Trade Inciarte or No?

[Knucksie]

Not really my place or intent to defend Enscheff, BUT you guys hammer on people for speculating on trades (even if they are likely just daydreams) with real, live baseball players, yet spend pages speculating about another interwebs poster and/or trying to draw said poster into an electronic slap-fight? Well, bon jour, I guess.

Said poster is on my ignore list and was at Scout, as well. So, any speculation about his background has come from other people. This is with the hope that it could hold some entertainment value though. Your comparison here with imaginary trades is a bit incongruous. Another poster, who was overreacting to a reply of mine in a separate thread, made reference. He was commended for it by me.

I like my way better.

Yankees said to be shopping for Starting Pitching. Maybe Teheran for Frazier, Rutherford and Chad Green.

The main topic of this conversation is "The Most Interesting Man in the World."

 

[clvclv]

Nah, I had a head hunter look into job opportunities with MLB teams, and they don't pay well at all. Anyone coming out of school with programming/analysis skills can make $100k+, and MLB teams are offering less than half that while expecting 60+ hours worked per week, including weekends. There are countless smart kids coming out of school with dreams of being a GM, so teams can hire them for peanuts and work them to death.

And you can spend all that free time that you have that they don't longing to be thought of as one of them.

 

[jimsnores]

And you can spend all that free time that you have that they don't longing to be thought of as one of them.

Anecdotal piece of info: I met an elderly grandmother recently whose grandson just recently got a job as a full time statistician for the Rays. She seemed pretty happy about it, though she knew relatively little about it. She was at least aware of advanced stats and that they are used extensively. She's a Braves fan, by the way.

 

[smootness]

Nah, I had a head hunter look into job opportunities with MLB teams, and they don't pay well at all. Anyone coming out of school with programming/analysis skills can make $100k+, and MLB teams are offering less than half that while expecting 60+ hours worked per week, including weekends. There are countless smart kids coming out of school with dreams of being a GM, so teams can hire them for peanuts and work them to death.

Have you ever said what it is you do? Because it sounds like you're either someone without a professional background in statistical analysis who likes to pretend an MLB front office job isn't good enough for him, or someone with a professional background in statistical analysis who likes to talk down to people without the same background and experience you do.

Either way, giant tool.

 

[Enscheff]

Have you ever said what it is you do? Because it sounds like you're either someone without a professional background in statistical analysis who likes to pretend an MLB front office job isn't good enough for him, or someone with a professional background in statistical analysis who likes to talk down to people without the same background and experience you do.

Either way, giant tool.

Software engineer that writes analytical tools used by mathematicians in the casino gaming industry. I ensure that you lose when you step foot into a casino. I also ensure the math behind your loss is completely legal.

And no, I'm not taking 1/3 of my current salary to work in the MLB front office, no matter how cool it would be.

I'm such a tool, but you guys sure spend a lot of time thinking and chatting about me. How pathetic does that make you?

 

[GovClintonTyree]

Haha, seriously, how much time do you guys spend thinking about me?

It's weird.

You and the rest of the Goof Troop insinuate I lie about my personal life. So what exactly have I lied about?

Nowhere in my very complete analysis did I say that you lied. I postulated about your motives for spending so much time here convincing your goofy friends that you are right about things that are interesting, but hardly life and death. Entirely too big an investment, in my judgment. As I read one of your diatribes, often aggressive or insulting, my mind wanders to, "why?" And that's what I've come up with.

I know for my part, I was a fantasy sports dynamo when I had a ****ty marriage, even with my aversion to eighth-generation advanced stats.

 

[Enscheff]

Nowhere in my very complete analysis did I say that you lied. I postulated about your motives for spending so much time here convincing your goofy friends that you are right about things that are interesting, but hardly life and death. Entirely too big an investment, in my judgment. As I read one of your diatribes, often aggressive or insulting, my mind wanders to, "why?" And that's what I've come up with.

I know for my part, I was a fantasy sports dynamo when I had a ****ty marriage, even with my aversion to eighth-generation advanced stats.

A lot of lot mini-breaks at work while code compiles and/or tests run. Lends itself very well to reading 1000 word articles or spending a few minutes looking up some stats.

If I had the time to actually get into it I would write a tool for calculating expected runs values for real time scenarios that could be used in the dugout to assist in making decisions. Or I would get ahold of statcast data and come up with a better way to rate defenders based on real data about the ground they cover.

 

[Managuarantano's Volunteers]

A lot of lot mini-breaks at work while code compiles and/or tests run. Lends itself very well to reading 1000 word articles or spending a few minutes looking up some stats.

