Negative Progression
Quote: tuttigymQuote: DieterQuote: sabreQuote: MichaelBluejayWhat's your evidence for this absurd claim?
link to original post
Live cards and roulette wheels have a sentience that makes their behavior impossible to simulate or mathematically model. Whether this sentience was imbued through mystical means or is extraterrestrial in origin is irrelevant.link to original post
One would think that after fifty years of trying, the scientists could come up with a formula to approximate when red has been hot, black is due.link to original post
Dieter are you agreeing with Mr. sabre that computer simulations regarding cards, roulette, dice (my words) are IMPOSSIBLE to SIMULATE?
tuttigymlink to original post
I am saying that if probability really made certain future outcomes "due", there would be some science on it, and roulette would no longer be offered.
Cards, dice, and wheels can indeed be simulated.
And then he claims that he's willing to learn. LOL.Quote: WellbushMathematicians have been saying that it's theoretically impossible to beat the dealer using such a strategy. Don't be fooled by their ignorance. I will tear their theories apart and shove them in the bin, where they belong. (source)
But... you can never know unless you know the schedules of the maintenance crew, know that the particular casino is lazy about it, etc.
Hi MB, Give the guy a break. It's a struggle for us all, but I think he is learning, albeit grudgingly. He doesn't seem to learn so well from a hostile teacher though. Let's just take turns beating him down coaxing him along with small straightforward lessons and corrections. But please 6od, don't let it be my turn to tutor him, because I need to chillax from last time. And not mission's turn either, because he's worn his keyboard out typing replies.... And not soopoo's turn either, because he's had to go lie down in a dark room.Quote: MichaelBluejayMaybe now's a good time to remember with whom we're dealing. Here's my classic post on characteristics of a betting system proponent, and how Wellbush fits all those characteristics to a T. Let's also not forget this classic quote of his:
And then he claims that he's willing to learn. LOL.link to original postQuote: WellbushMathematicians have been saying that it's theoretically impossible to beat the dealer using such a strategy. Don't be fooled by their ignorance. I will tear their theories apart and shove them in the bin, where they belong. (source)
I understand that wellbush has rustled up some bankroll. And there's anecdotal evidence that the universe that he doesn't quite believe, has been giving him some practical demo's.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/35909-negative-progression/7/#post824690
If that's so, Universe 1, Naysayers 0
Quote: tuttigym
Computers can try to simulate randomness, but as Sabre said don't always mirror the actual events (paraphrase). "Live cards and roulette wheels (and dice; my words added) have a sentence that makes their behavior IMPOSSIBLE (emphasis) to SIMULATE (emphasis) or mathematically MODEL (emphasis)."
if you believe that to be true - and I'm not all agreeing that it is - anyway - why would you believe a human being could predict what a computer cannot simulate?
what special skills does a human being have to predict something that is "impossible to simulate or mathematically model"?
also, you edited out this part of Sabre's quote:
Quote: sabreWhether this sentience was imbued through mystical means or is extraterrestrial in origin is irrelevant.
this part of the quote leads me to believe he was being sarcastic or joking - if I'm incorrect about that he will correct me I'm sure
.
Sabre was playing you and you bought it hook, line, and sinker.Quote: tuttigymComputers can try to simulate randomness, but as Sabre said don't always mirror the actual events (paraphrase). "Live cards and roulette wheels (and dice; my words added) have a sentence that makes their behavior IMPOSSIBLE (emphasis) to SIMULATE (emphasis) or mathematically MODEL (emphasis)."
link to original post
P.S. Everyone, please note my signature below. I love MDawg and Marcus Clark because they hold themselves to their truth, despite being bashed from pillar to post here. I may add tuttigym to that list.
Quote: Wellbush
I love [names deleted] because they hold themselves to their truth,
𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜
quote from Paul Tournier
𝘽𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙥𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙤𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙪𝙣𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙥𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚
quote from Jack D. Schwager
.
Quote: OnceDearIt's a struggle for us all, but I think he is learning, albeit grudgingly.
