March 15th, 2017 at 9:45:39 AM
permalink
ThatDonGuy,
Wow. My equation wasn't even close. Although not all is lost. I learned how to fit data points to a line and get an equation from that fit. It's a pretty cool excel function. I tried a 4th order polynomial but exponential seemed to fit the best.
Wow. My equation wasn't even close. Although not all is lost. I learned how to fit data points to a line and get an equation from that fit. It's a pretty cool excel function. I tried a 4th order polynomial but exponential seemed to fit the best.
March 15th, 2017 at 11:53:42 AM
permalink
Quote: slackyhackyBbvk05,
If you always live your life without doing things that you know are faulty - then you are an amazing person. You should write a book about your travels and choices - that would be an inspiring and wonderful read.
I don't think that's what I said. I said it doesn't get you much credit. Most importantly, the faulty thing here is a superstitious belief. I'm sure I have superstitious beliefs, and I eradicate them when I find them.
March 15th, 2017 at 1:18:57 PM
permalink
Quote: bbvk05I'm sure I have superstitious beliefs, and I eradicate them when I find them.
Superstitious believe is a great weapon at a craps table. Turning bets off because of a tray lizard or stick change or .......
March 18th, 2017 at 10:23:59 PM
permalink
ThatDonGuy -
Your math skill are very impressive. Thanks for that. What is your background?
I have such a blind spot for stats.
Your math skill are very impressive. Thanks for that. What is your background?
I have such a blind spot for stats.
March 19th, 2017 at 12:38:22 PM
permalink
Quote: slackyhackyThatDonGuy -
Your math skill are very impressive. Thanks for that. What is your background?
I have such a blind spot for stats.
"Mathhead" pretty much from birth
Bachelor's degree in Computer Science from Cal-Berkeley, 1984
To be fair, I am not as much of a statistics expert as it appears here - sites like Wolfram Mathworld are my (and your) friend.
March 19th, 2017 at 2:24:25 PM
permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuyI couldn't calculate the numbers directly after 1050 - it seems that 0.492951051 exceeds the smallest possible positive value for a floating-point number in Visual Studio - but I did do a simulation of 250,000 sets of 32,000 bets, and got about a 3.65% chance of being ahead after 16,000 bets and 0.58% after 32,000.
Note that this does not take into account the possibility that your bankroll will run out before you reach 16,000 (or 32,000) bets. With infinite time and bankroll, every system that has the possibility of making money "works"...and I do mean infinite; I have run simulations where it took millions of years in order for a D'Alembert system on a 50-50 bet (i.e. house edge = zero) to make a profit.
So ya saying there is a chance?????
It's what you do and not what you say
If you're not part of the future then get out of the way
March 19th, 2017 at 3:50:30 PM
permalink
Quote: billryanQuote: ThatDonGuyI couldn't calculate the numbers directly after 1050 - it seems that 0.492951051 exceeds the smallest possible positive value for a floating-point number in Visual Studio - but I did do a simulation of 250,000 sets of 32,000 bets, and got about a 3.65% chance of being ahead after 16,000 bets and 0.58% after 32,000.
Note that this does not take into account the possibility that your bankroll will run out before you reach 16,000 (or 32,000) bets. With infinite time and bankroll, every system that has the possibility of making money "works"...and I do mean infinite; I have run simulations where it took millions of years in order for a D'Alembert system on a 50-50 bet (i.e. house edge = zero) to make a profit.
So ya saying there is a chance?????
Yes. There's also a "chance" that you will win 16,000 bets in a row. Not a very likely one, mind you, but it's greater than zero.
March 19th, 2017 at 4:17:07 PM
permalink
Fantastic!!!!!
It's what you do and not what you say
If you're not part of the future then get out of the way
April 1st, 2017 at 10:33:53 AM
permalink
Quote: billryanQuote: ThatDonGuyI couldn't calculate the numbers directly after 1050 - it seems that 0.492951051 exceeds the smallest possible positive value for a floating-point number in Visual Studio - but I did do a simulation of 250,000 sets of 32,000 bets, and got about a 3.65% chance of being ahead after 16,000 bets and 0.58% after 32,000.
Note that this does not take into account the possibility that your bankroll will run out before you reach 16,000 (or 32,000) bets. With infinite time and bankroll, every system that has the possibility of making money "works"...and I do mean infinite; I have run simulations where it took millions of years in order for a D'Alembert system on a 50-50 bet (i.e. house edge = zero) to make a profit.
So ya saying there is a chance?????
Haha. Love it.
April 3rd, 2017 at 10:50:49 PM
permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuyQuote: billryanQuote: ThatDonGuyI couldn't calculate the numbers directly after 1050 - it seems that 0.492951051 exceeds the smallest possible positive value for a floating-point number in Visual Studio - but I did do a simulation of 250,000 sets of 32,000 bets, and got about a 3.65% chance of being ahead after 16,000 bets and 0.58% after 32,000.
Note that this does not take into account the possibility that your bankroll will run out before you reach 16,000 (or 32,000) bets. With infinite time and bankroll, every system that has the possibility of making money "works"...and I do mean infinite; I have run simulations where it took millions of years in order for a D'Alembert system on a 50-50 bet (i.e. house edge = zero) to make a profit.
So ya saying there is a chance?????
Yes. There's also a "chance" that you will win 16,000 bets in a row. Not a very likely one, mind you, but it's greater than zero.
!!!Amazing!!!