If I had the time to actually get into it I would write a tool for calculating expected runs values for real time scenarios that could be used in the dugout to assist in making decisions. Or I would get ahold of statcast data and come up with a better way to rate defenders based on real data about the ground they cover.

I don't usually wish for people to have more time off of work, but when I do, I prefer it for Enscheff.

 

[blueagleace1]

Software engineer that writes analytical tools used by mathematicians in the casino gaming industry. I ensure that you lose when you step foot into a casino. I also ensure the math behind your loss is completely legal.

And no, I'm not taking 1/3 of my current salary to work in the MLB front office, no matter how cool it would be.

I'm such a tool, but you guys sure spend a lot of time thinking and chatting about me. How pathetic does that make you?

Can you go into more detail if possible? Always been curious about this.

 

[Enscheff]

Can you go into more detail if possible? Always been curious about this.

Games are designed to pay out 90%-95% of the money players put into them. Over time, you will lose. If someone tells you they are ahead over a long period of time, they are lying.

The gaming control board goes to great lengths to ensure there is nothing shady going on. For example, contrary to what some folks insist, there's no mechanism that forces someone to win or lose because a machine is paying out too little or too much. The machine simply pays out 90% of what you put in, and since the casino has essentially unlimited money compared to players, they can afford to wait out the streakiness until you inevitably run out of money.

One of the biggest projects I worked on was to take these games and simulate their entire reel cycle. This meant calculating every single possible result (tens of billions, maybe even trillions of total outcomes), and counting it all up to make sure the game paid exactly the percentage it was supposed to pay. Make sure the game had the intended volatility, win frequency, bonus frequency, average win amount, etc.

 

[blueagleace1]

Games are designed to pay out 90%-95% of the money players put into them. Over time, you will lose. If someone tells you they are ahead over a long period of time, they are lying.

The gaming control board goes to great lengths to ensure there is nothing shady going on. For example, contrary to what some folks insist, there's no mechanism that forces someone to win or lose because a machine is paying out too little or too much. The machine simply pays out 90% of what you put in, and since the casino has essentially unlimited money compared to players, they can afford to wait out the streakiness until you inevitably run out of money.

One of the biggest projects I worked on was to take these games and simulate their entire reel cycle. This meant calculating every single possible result (tens of billions, maybe even trillions of total outcomes), and counting it all up to make sure the game paid exactly the percentage it was supposed to pay. Make sure the game had the intended volatility, win frequency, bonus frequency, average win amount, etc.

Assuming this is just for slots?

 

[jimsnores]

Games are designed to pay out 90%-95% of the money players put into them. Over time, you will lose. If someone tells you they are ahead over a long period of time, they are lying.

The gaming control board goes to great lengths to ensure there is nothing shady going on. For example, contrary to what some folks insist, there's no mechanism that forces someone to win or lose because a machine is paying out too little or too much. The machine simply pays out 90% of what you put in, and since the casino has essentially unlimited money compared to players, they can afford to wait out the streakiness until you inevitably run out of money.

One of the biggest projects I worked on was to take these games and simulate their entire reel cycle. This meant calculating every single possible result (tens of billions, maybe even trillions of total outcomes), and counting it all up to make sure the game paid exactly the percentage it was supposed to pay. Make sure the game had the intended volatility, win frequency, bonus frequency, average win amount, etc.

I don't gamble, but I appreciate the explanation. I thought the margin for the house was a little smaller than that. Is 90 percent payout pretty standard? I had heard at some point that it was closer to 97, which still made them plenty because so much money went through. Ten or even five percent is crazy money, I am sure. It is somewhat interesting, and somewhat pertinent to some of the stats discussions on here, because the phrase "small sample size" is so often thrown out. Small sample size certainly doesn't apply to the work you are doing.

 

[50PoundHead]

Games are designed to pay out 90%-95% of the money players put into them. Over time, you will lose. If someone tells you they are ahead over a long period of time, they are lying.

The gaming control board goes to great lengths to ensure there is nothing shady going on. For example, contrary to what some folks insist, there's no mechanism that forces someone to win or lose because a machine is paying out too little or too much. The machine simply pays out 90% of what you put in, and since the casino has essentially unlimited money compared to players, they can afford to wait out the streakiness until you inevitably run out of money.