I usually agree with you but not in this case
he has stated that he has a science degree - he is an educated man
it wouldn't take an educated man this long to grasp this
the concepts being discussed here are not difficult or complex
IMO he is trolling
.
Quote: lilredroosterI usually agree with you but not in this case
link to original post
he has stated that he has a science degree - he is an educated man
it wouldn't take an educated man this long to grasp this
the concepts being discussed here are not difficult or complex
IMO he is trolling
.
IMHO it shouldn't take an educated man this long to grasp this
But you and I have a different perspective and background. For example he once said that he was not familiar with my use of the quite common abbreviation IANAL. For all we know, he and others might not know that IMO means 'In My Opinion' or that IMHO means 'In My Humble Opinion', so let's take that as explained.
Now, if Wellbush comes back later and says he still doesn't know what our acronyms mean, that might imply he is trolling. Similarly, he might come back and say he doesn't understand why we can't solve his paradox, or he can't grasp the meaning of EV, we might think he is trolling.
IMHO, He might well be trolling. He might also just not be able to grasp concepts that we see as rudimentary and fundamental.
I certainly think he's receiving useful education. His capacity for absorbing it is incidental. At least he's being more polite in his more recent posts... IMHO.
Oh and FYI*. And I do not consider your expression of belief that he is trolling as a personal insult to him. If he complains about it, I would take that as confirmation of his intent.
*FYI = For your information.
Also FYI. Incidentally, a few minutes ago, I accidentally posted a draft version of a post here. It was withdrawn within a minute and may return later when it's finalised.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: Wellbush
I love [names deleted] because they hold themselves to their truth,
𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜
quote from Paul Tournier
𝘽𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙥𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙤𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙪𝙣𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙥𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚
quote from Jack D. Schwager
.link to original post
Profound!
Quote: lilredroosterI usually agree with you but not in this case
link to original post
he has stated that he has a science degree - he is an educated man
it wouldn't take an educated man this long to grasp this
the concepts being discussed here are not difficult or complex
IMO he is trolling
.
IMO, I am not trolling. Educated, smedgucated. Whatever. I am not committed to grasping things the way, and at a pace, you or anyone thinks I should. This enterprise (gambling) is, for me, part leisure, part business opportunity. Good luck.
P.S. I still intend replying to earlier posters.
for a rare occasion, i agree wholeheartedly with this post OD. no offense to LRR, but whilst i can understand he may be upset or frustrated or whatever, with me, i am not deliberately trying to upset him or anyone else. for one, who has been able to come up with a paradox such as mine? whatever people may think, they may never understand what a poster is really like just from what they post.Quote: OnceDearQuote: lilredroosterI usually agree with you but not in this case
link to original post
he has stated that he has a science degree - he is an educated man
it wouldn't take an educated man this long to grasp this
the concepts being discussed here are not difficult or complex
IMO he is trolling
.
IMHO it shouldn't take an educated man this long to grasp this
But you and I have a different perspective and background. For example he once said that he was not familiar with my use of the quite common abbreviation IANAL. For all we know, he and others might not know that IMO means 'In My Opinion' or that IMHO means 'In My Humble Opinion', so let's take that as explained.
Now, if Wellbush comes back later and says he still doesn't know what our acronyms mean, that might imply he is trolling. Similarly, he might come back and say he doesn't understand why we can't solve his paradox, or he can't grasp the meaning of EV, we might think he is trolling.
IMHO, He might well be trolling. He might also just not be able to grasp concepts that we see as rudimentary and fundamental.
I certainly think he's receiving useful education. His capacity for absorbing it is incidental. At least he's being more polite in his more recent posts... IMHO.
Oh and FYI*. And I do not consider your expression of belief that he is trolling as a personal insult to him. If he complains about it, I would take that as confirmation of his intent.
*FYI = For your information.
