Mathematicians Fallacy (Baccarat)
Quote: GamblorYou can't be serious. Do you actually think those examples are comparable? You are grasping at straws now. There multiple outcomes of lottery to say the least. If you had to pick between banker or player for the lottery, then yeah it would be the same. This examples just shows me the depth of the Mathematicians fallacy. You try to compare baccarat to lottery, and imply I'm uneducated.
I don't think anyone's saying you're uneducated. I do think, however, that we are all questioning what sort of foundation you have in mathematics. Judging from your arguments, you have little--if any--training or practical, real-world experience in any field involving math. Probability is not a guarantee, but for some reason you seem to insist that it is, or imply that the math experts on this forum say it is. But no one on this forum has ever argued that, nor would they. 99% (and by the way, it's 99% not %99) of something happening is not a guarantee that it will happen. When it comes to gambling, there is but one guarantee: if you play long enough in a casino--whether at baccarat, roulette, craps, whatever game you choose--you are guaranteed to lose. That said, can anyone ever walk away a winner, even though the odds are against them? Of course they can, over a short period of time. More than a few people do, thanks to knowledge of the game; a good, solid strategy; and a bit of luck.
Sadly, your pseudo-intellectual conceit, coupled with your rather obnoxious style of arguing by insult and intimidation shows you are nothing but a bully. You are unable to prove your point. Frankly, I'm not really sure what your point is, anyway. You've contributed nothing of substance to either of the threads that you've engaged in. You came on this site with a chip on your shoulder, daring someone to knock it off. There are more than a few folks on this site that are only too happy to do that, and when they do, you resort to insults. Not very mature. You seem to want respect, yet you don't show any to anyone else. Do you really think that anyone here is going to accept the nonsense that you've been putting out? Get real.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYou are certain to go broke if you play long enough. The 2nd part is the important part. It does not imply that anything is due, that is why you have to keep playing (if it was due, you could be guaranteed with some deadline. But it is not due -- it can take any amount of time)
If one plays long enough? To infinite correct? Well we both know that's not happening. So really does it carry and weight? Since playing for a "small" amount of time in comparison to infinite means what exactly? Is our lifetime "small" in comparison to infinity? If so, then the closer I get to infinity and it's probability means nothing because it will never happen. So in my small lifetime of playing I could end up ahead or behind. No one can be certain, not even mathematicians.
Quote: rdw4potusWho is claiming to know the future? You are claiming that I am claiming that, but I'm not. Nobody is.
Also, can't help but notice that you skipped over my last post about the bacc bets. If banker and player are equally likely, why is there a 5% commission on banker? If they're equally likely and there's a 5% commission on banker, who would ever play that bet? Isn't the commission a very strong indication that banker is more likely than player?
Sorry bro, hard to field all the questions/ statements. You claim to know the future when you say you will go broke playing baccarat. I didn't say they were equally likely, or maybe I did by misrepresentation. I mean it's a %50 you are right. Banker very well could come up more, are you going to put your life savings on banker bets in the belief banker hits more? The math says it's true. Go sit at a table and see how that theory holds up. If the math says it, must be true. So I challenge you to sit and wager everything you have on baker because it's a mathematical certainty you will win %51 of the hands. That outcome is just as likely as going broke the longer you play.
Quote: GamblorIf one plays long enough? To infinite correct? Well we both know that's not happening. So really does it carry and weight? Since playing for a "small" amount of time in comparison to infinite means what exactly? Is our lifetime "small" in comparison to infinity? If so, then the closer I get to infinity and it's probability means nothing because it will never happen. So in my small lifetime of playing I could end up ahead or behind. No one can be certain, not even mathematicians.
It won't take forever. It will take a while and that might be longer than you will play. Do you have an estimate of how many hands you will play?
Quote: PaboI don't think anyone's saying you're uneducated. I do think, however, that we are all questioning what sort of foundation you have in mathematics. Judging from your arguments, you have little--if any--training or practical, real-world experience in any field involving math. Probability is not a guarantee, but for some reason you seem to insist that it is, or imply that the math experts on this forum say it is. But no one on this forum has ever argued that, nor would they. 99% (and by the way, it's 99% not %99) of something happening is not a guarantee that it will happen. When it comes to gambling, there is but one guarantee: if you play long enough in a casino--whether at baccarat, roulette, craps, whatever game you choose--you are guaranteed to lose. That said, can anyone ever walk away a winner, even though the odds are against them? Of course they can, over a short period of time. More than a few people do, thanks to knowledge of the game; a good, solid strategy; and a bit of luck.
