Someone has gone 'round the bend...

LOL@Statman
Wizwar?

So, I went to the Rancocas Valley Journal of Applied Mathematics website today. I was interested in whether or not the worlds most idiotic statement about gaming math was still up on that site. It is - look at the 3rd paragraph. While I was there I happened to notice the above two sections. I'm not sure if it's more pathetic that Statman wrote them, or that I looked at them at 11pm on a Friday night. I was about to preemptively defend myself by blaming a slight lack of sobriety, but then it occured to me that a lot would be explained by Statman's possible drunkenness...

Mother of God....

This can't be...

It's not really...

Is this... for REAL?!

GOD I love the internet!

Thank you, rdw. I found that concerningly enjoyable, well done =)

There are so many things wrong with that article, I chose to copy the entire thing. Note that it also took me FOUR attempts to access it. The first three times, the link in the first post appeared to be broken.

Although the Wiz doesn't like us to copy entire articles, I feel justified, since this author has so badly mis-quoted the Wiz' surveys.

Quote:

Sorry, I had to remove this quotation as being excessive. No matter how ridiculous the source, please respect copyright on my site. -- Wiz

The second paragraph makes it obvious that the author is math challenged. I particularly like "... so as to give the house about the same edge." About? Try exactly the same edge.

The fourth paragraph makes it obvious this author believes that the spin is not random, and that the dealer can hit a specific number as desired. Um, yeah, whatever.


But the point of this thread, paragraph 3, has my head spinning.

That author's page has been up for a long time, since it links to a WoO page, which points to a new page on WoV. I linked the correct page. On the WoV survey page all the casinos are listed, along with the types of Roulette wheels offered. There are indeed 5 casinos listed with "None". But the heading on that column is "Roulette" not "Number of Zeroes". Those five casinos don't have Roulette at all!

But even more amazing is the last sentence of paragraph 3. If such a no-zero wheel existed, there would be no house advantage on any bet! I don't know where his 2.78% came from. But the last statement that it can be beaten? Even a zero edge wheel can't be beat! The best you can hope for is to remain even.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If a casino were to offer a zero edge game, the player would still lose because of the occasional losing streaks, combined with either using a system like Martingale and hitting the table limit, or just hitting a bankroll limit, or both.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

If a casino were to offer a zero edge game, the player would still lose because of the occasional losing streaks, combined with either using a system like Martingale and hitting the table limit, or just hitting a bankroll limit, or both.

I believe in the very early days of roulette, the wheel had
no zero and the house still came out ahead. People tended
to 'reinvest' their winnings until their BR was gone. If you're
in an even game with the house, there's no expectation
of winning in the long run, instead of a negative expectation.
Either way you're still screwed.

This is awful. 35/37 = .946?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

But even more amazing is the last sentence of paragraph 3. If such a no-zero wheel existed, there would be no house advantage on any bet! I don't know where his 2.78% came from. But the last statement that it can be beaten? Even a zero edge wheel can't be beat! The best you can hope for is to remain even.

I've been thinking about this since I posted last night. 1/38=2.78%. At first, I thought Statman was accidentally assuming a for-1 payout on the inside bets. And that may well be a part of the error involved here. But, more than that, a no-zero wheel only has 36 numbers on it...

Quote: boymimbo

This is awful. 35/37 = .946?

I think that's 35 to 1 for the inside hit, -1 for the author's foolishness equals a net of 35 for 1 on the payout.
(number of non-zeros)/(number of spaces) is mind-numbingly easy math. Also, there are about 567,841 places to easily look up the house edge on a single-zero roulette wheel.. Somehow, Statman has failed to derive the correct payout to the player via either method.

Quote: rdw4potus

I think that's 35 to 1 for the inside hit, -1 for the author's foolishness equals a net of 35 for 1 on the payout.
(number of non-zeros)/(number of spaces) is mind-numbingly easy math. Also, there are about 567,841 places to easily look up the house edge on a single-zero roulette wheel.. Somehow, Statman has failed to derive the correct payout to the player via either method.

Aye, even I can manage that level math. What I find curious (or maybe I just haven't seen it yet) is why none of his "students" or other people he's supposedly been conversing with have pointed out this error. I mean, not to be intentionally insulting, but that is quite literally 3rd or 4th grade math. What gives?

Quote: Face

Aye, even I can manage that level math. What I find curious (or maybe I just haven't seen it yet) is why none of his "students" or other people he's supposedly been conversing with have pointed out this error. I mean, not to be intentionally insulting, but that is quite literally 3rd or 4th grade math. What gives?

Funny you should mention the students. The internet has been unable to point me towards anyone at all named Percy Dunhill or Nancy Lapp who lives in New Jersey (they "wrote" the "articles" on the WizWar page). In fact, the Internet can't seem to find any Percy Dunhill's at all. There are a few Nancy Lapps, but none who are the age of a conventional college student or who reside within commuting distance to Marlton, NJ. Perhaps more interestingly, I can't find Marlton College. Google and Bing both return 0 direct hits for the school name, and the Department of Education's Office of Postsecondary Education has no record of an accreditation for a school with that name. I guess if Marlton College were unaccredited and didn't bother to do any online marketing at all, that would go a long way to explaining why someone as mathematically deficient as Statman would be allowed to "chair" the math department.

Quote: Face

literally

Ack!!!

I searched for the word "literally" on this site using the search feature and got this:

"298 threads were found matching your search"

please ... people ... please ...