Also FYI. Incidentally, a few minutes ago, I accidentally posted a draft version of a post here. It was withdrawn within a minute and may return later when it's finalised.link to original post
also, i have a number of things going on in my life. WOV is not the centre of everything for me. that's not to say i am playing anyone here. i may return silly, ridiculous, careless posts with my own version of the same. other than that, i endeavour to be reasonable, which may be more reasonable than a lot of others here? who's to say? may the force be with me. sorry, i mean, with you!
Gambling for business might not be your best idea.Quote: WellbushQuote: lilredroosterI usually agree with you but not in this case
link to original post
he has stated that he has a science degree - he is an educated man
it wouldn't take an educated man this long to grasp this
the concepts being discussed here are not difficult or complex
IMO he is trolling
.
IMO, I am not trolling. Educated, smedgucated. Whatever. I am not committed to grasping things the way, and at a pace, you or anyone thinks I should. This enterprise (gambling) is, for me, part leisure, part business opportunity. Good luck.
P.S. I still intend replying to earlier posters.link to original post
Have you grasped yet that exploiting the marketing departments of casinos (Advantage Playing) is far, far more lucrative than your proposed gambling with systems.
Learn at your own pace, but trust in those of us naysayers that actually are trying to help you and are qualified to help you.
Phewah! i'm still recovering from yesterday! i'll get around to this post too, sometime.Quote: OnceDearGambling for business might not be your best idea.
link to original post
Have you grasped yet that exploiting the marketing departments of casinos (Advantage Playing) is far, far more lucrative than your proposed gambling with systems.
Learn at your own pace, but trust in those of us naysayers that actually are trying to help you and are qualified to help you.
SOOPOO, I think you were replying to the last post at least, to UJ. The reply from me, was this:Quote: SOOPOOOf course. I did say I’d need to know the system used. With a Martingale being up is no big deal. I gotta stop responding. You don’t want to learn. Just wasting my time.
link to original post
I hope that answers your q. if it doesn't, i am happy to try again. please let me know.Quote: Wellbushwell, it's pointless me giving exact figures because i'm proposing an overarching theory. if you're after an answer to one gambling scenario or another, it's you guys that have the formulae for EV. It's you guys who are saying that -EV will provide a loss to the gambler in the long run, no matter which way he plays without AP.
link to original post
If i gave you the game of bj, for example. say 300,000 hands. has the gambler been using a progressive strategy? what kind of progressive strategy? what are the size of his bets? is he flat betting?
what's the point of giving you something definitive if the math community believe no strategy, without AP, is going to win eventually? he MAY win in the short term. some may win for a longer period of time than others. but eventually, if they play long enough, they all lose if they're playing a -EV game. true, or not?
if it's not true, how can the math community say "all betting systems are worthless?" the Wizard doesn't even want to answer qs about betting systems.
i do want to learn. i don't think i'm wasting your time. my thinking may not line up with yours, but i'm happy to work on it as much as i can.
next in line is 146 i think
You're right, it wouldn't take an educated person this long to grasp these concepts. But there's another possible explanation: he's not as educated as he says he is.Quote: lilredroosterhe has stated that he has a science degree - he is an educated man
link to original post
it wouldn't take an educated man this long to grasp this.....
IMO he is trolling.
On the other hand, it wouldn't take even a non-educated person of average intelligence to get these concepts.
in fact, i will not reply to any of the other posters for now, until i know what is going to be done about MB. if WOV allows MB's behaviour to continue toward me, then I may not continue the way WOV would like me, and other posters would like me, to.
Done. They are within the rules.Quote: Wellbushmods, can you check mb's posts?
Quote:my past experience is that he saturates my threads with criticism. that is totally unfair. in fact, if at all possible, could you stop him from being a part of any of my threads, period?
{Bolding mine} This happens from time to time. Members assert or claim ownership of threads. They have no such ownership. Those threads are not owned or controlled by Wellbush. He does not get to dictate how they are moderated.
Nothing is going to be done about MB. So now you know.Quote: Wellbushi will not reply to any of the other posters for now, until i know what is going to be done about MB.