Sadly, your pseudo-intellectual conceit, coupled with your rather obnoxious style of arguing by insult and intimidation shows you are nothing but a bully. You are unable to prove your point. Frankly, I'm not really sure what your point is, anyway. You've contributed nothing of substance to either of the threads that you've engaged in. You came on this site with a chip on your shoulder, daring someone to knock it off. There are more than a few folks on this site that are only too happy to do that, and when they do, you resort to insults. Not very mature. You seem to want respect, yet you don't show any to anyone else. Do you really think that anyone here is going to accept the nonsense that you've been putting out? Get real.
Another classic example of mathmaticans fallacy. "Probability is not a guarantee, but if you gamble long enough it's guaranteed you lose". You contradict yourself within the same sentence basically. The cards don't know how long or short I've been playing. Every hand is essentially the first hand. Thinking otherwise is fallacy.
Quote: endermikeIt won't take forever. It will take a while and that might be longer than you will play. Do you have an estimate of how many hands you will play?
No estimate of hands right now, but probably until I run out of money ;)
Quote: GamblorNo estimate of hands right now, but probably until I run out of money ;)
Yeah, that would be tough to estimate. I don't know how may hands of blackjack I am yet to play. How bout an easier way of getting to what we need. How many hands do you play in a day where you do play baccarat?
For me the answer (in blackjack) is probably 200-400 (depending on a huge number of factors).
Quote: endermikeYeah, that would be tough to estimate. I don't know how may hands of blackjack I am yet to play. How bout an easier way of getting to what we need. How many hands do you play in a day where you do play baccarat?
For me the answer (in blackjack) is probably 200-400 (depending on a huge number of factors).
I feel like I'm being set up by a bunch of math after I give my answer. It varies but I'd say average 20 hands.
Quote: GamblorAnother classic example of mathmaticans fallacy. "Probability is not a guarantee, but if you gamble long enough it's guaranteed you lose". You contradict yourself within the same sentence basically. The cards don't know how long or short I've been playing.
If you are going to quote someone, then at least try and quote them correctly. You not only got my comments wrong, you draw the wrong conclusion. I didn't contradict myself. Please re-read my comments.
Quote: PaboIf you are going to quote someone, then at least try and quote them correctly. You not only got my comments wrong, you draw the wrong conclusion. I didn't contradict myself. Please re-read my comments.
Bro, you see things in black and white. I'm trying to invite you over to the grey area, there's lots of room. It's late, I'll re-read and get back tomorrow. The length of time you play as a factor, uses the previous hands in consideration, or it would be your first hand. So to say the longer you play takes the previous hands into consideration. But we both know the hands have nothing to do with each other. So how could the length of time matter when each hand is independent of the next.
Quote: GamblorI feel like I'm being set up by a bunch of math after I give my answer. It varies but I'd say average 20 hands.
Loosely, yes you are being set up. However, the downside is rather slight. Given flat betting, on any given run of 20 hands we would guess you would be even or be ahead on that session around 47.6% of the time. After 10 sessions, we would guess you would be even or ahead in total around 44% of the time.
Same story summarized and pushed one step further:
| Sessions | Hands | Percent Chance being even or ahead |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20 | 47.6% |
| 10 | 200 | 44% |
| 100 | 2000 | 31% |
Baccarat is a nearly even game. It take the Central Limit Theorem tremendous amounts of time to dominate the results. You may not live to see the downswing, plenty of folks don't. However, the reason the house deals the game is because over time for all those player who fortune favors, there are an equal number who it does not. Further, those in the middle feel that slow slight drift away. Best of luck, but don't gamble what you can't afford to lose. (Or stick to poker, you said you play that, right?)
Quote: PaboI don't think anyone's saying you're uneducated.
I was kind of implying it.
