did you get that? |
I never read it - but I am an engineer so once you post something that has something concrete i may grasp it as I am quite good with these sort of things.
Now, instead of posting pretty formulas, and prattling off a (in fairness nicely written and copy and pasted formula from google where you substitue certain words for poker terms...why you picked one that is obviously somwething to do with economics, stocks/finance I really dont know.) and speaking bulls*it about MIT graduates are you actually going to post the results?
If you post them, it will probably take up about 30 odd pages in a topic but i dont mind. Or just send me a link to the MIT publication, which would obviously make the press for a discovery like this.
God this is fun. I never tire of it. This really does help me get rid of tilt after a bad session! Folks you should try it! 
I never understand why people lie and speak crap about something which they neevr did, then when you ask them to prove it they cant, so they just try to be funny or spout crap in an attempt to divert the topic.
Oh - and if your going to copy and paste something from google, at least edit it more so that it looks similar to the typing in your previous post - its so obvious you neevr wrote that considering the punctuation in your other posts.
I bet you dont even know what outs or pot odds are without having to google that either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StevieWard
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 1127
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TranViet00
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 1297
Location: The Falls, CA
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StevieWard
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 1127
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TranViet00 wrote: |
| HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA |
Why are you laughing?  Do you you think that was his magic formula to prove riggedness or was he just trying to be a smart ass?????1111???
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alex j beeson
Straight Flush
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
Posts: 498
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
That is just pathetically sad. For shame Cookie, copied it word for word, tsk tsk.
Here is one:
DA=(I+APAI)/C+T
Let me translate this formula, DA is dumb azz equals someone taking an Issue (I) adding the false assumption that All People Are Idiots (APAI) divided by Comlex wording (C) and trying to pass it off as Truth (T).
Pfffftttt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TranViet00
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 1297
Location: The Falls, CA
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alex j beeson wrote: |
Here is one:
DA=(I+APAI)/C+T
|
We never covered this formula at MIT?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian8383
Full House
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 160
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I dont know who makes me laugh more.
The donkeys who make these rigged threads.
Or the donkeys who insist on answering them everytime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lenny_bruce
Straight Flush
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Posts: 368
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| These threads will never get old and are always good for a laugh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManilaDog
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 3524
Location: Brockton Ma and Republic Of Philippines
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think cookies oven was turned up to high and shes burnt ,but IF she attended MIT and lived in Cambridge its understandable,they are all mostly well done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fire_eyes_2k
The Burn Card
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 3176
Location: Old York
|
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You're at MIT, but you're doing a study where you only include data you want to fit your conclusion. Jeez, they're dropping the standards somewhat. Call me when it gets published in the Harvard Press. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