Please yourself whether or not you continue to contribute. The last part of that comment reads like a threat to the forum. Threaten and your membership here might not continue in the way that you'd like.Quote: Wellbushif WOV allows MB's behaviour to continue toward me, then I may not continue the way WOV would like me, and other posters would like me, to.
link to original post
Both imply if not state outright that WellBush might not be educated (i.e. is UNeducated or as MBluejay puts it, "non-educated," which calling someone uneducated (non-educated) is certainly insulting), and imply if not state outright that Wellbush might be lying about his level of education.
Quote: MDawgWait a minute - why aren't both lilredrooster's and MichaelBluejay's comments both deeply insulting?
link to original post
Both imply if not state outright that WellBush might not be educated (i.e. is UNeducated or as MBluejay puts it, "non-educated," which calling someone uneducated (non-educated) is certainly insulting), and imply if not state outright that Wellbush might be lying about his level of education.
it was my intention to discontinue responding or commenting on any of your posts - but I can't not respond to this one
above, you falsely stated that I implied that he might not be educated
𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙭𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙤𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙄 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙
as you can see in your own post I clearly stated "he is an educated man"
I didn't imply anything - I didn't state or imply that I doubted that he was an educated man
I did say that IMO he is trolling but that's entirely different
if I get disciplined for posting that I don't have a problem with it
why I am I not surprised that your post is false and misleading? anybody want to take a guess on that? - on the other hand who cares?
.
My analysis of this as a perceived insult.Quote: lilredroosterI usually agree with you but not in this case
link to original post
he has stated that he has a science degree - he is an educated man
it wouldn't take an educated man this long to grasp this
the concepts being discussed here are not difficult or complex
IMO he is trolling
.
LRR asserts that Wellbush is (by his own assertion) an educated man.
No Insult there.
LLR asserts that it wouldn't take an educated man this long to grasp this [By this, I assume the series of concepts presented to WellBush.
That's LLR's opinion of 'an educated man' and may be correct or not. Of itself it is not an insult.
LLR draws a conclusion based on those assumptions. He even admits that it is his opinion.
As I see it, he has presented a logical hypothesis that leads to his opinion. I see no insult there.
E,g. See these possibilities
1.Wellbush is Educated but cannot grasp certain concepts that we consider rudimentary.
2.Wellbush is Educated and can grasp certain concepts that we consider rudimentary, but chooses to troll the forum.
3.Wellbush is not as educated as he thinks he is or claims he is.
All seem reasonable corollaries from the posts that Wellbush has made.
LLR explored and opined #2
LLR did not assert #3
I see no insult.
YMMV
*Your Mileage May Vary.
So, Is this an insult?Quote: MichaelBluejayYou're right, it wouldn't take an educated person this long to grasp these concepts. But there's another possible explanation: he's not as educated as he says he is.Quote: lilredroosterhe has stated that he has a science degree - he is an educated man
link to original post
it wouldn't take an educated man this long to grasp this.....
IMO he is trolling.
On the other hand, it wouldn't take even a non-educated person of average intelligence to get these concepts.link to original post
Maybe a touch more discourteous than observations by LilRedRooster.
MBJ suggested an alternative hypothesis to Wellbush being a troll.
He first suggests that Wellbush has overestimated his own education level. These things happen and does not constitute an insult.
He then further suggests that even a non educated person of average intelligence should be able to 'get these concepts'. That sort of dismisses the possibility that we are dealing with an educated person that doesn't 'get it.
That led MBJ to tend to concur that Wellbush is Trolling us.
Neither LLR or MBJ seem to finally opine that Wellbush is not educated.
I conclude that MBJ has been somewhat discourteous, but not insulting.
While we are here..... Lets remember that we don't need to turn every thread into a discussion of member behaviour. Further discussion of the rule compliance can continue in the appropriate thread in the appropriate sub-forum. You know the one.
Evidently, our educational system doesn't think so highly of some other nations systems. I'm sure the opposite applies as well.
How to calculate the house edge.
Demonstrate that you understand that and maybe others will continue to try to help you.