Certainly, uneducated when it comes to math. Or trolling. No one with any math education could believe this nonsense.
Quote: endermikeLoosely, yes you are being set up. However, the downside is rather slight. Given flat betting, on any given run of 20 hands we would guess you would be even or be ahead on that session around 47.6% of the time. After 10 sessions, we would guess you would be even or ahead in total around 44% of the time.
Same story summarized and pushed one step further:
Sessions Hands Percent Chance being even or ahead 1 20 47.6% 10 200 44% 100 2000 31%
Baccarat is a nearly even game. It take the Central Limit Theorem tremendous amounts of time to dominate the results. You may not live to see the downswing, plenty of folks don't. However, the reason the house deals the game is because over time for all those player who fortune favors, there are an equal number who it does not. Further, those in the middle feel that slow slight drift away. Best of luck, but don't gamble what you can't afford to lose. (Or stick to poker, you said you play that, right?)
Thanks for all the info friend. But those stats of what is probable are way off. Thus proving is all bull. You can expect until the cows come home, doesn't mean it's going to happen. Expecting an outcome based on previous hands is blanking Mathmaticians fallacy, how is it so hard to accept? Saying by hand 200 I'll be at 44%, is using those previous 200 hands. Thinking an outcome is going to happen based on prior hands is gamblers fallacy. Each hand is random and independent of the previous. When you say by hand 200, that not using previous hands to determine an outcome? Cuz if it's not... Then I don't know what is.
Catch you tomorrow
Just the same, wherever you are after 200 hands, you've narrowed down the "world" to those where you're at exactly that amount, and your chance of being above or below your new baseline 2000 hands later is again 31%. The probability of being above or below your old baseline in 1800 hands, though, has changed, due to the information of the past few hands. Just because the probabilities will change before the proposition is resolved doesn't mean you can't speak of them in advance.
Quote: GamblorBro, you see things in black and white. I'm trying to invite you over to the grey area, there's lots of room. It's late, I'll re-read and get back tomorrow. The length of time you play as a factor, uses the previous hands in consideration, or it would be your first hand. So to say the longer you play takes the previous hands into consideration. But we both know the hands have nothing to do with each other. So how could the length of time matter when each hand is independent of the next.
True, each hand is independent of previous hands. No argument there. But as you well know, Baccarat is designed so that Banker is a slight favorite over Player, which, by definition, makes it not an even game. You can ignore Tie and limit your bet selection to either Banker or Player, but you can't claim that the game is then a 50/50 proposition when the rules favor one side over the other. It's akin to saying a coin which is altered to land on heads more often than tails is still a 50/50 proposition. It isn't. The rules of the game (and, hence, the math) says that Banker is more likely to win than Player on any given hand. Still, that's not a guarantee, just a probability.
You not only have to consider house edge in Baccarat, but as others have pointed out earlier, you also have to consider commission, which eats into your Banker winnings and affects your bottomline (i.e. how much money you have in your wallet at the end of the day). On paper you can have 50% wins and 50% losses and appear to be even, but your wallet may tell you a very different story. For example, assume you flat bet and win 50% of your bets (ignoring Ties). If even one of your winning bets is a Banker, then you are not even, thanks to the commission. Sure, you look even on paper (50% wins versus 50% losses), but you'll be a loser where it really counts: your bankroll. Of course, if you play no commission Baccarat (EZ Bac), then commission is not an issue, but the house still has the edge over you, just as it does in every other game the casino offers. Banker will still be favored over Player; therefore, Baccarat is not a 50/50 game.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI was kind of implying it.
Certainly, uneducated when it comes to math. Or trolling. No one with any math education could believe this nonsense.
Ha! You are probably correct on both counts, AoC. And the comment about "being in the Zone." Sounds like voodoo magic or transcendental nonsense to me. Yeah, I'm sure that's the way to go to develop a winning strategy. Train to be in The Zone. Still waiting to learn what his strategy is, but I doubt we'll learn anything useful. Much like the gr8player's blathering. Totally devoid of anything of substance.
http://sharktankblog.com/business/sullivan-generator/
Quote: Gamblorthat bethoven9 guy made a new alias as novicegambler.
