Recursively Subsetted Outcomes. Eg. win/show/place; same event, same contestent. Denotion numbers indicate order of probabilities ascendingly. (i) Check that D1 > D2 > D3 > .... > Dn. (ii) Calculate X1 = P2 - ( P2 - P1 )/( 1 - D2/D1 ) If X1 < 0, delete outcome1, and start new algorhythm. (iii) Calculate X2 = P3 - ( P3 - P2 )/( 1 - D3/D2 ) - P2 + ( P2 - P1 )/( 1 - D2/D1 ) If X2 < 0, delete outcome2, and start new algorhythm. (iv) Calculate X3 = P4 - ( P4 - P3 )/( 1 - D4/D3 ) - P3 + ( P3 - P2 )/( 1 - D3/D2 ) If X3 < 0, delete outcome3, and start new algorhythm. (v) .... (n) Calculate X[n-1] = Pn - ( Pn - P[n-1] )/( 1 - Dn/D[n-1] ) - P[n-1] + ( P[n-1] - P[n-2] )/( 1 - D[n-1]/D[n-2] ) If X[n-1] < 0, delete outcome[n-1], and start new algorhythm. (n+i) Calculate Xn = ( Dn*Pn - 1 )/( Dn - 1 ) + ( Pn - P[n-1] )/( 1 - Dn/D[n-1] ) - Pn If Xn < 0, delete outcome[n], and start new algorhythm. If Xn >= 0, X values stand from this algorhythm.
-
-
I'd quit gambling if I had to deal with that stuff daily.
Comment -
GGComment -
It amazes me that an obviously erudite guy like you can't spell algorithm. What do you think I should think of your post?Comment -
You sunk my battleship.
Comment -
sofos,
Im a math majer wid dsylexisa, & mi spel chker is brok but mi # chker woks gudComment -
You're right - healthy scepticism is appropriate about anything involving incorrect spelling. I expect that an adventurous sceptic, ( ok - probably not healthy ), will do a few simulations of capital growth from investment values slightly above and below those instructed by the algorithm. A resultant failure to out-perform the algorithm, would indicate that it probably works.Comment