Quote: DieterCards, dice, and wheels can indeed be simulated.
link to original post
Yes they can, but the (their) randomness can not be simulated or mirrored.
Posters frequently tell of simulations totaling tens of thousands of spins/rolls/turns/hands showing X results.
How long in actual time would it take to reproduce such a simulation of say 50,000 "turns"? And, at a $5 table, how much of a bank roll would be required to pursue such an endeavor?
I am not confident that you could provide a real specific answer.
tuttigym
Quote: MichaelBluejaySabre was playing you and you bought it hook, line, and sinker.link to original postQuote: tuttigymComputers can try to simulate randomness, but as Sabre said don't always mirror the actual events (paraphrase). "Live cards and roulette wheels (and dice; my words added) have a sentence that makes their behavior IMPOSSIBLE (emphasis) to SIMULATE (emphasis) or mathematically MODEL (emphasis)."
link to original post
Just like when you were playing or possibly insulting Mr. W. with your head fake/miss direction answer about his urine color to your vitamin post. I am puzzled why he let that one go.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymQuote: DieterCards, dice, and wheels can indeed be simulated.
link to original post
Yes they can, but the (their) randomness can not be simulated or mirrored.
Posters frequently tell of simulations totaling tens of thousands of spins/rolls/turns/hands showing X results.
How long in actual time would it take to reproduce such a simulation of say 50,000 "turns"? And, at a $5 table, how much of a bank roll would be required to pursue such an endeavor?
I am not confident that you could provide a real specific answer.
tuttigymlink to original post
I could tell you, but you haven't agreed to my rates or advance payments that would result in such services. If you're so interested, then I would suggest we either get that put together, or that you should spend less time posting and more time investigating it firsthand.
Quote: tuttigym
Yes they can, but the (their) randomness can not be simulated or mirrored.
No-one, not even the Great Evenbob, can tell the difference between the random outcome of a roulette spin or dice throw and the output of a good random number generator such as http://random.org
Some might say that is not true, but they would be wrong.
Quote:Posters frequently tell of simulations totaling tens of thousands of spins/rolls/turns/hands showing X results.
How long in actual time would it take to reproduce such a simulation of say 50,000 "turns"?
I believe that some good sims could do that in very few seconds. With my programming prowess, it might take ten minutes
Why would it matter. It's simulated. Have a $1,000,000 bankroll if you like. Am i missing some nuance in your question?Quote:And, at a $5 table, how much of a bank roll would be required to pursue such an endeavor?
I am confident that no answer will satisfy you.Quote:I am not confident that you could provide a real specific answer.
link to original post
tuttigym
Quote: OnceDearNo-one, not even the Great Evenbob, can tell the difference between the random outcome of a roulette spin or dice throw and the output of a good random number generator such as http://random.org
Some might say that is not true, but they would be wrong.
I believe that some good sims could do that in very few seconds. With my programming prowess, it might take ten minutes
Why would it matter. It's simulated. Have a $1,000,000 bankroll if you like. Am i missing some nuance in your question?I am confident that no answer will satisfy you.link to original postQuote:I am not confident that you could provide a real specific answer.
link to original post
tuttigym
It's the same thing it always is. The whole, "Simulations and Math v. Real-World," argument that has been done to death and that I have probably already had out myself, conservatively, twenty different times in all of my time here.
Anyway, the argument is irrelevant, nonsensical, pointless, bromidic, inconsequential and, ultimately, quite tedious to do over and over again.
That's why I came up with a new strategy. If the, "Real World," argument is meant to prove the mathematical argument wrong, then either go do it in the real world and log your times, places, bets and results...or pay me to do it.
If someone wants to argue, "That's not how it works in the real world," then that's actually MORE abstract and, 'Theoretical,' than a simulation or a math problem---until they have actually gone and done it. If they haven't done it for themselves, then how the hell would they know how it goes in the, "Real World?"
Quote: tuttigymQuote: DieterCards, dice, and wheels can indeed be simulated.
link to original post
Yes they can, but the (their) randomness can not be simulated or mirrored.