Only one person would make an accusation like this. He plays at Fallsview. :D
Quote: Beethoven9thOnly one person would make an accusation like this. He plays at Fallsview. :D
Some of guys are worse than politician attack ads with your "quotes". It wasn't an accusation, it was a happy ending to a story, I chose to fill in. I'm not accusing you. I made it clear, I chose to tell myself that for closure.
You guys are wasting your time with detailed rebuttals and analysis. I suggest keeping replies down to a short paragraph or less, because you won't win the argument anyway.
The OP is from the realm inhabited by conspiracy theorists, religious fanatics, and other advocates of unconventional "science" (e.g., alternative medicine, paranormal phenomena, and perpetual motion machines). They all begin with a particular conclusion, then work backward to validate their incorrect idea. In this case, the idea is that math is useless. Any contrary arguments will be discarded as either irrelevant or wrong (because you can't be certain).
Quote: michael9900012 pages of a troll arguing something he knows is wrong just to be annoying.. I wish the Admins could close these threads quicker and nuke the starter. Its a waste of space.
Just because someone doesn't agree with your Vodoo numbers, doesn't make them a troll. The fact that you think you can predict an outcome of random events is the same thing as me thinking 3 bankers in a row, don't bet against the streak...
I'm simply saying when you say the outcome is probability 1 of going broke on a 50% game, that you will go broke with Certainty, that is Mathmaticians fallacy.
You claim it's not a 50% to win. It is. So, according to you, one band out of every 100 will be. An extra banker? That is such a non event it shouldn't even be talked about. Take a hundred random hands, if they don't add up to 49 players and 51 bankers (excluding ties) the. The whole system falls apart. I'm simply saying while math may say the probability, it's says zero for the reality. Just because something "should be", has no real basis on what it will be. Mathmaticians fallacy.
Quote: gpac1377Interesting thread.
You guys are wasting your time with detailed rebuttals and analysis. I suggest keeping replies down to a short paragraph or less, because you won't win the argument anyway.
The OP is from the realm inhabited by conspiracy theorists, religious fanatics, and other advocates of unconventional "science" (e.g., alternative medicine, paranormal phenomena, and perpetual motion machines). They all begin with a particular conclusion, then work backward to validate their incorrect idea. In this case, the idea is that math is useless. Any contrary arguments will be discarded as either irrelevant or wrong (because you can't be certain).
Thanks for the positive points. As you make me sound like a crackpot, believing in wild things. Math proves there are multiple universes and dimensions than our own. That EVERy possibility is REAL and happens. So If every possibility is happening and real and the same time, how can you even try to claim with certainty one possibility WILL happen. That my friend is Vodoo if you ask me. I'm not saying math is useless, it's just as useful as trend spotting, in reality.
The phrase real mathematicians (it's spelt with an 'e' by the way) might use to dispel this 'fallacy' is "asymptotically almost surely". As in: if you play a -EV game like Baccarat for a long time, asymptotically almost surely you will go broke. The longer you play the more almost sure I become.
Similar to how I'm asymptotically almost sure this thread will result in a suspension.
Now I'm done feeding the trolls.
Quote: dwheatleyI don't trust anyone who quotes themselves on a website that sells a service or a product.
The phrase real mathematicians (it's spelt with an 'e' by the way) might use to dispel this 'fallacy' is "asymptotically almost surely". As in: if you play a -EV game like Baccarat for a long time, asymptotically almost surely you will go broke. The longer you play the more almost sure I become.
Similar to how I'm asymptotically almost sure this thread will result in a suspension.
Now I'm done feeding the trolls.
That's exactly my point. Almost sure means nil in reality.
I'm almost sure there will be a 4th banker...
And for you to imply I'm selling something shows how you cant stick to the argument and must use insults and made up stories to try to prove your argument valid.
Suspend someone for speaking their views on a forum. If you don't want different concepts and ideas, make it a read only site. You must have used your math probabilities to come up with that conclusion also.
We will see, since you are so sure I will be suspended, if in reality I'm not, your sure thing is as good as fecal matter.
Quote: GamblorAs you make me sound like a crackpot, believing in wild things.
Sorry, but I'm trying to help the thread move forward.
My theory is that the tower collapses were faked. I've carefully analyzed the video, and I detect straight-line seams consistent with Lego pieces.