One of the biggest projects I worked on was to take these games and simulate their entire reel cycle. This meant calculating every single possible result (tens of billions, maybe even trillions of total outcomes), and counting it all up to make sure the game paid exactly the percentage it was supposed to pay. Make sure the game had the intended volatility, win frequency, bonus frequency, average win amount, etc.

I have an ex-in-law who has a background in statistics and he's making a quite a living helping design games for casinos like Enscheff does. The goal is exactly what Enscheff points out.

 

[smootness]

Lotteries, scratch-offs, etc....they all work the same way. It cracked me up to no end in college when one of my friends continued to insist that he won money over time playing scratch-offs...he couldn't seem to comprehend that the only reason for them to sell them is to make money, and the only way they make money is if you lose it.

 

[Enscheff]

Assuming this is just for slots?

Slots, video poker, keno, state lotteries, scratchers, all the same. My company produces all of them, and all of them are statistically designed to give the house an edge of a few percentage points.

And smoot is right, someone may come out ahead for a day, or a week, but not overall. Psychologically, humans remember the positive stimulation of winning more than they remember losing...that's how the whole gaming industry works.

Data analysis in baseball solves that very same psychological issue. If folks actually tracked the money they lost and could see historic data about how much money others have lost on a site called GamblerGraphs or GamblerReference, nobody would gamble. But because they only know what they "see" and "feel", they think they are coming out ahead or have the chance to come out ahead.

 

[Enscheff]

I don't gamble, but I appreciate the explanation. I thought the margin for the house was a little smaller than that. Is 90 percent payout pretty standard? I had heard at some point that it was closer to 97, which still made them plenty because so much money went through. Ten or even five percent is crazy money, I am sure. It is somewhat interesting, and somewhat pertinent to some of the stats discussions on here, because the phrase "small sample size" is so often thrown out. Small sample size certainly doesn't apply to the work you are doing.

Payout is configurable by the casino. We provide paytables up to 98% sometimes. In the end, it doesn't matter though. Folks will play until they lose all their money, whether they lose it at a 90% rate or 97% rate. That's why drinks are free when you gamble, and buffets are 99 cents...to keep you there.

Casino finances are literally planned around every person that walks through the door losing all their disposable income before they leave. The only variable that's really tweaked is play rate, or how much time it takes to get their money.

We do run into small sample size issues sometimes though, especially on newly installed machines. About once a month I get forwarded a frantic email by a sales guy from a casino operator who is angry that the new machines are paying 110% after the first night. Typically some lucky person hit a large progressive very soon after the machines go live, and that skews the payout for a little while. My answer is always, "small sample size, give it another night to stabilize". There has never, ever, been a game that doesn't make money for the casino.

 

[Managuarantano's Volunteers]

This stuff about gambling is pretty interesting. Maybe not most interesting man in the world level, though.

 

[gilesfan]

Casino's wouldn't be in business if they lost money. Actually, they are more at risk for going out of business when people don't visit (Atlantic City)

Winning at the casino can be done if you are good at poker or can count cards and are disciplined at blackjack. The problem is it is easy to get caught counting.

 

[sturg33]

I can safely say I have never won at a casino... and I've gone more than I care to admit. I play mostly BJ... and I play it by the book. I double down when I should, split when I should, etc... and I have NEVER lef thte casino with more than I started.

The sad part is often time I'll lose $500 on 12 hands and just call it a night. I keep saying I'll never go back... but I have enough friends who have $200 bucks and think they will leave with thousands the next time. So I get dragged back with the crew.

One night in Vegas I was SMASHED and lost $3K. Kept thinking I'd win it back and just never did.

As far as lotto tickets... I only play when the payout is better than the odds. Of course, I've never won... but if I do, I can ensure you that over the long haul I'll have been a winner

 

[gilesfan]

I can safely say I have never won at a casino... and I've gone more than I care to admit. I play mostly BJ... and I play it by the book. I double down when I should, split when I should, etc... and I have NEVER lef thte casino with more than I started.

The sad part is often time I'll lose $500 on 12 hands and just call it a night. I keep saying I'll never go back... but I have enough friends who have $200 bucks and think they will leave with thousands the next time. So I get dragged back with the crew.

One night in Vegas I was SMASHED and lost $3K. Kept thinking I'd win it back and just never did.

As far as lotto tickets... I only play when the payout is better than the odds. Of course, I've never won... but if I do, I can ensure you that over the long haul I'll have been a winner

It isn't possible for you to have played a significant amount of time with blackjack and not won money, once.

Getting rich quick does happen. I've had it happen and I've also been with a dude that turned $50 into 10k in less than 2 hours.