Posters frequently tell of simulations totaling tens of thousands of spins/rolls/turns/hands showing X results.
How long in actual time would it take to reproduce such a simulation of say 50,000 "turns"? And, at a $5 table, how much of a bank roll would be required to pursue such an endeavor?
I am not confident that you could provide a real specific answer.
tuttigymlink to original post
50,000 rounds, $5 per round = $250,000 as the upper limit. You might win some, of course, which would lower the cost. Somewhere between 30 and 90 seconds per round, 1250 hours of test time; about 6 months practical time.
Does a die have 6 sides? Does each side have an equal chance of landing up? That's 1 in 6. Two dice is 1 in 62 to get a given combination; some of those combinations are equivalent for game purposes.
Wheels... does the ball or flapper have an even chance of landing each way?
Using a different source of randomness to simulate these games should have no impact. Are you suggesting that the wheels aren't fair? Perhaps the dice aren't fair? Perhaps the simulation isn't using an adequate source of randomness?
I recognize that "should" is a dirty word. If you're indicting the randomness source, you're way beyond fourth grade math. Diaconis has some nice lectures on Youtube where he explains it. Fascinating stuff, but it can make your brain start to feel wobbly.
Computerized shufflers can be exactly simulated. A computer shuffle takes a computer algorithm random source and methodically restacks the input deck to the output deck, with a convolution based on the computer algorithm. That can all be readily simulated.
Hand shuffles can probably be simulated too. It's just a different series of output convolutions.
Quote: tuttigym
"Computers can try to simulate randomness, but as Sabre said don't always mirror the actual events (paraphrase). "Live cards and roulette wheels (and dice; my words added) have a sentence that makes their behavior IMPOSSIBLE (emphasis) to SIMULATE (emphasis) or mathematically MODEL (emphasis).""
Quote: lilredroosterif you believe that to be true - and I'm not at all agreeing that it is - anyway - why would you believe a human being could predict what a computer cannot simulate?
𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 "𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥"?link to original post
.
First, the randomness absolutely can be simulated. Modern algorithms handily pass batteries of statistical tests for the quality of their randomness. They're indistinguishable from live results.Quote: tuttigymQuote: DieterCards, dice, and wheels can indeed be simulated.
link to original post
Yes they can, but the (their) randomness can not be simulated or mirrored.
Posters frequently tell of simulations totaling tens of thousands of spins/rolls/turns/hands showing X results....link to original post
In the rest of your post, it seems like you're dismissing sims because they typically test the long term and nobody plays that long. I debunked that particular fallacy here.
Quote: Dieter50,000 rounds, $5 per round = $250,000 as the upper limit. You might win some, of course, which would lower the cost. Somewhere between 30 and 90 seconds per round, 1250 hours of test time; about 6 months practical time.
Mr. Dieter: I want to thank you for this post. IMHO it took a great deal of courage to put yourself out there with a definitive realistic answer to my question. To be sure, I have no idea if your proposed answer is correct, so I would ask as a follow up: What problem(s) does this solve? Will it solve all the hypothetical equations related to every HA/HE figures proposed in craps "math" such as the 1.41% PL house advantage?
I am not trying to be confrontational, but what you have produced answers a key question from OD. (paraphrased) What is a longitudinal study? Identify a problem along with the variables, design the experiment, carefully observe (trials) and note all measurements, and finally interpret the experimental data.
The fact that your proposal would take six months or possibly more time to reach a conclusion allows that "simulations" creates an easy path but not necessarily the correct one.
Again, thank you the answer exceeded my expectations.