Quote: gpac1377Sorry, but I'm trying to help the thread move forward.
My theory is that the tower collapses were faked. I've carefully analyzed the video, and I detect straight-line seams consistent with Lego pieces.
If you really look at the evidence as a mathematician is supposed to, the only conclusion is 9/11 was an inside job, minimum they had knowledge of it.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't watching you ;).
I realize that statement is ammo for my math friends, and probably put me on some US watch list, but I'm speaking my views, honestly. Not "trolling" to those who think so. And just because my views are different from yours, doesn't make you right.
My main point is for you to say something will happen, based on your calculations, means nothing in reality. I'll also throw out the word "chaos theory"
"Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including meteorology, physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general..."
Rendering long-term prediction impossible in general...
Mathematicians Fallacy.
But yet, we have quantum entanglement.
Math can say one thing, reality can disagree.
That is the foundation of mathematicians fallacy.
Quote: IbeatyouracesWho cares! Just go to the damn casino and bankrupt them.
Great argument. "Who cares, go and bankrupt them"
Pure nonsense.
I'm not claiming I can bankrupt them, or win every time.
But you are claiming the opposite to be a fact.
The fact is I'm ahead. So after x hands, when according to your math, the only way to go is down, I'm a living example that the math is not fact.
At infinity you say you are 100% broke, no one can play to infinity. So that conclusion has no basis in reality. At a finite number you could be up or down. That is exactly what I'm saying.
Quote: Gamblor
The fact is I'm ahead. So after x hands, when according to your math, the only way to go is down, I'm a living example that the math is not fact.
You misunderstand. Down is not "the only way to go". It is simply slightly more likely.
Do you understand a bell curve? Here is one for a 50/50 event, like a coin flip...
That line in the middle represents 50/50. Let the blue line represent a million people who have performed 100 coin flips. While a coin flip is 50/50, it is not set in stone that you'll have 50 heads and 50 tails. Mostly, it'll be close, as evidence by the blue line being the most right in the center, but there are outliers. There are those who are "lucky" and won way more, and those that are "unlucky" who have won way less.
In a casino game, the line at "0" is slid to the right a little bit. As you can picture, that'll put more people in the loser column. But it does not erase the winners. Some people will still perform above expectation. Some will play the coin flip game 100 times a week for their entire life and still die a winner. Not because the math is wrong, but exactly because the math says so.
No one says you can't win. No one says you have to lose. The math just shows that, as you continue to play, you're more likely to do so.
Your past results don't indicate how you will do in the future in baccarat. You may go up from here, but you are more likely to go down.Quote: GamblorThe fact is I'm ahead. So after x hands, when according to your math, the only way to go is down, I'm a living example that the math is not fact.
You don't have to go all the way to infinity. Large finite numbers of replications is enough, that's why the house tends to win. You are at small finite numbers, you are up, congrats. Don't gamble what you can't afford to lose.Quote: GamblorAt infinity you say you are 100% broke, no one can play to infinity. So that conclusion has no basis in reality. At a finite number you could be up or down. That is exactly what I'm saying.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI didn't claim squat. Don't put words into my mouth!
This is about Mathematicians Fallacy. I'm saying your math is as good a tool as my "ZoNE" in reality to determine the outcome of a players final tally at the baccarat table. Especially saying the final tally is guaranteed to be zero.
That is a false statement with no basis in reality.
Quote: FaceYou misunderstand. Down is not "the only way to go". It is simply slightly more likely.
Do you understand a bell curve? Here is one for a 50/50 event, like a coin flip...
That line in the middle represents 50/50. Let the blue line represent a million people who have performed 100 coin flips. While a coin flip is 50/50, it is not set in stone that you'll have 50 heads and 50 tails. Mostly, it'll be close, as evidence by the blue line being the most right in the center, but there are outliers. There are those who are "lucky" and won way more, and those that are "unlucky" who have won way less.
In a casino game, the line at "0" is slid to the right a little bit. As you can picture, that'll put more people in the loser column. But it does not erase the winners. Some people will still perform above expectation. Some will play the coin flip game 100 times a week for their entire life and still die a winner. Not because the math is wrong, but exactly because the math says so.