I will respond to the other parts of your post later.
tuttigym
I understood Dieter's time estimate was an experiment run as a real person at a real game. A computer simulator would do that in a few minutes with the same conclusion. The computer could also repeat the experiment many times to establish the conclusion more reliably and forcefully. Unlike the notional playing human.Quote: tuttigymMr. Dieter: I want to thank you for this post. IMHO it took a great deal of courage to put yourself out there with a definitive realistic answer to my question. To be sure, I have no idea if your proposed answer is correct, so I would ask as a follow up: What problem(s) does this solve? Will it solve all the hypothetical equations related to every HA/HE figures proposed in craps "math" such as the 1.41% PL house advantage?
link to original post
I am not trying to be confrontational, but what you have produced answers a key question from OD. (paraphrased) What is a longitudinal study? Identify a problem along with the variables, design the experiment, carefully observe (trials) and note all measurements, and finally interpret the experimental data.
The fact that your proposal would take six months or possibly more time to reach a conclusion allows that "simulations" creates an easy path but not necessarily the correct one.
Again, thank you the answer exceeded my expectations.
I will respond to the other parts of your post later.
tuttigym
Experiments don't solve hypothetical equations. They derive solutions within defines margins of error at statistical confidence levels.
E.g. Experiment might determine that 7 is rolled 1 time in 6.1 rolls with a margin of error of 0.3 with 95% confidence.
A longer experimental run might determine that 7 is rolled 1 time in 6.001 rolls with a margin of error of 0.002 with 99.99% confidence.
Math can predict those solutions by giving actual calculated precise solutions with no ambiguity.
Quote: Mission146I could tell you,
No you can't. The Feds offer all kinds of grants for an almost unlimited areas of math and science. They require a detailed description of the proposed research, your methods of obtaining the relevant data, the ultimate cost, the time needed, collection of data, the specific need of such research, safeguards to prevent "contamination" of data and the collection thereof, location, possible variables that might affect the data, various breakdown of measurements, interpretations, and evaluations, and more. A single individual collecting data from a single table at single location is not proof of concept.
Quote: Mission146but you haven't agreed to my rates or advance payments that would result in such services.
And you haven't agreed to my requirements.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigym
tuttigym
if you have a winning system or method why would you even care about convincing the mathletes on this site of that
you're never going to convince them
if I had a winning system or method I would just go out there and get filthy rich
I wouldn't care a whit what Dieter, OnceDear and Mission thought of my system
I'd be laughing all the way to the bank
.
Quote: lilredroosterif you have a winning system or method why would you even care about convincing the mathletes on this site of that
link to original post
you're never going to convince them
if I had a winning system or method I would just go out there and get filthy rich
I wouldn't care a whit what Dieter, OnceDear and Mission thought of my system
I'd be laughing all the way to the bank
.
His entire argument seems to be founded on the premise that nobody has personally witnessed several different people engage in tens of thousands of trials of a particular system.
In other words, there is nobody here who is omniscient and omnipresent, thus, we have not proven our case to Tuttigym’s satisfaction.
Quote: OnceDearNo-one, not even the Great Evenbob, can tell the difference between the random outcome of a roulette spin or dice throw and the output of a good random number generator such as http://random.org
Some might say that is not true, but they would be wrong.
Wincraps is a well known and oft used simulator referred to as one that can generate millions of dice throws whose "long term" results "verify" HA/HE outcomes. All such "outcomes" are touted by many/most as authentic, accurate, and real. So if any individual such as myself playing craps using Wincraps using whatever personal "system" to play and consistently win, which I do ( 8 out of 10 sessions), would that mean that I could go to the tables, play my exact same system, and win as I do against the vaunted simulator which is suppose to be a random number generator?
tuttigym
How many [expletive] times?????Quote: tuttigymWincraps is a well known and oft used simulator referred to as one that can generate millions of dice throws whose "long term" results "verify" HA/HE outcomes. All such "outcomes" are touted by many/most as authentic, accurate, and real. So if any individual such as myself playing craps using Wincraps using whatever personal "system" to play and consistently win, which I do ( 8 out of 10 sessions), would that mean that I could go to the tables, play my exact same system, and win as I do against the vaunted simulator which is suppose to be a random number generator?
link to original post
tuttigym
A system can cause you to win more sessions than you lose. There is nothing remarkable about that at all.