No one says you can't win. No one says you have to lose. The math just shows that, as you continue to play, you're more likely to do so.
Thank you for your great input. I agree with you. The reason I wanted to bring up Mathematicians Fallacy is because the majority of people in the baccarat threads were saying it's guaranteed to hit zero, if you play long enough. (To infinity, come on, that's not possible).
I'm glad you agree with me that you could be a winner or loser, over a lifetime. Not just the "short term" as many claim.
Your comments were very helpful.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI've not used any math in this thread, nor have I said you were right or wrong. I'm just saying, "go play" and "who cares what others think."
Sorry bro, guess I was a bit on the defensive. It seems we have reached somewhat of an agreement. The math really says anything is possible. Likely means squadouche.
I get on the elevator.
I can't press any buttons. Only ride the "wave" up and down.
Will I make it to the top floor or the bottom floor first?
Impossible to know unless I actually ride the elevator.
Quote: GamblorIf I start off in the middle of a 100 story building.
I get on the elevator.
I can't press any buttons. Only ride the "wave" up and down.
Will I make it to the top floor or the bottom floor first?
Impossible to know unless I actually ride the elevator.
Yup, but sadly the baccarat elevator (a person's bankroll) tends to go down slightly more often than up. Don't gamble what you can't afford to lose.
Quote: Gamblor
Thank you for your great input. I agree with you. The reason I wanted to bring up Mathematicians Fallacy is because the majority of people in the baccarat threads were saying it's guaranteed to hit zero, if you play long enough. (To infinity, come on, that's not possible).
I'm glad you agree with me that you could be a winner or loser, over a lifetime. Not just the "short term" as many claim.
Your comments were very helpful.
I'm not so sure that even a lifetime isn't short term. I suppose it depends on how much one plays.
I don't think there's anyone who said you cannot win. I recall that one rugby player who incorrectly called the coin flip 36 times in a row, which has odds of a number I cannot say and contained well over 9 digits. Wild things happen. But even the wildness is predicted by the math of random events.
I think the only issue here is that you assign value to "the zone". The zone has many names. For you, it's simply the zone. For others, it's a system. For still others, it's luck. This Thing goes by a great many names that people use to assign it value, but in the end it is all just the same thing.
It's math.
Quote: FaceI recall that one rugby player who incorrectly called the coin flip 36 times in a row
Who was it?? The guy sounds like he has my luck. lol! :D
Thanks for the wonderful input. The only question I have is, on our rugby players 37th coin flip, is he more or less likely to guess incorrect again? Or is it back at ZERO and he has a 50/50 chance of being right?
Even though the math says he has 1 in xxxxxxxxxxxx chance to hit another loss, it means nothing.
The fact that he had 36 previous losses (or wins) has no impact on the reality of the next flip is still 50/50.
After 36 loses you would think he is mathematically more likely to get a win... But is he? No, he is again at 50/50.
Also, while I appreciate you acknowledging the "ZONE", it's definitely not math related. I think there is a fundamental difference is core beliefs.
Quote: IbeatyouracesWho cares! Just go to the damn casino and bankrupt them.
Well, someone will get bankrupted...
Quote: GamblorEven though the math says he has 1 in xxxxxxxxxxxx chance to hit another loss
Ohhhh, I see. The problem is that you don't understand conditional probability.
Anyway, the math says no such thing. The math says that he is 50/50 to get the next coin flip right. You are misstating the math, and then (surprisingly, correctly) saying that your misstatement is wrong.
Clearly, you know nothing about math. You should stop saying "the math say this" or "the math says that". You have no clue what the math says.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWell, someone will get bankrupted...
It's a 50/50 on whom :)
I recall that one rugby player who incorrectly called the coin flip 36 times in a row.
See what happens to the memory cells of hockey players. He thinks that actually happened !
Quote: Beethoven9thWho was it?? The guy sounds like he has my luck. lol! :D
I am currently going for the record for most video poker played without a royal flush. I have no idea what the record is, nor do I know exactly how many hands I've played, but I know that I passed 40,000 hands a long time ago.
Quote: Lemieux66It's a 50/50 on whom :)
lol!!!