I personally know nothing about the veracity of wincraps.
discussed here
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/17713-the-problem-with-games-like-wincraps/5/#post348721
Quote: Mission146Okay, so you don’t trust simulations OR limited real world results. What point is it that you are trying to make, exactly?
link to original post
Thanks for asking the most important question facing people who gamble and "rely" on the "math" touted by the perceived "experts." My point is that the miniscule percentages of what is referred to as the "house advantage" or "house edge" do not exist. My point is that the "house" advantages far exceed 1.41%, etc., and that it is incumbent on those so-called "experts" to inform the uninformed, the gullible, and the newbies of the real edge they face at any given gambling venue. Purposely using algebraic formulas and equations only serve to confuse not enlighten and have no real value to average folks trying to get "lucky," have some fun, and perhaps add some short term excitement to their existence.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymWincraps is a well known and oft used simulator referred to as one that can generate millions of dice throws whose "long term" results "verify" HA/HE outcomes. All such "outcomes" are touted by many/most as authentic, accurate, and real. So if any individual such as myself playing craps using Wincraps using whatever personal "system" to play and consistently win, which I do ( 8 out of 10 sessions), would that mean that I could go to the tables, play my exact same system, and win as I do against the vaunted simulator which is suppose to be a random number generator?
link to original post
tuttigym
Yeah, the next math oriented poster who claims there are no betting systems with a high probability of winning an individual, “Session,” will be the first.
However, I congratulate you on your ability to soundly and successfully debate against points that nobody is making.
Quote: tuttigymQuote: Mission146Okay, so you don’t trust simulations OR limited real world results. What point is it that you are trying to make, exactly?
link to original post
Thanks for asking the most important question facing people who gamble and "rely" on the "math" touted by the perceived "experts." My point is that the miniscule percentages of what is referred to as the "house advantage" or "house edge" do not exist. My point is that the "house" advantages far exceed 1.41%, etc., and that it is incumbent on those so-called "experts" to inform the uninformed, the gullible, and the newbies of the real edge they face at any given gambling venue. Purposely using algebraic formulas and equations only serve to confuse not enlighten and have no real value to average folks trying to get "lucky," have some fun, and perhaps add some short term excitement to their existence.
tuttigymlink to original post
Okay, so your point is stupid because it relies on the notion that math, effectively, does not exist. The concept of, “House Edge,” is nothing more than the result of a relatively simple (in some instances) math problem.
Again, if I create a game with an 80% house edge, would you maintain that does not exist, or is that a big enough percentage to matter? To that end, at what point, in your esteemed opinion, does a house edge percentage become relevant?
Is the difference between 3:2 and 6:5 Blackjack one that is, “Miniscule,” and “Does not exist?” How about triple-zero roulette, is that house edge big enough to exist, by your most sound and logical standards?
If they find that what we discuss on the sites has no value, then they don’t have to read the sites. You don’t have to read them, either. If you want to get lucky, have fun and add some short term enjoyment, then you are perfectly welcome to do that without any input from me.
And, to be honest, I would probably prefer it if you did. That way, I could continue to hang out here and explain to people who actually express a desire to learn how the House Edge works and how they can learn to calculate it for themselves.
In other words, I’m not going to the casino or your house and telling you how to gamble. You don’t have to interact with me. You’re coming to a Forum where these things are discussed of your own volition, so if you feel like these things are of no value to you, it baffles me that you keep coming back.
It's not the percentage of winning sessions, it's the total return on *all* sessions. The Martingale can win 80% of 1-hour sessions, but is still an overall loser, because the losing 20% of sessions lose more than the the wins in the winning sessions.Quote: tuttigymSo if any individual such as myself playing craps using Wincraps using whatever personal "system" to play and consistently win, which I do ( 8 out of 10 sessions), would that mean that I could go to the tables, play my exact same system, and win as I do against the vaunted simulator which is suppose to be a random number generator?
link to original post
82% of sessions win an average of $100
18% of sessions lose an average of $528
82% x $100 + 18% x -$528 = -$13
