The Gambler
Thread Rating:
How pathetic that the math community believe this! So, the math community unequivocally state the percentages that will eventually occur in each game, for the house, and the gambler.
But how can this be true, due to the Gambler's Falacy???? Another paradox!!!!
How can math say on one hand, you cannot give predictions re chances, but on the other hand predict future chances down to percentage points? Is the math community moronic???
Your post reveals more about your own inability to comprehend probability theory than about 'the maths community'.Quote: WellbushThe Gambler's Falacy states that every fair play in a game of chance, is independent, and has no better or worse chance based on past play.
How pathetic that the math community believe this! So, the math community unequivocally state the percentages that will eventually occur in each game, for the house, and the gambler.
But how can this be true, due to the Gambler's Falacy???? Another paradox!!!!
How can math say on one hand, you cannot give predictions re chances, but on the other hand predict future chances down to percentage points? Is the math community moronic???
link to original post
Since this forum represents a decent swathe of 'the maths community' especially of those who gave their time to politely educate you, I'll take your post as yet another insulting attempt to troll the forum. Penalty to be decided.
Who knows what I was betting, but the numbers are 6 figures.
Quote: ChumpChangeIf I could cash-in my comps, I'd be ahead after nearly 3,000 rolls of the dice. But the data says I've lost 666 bets, but I'm only down $897 or -0.33%.
Who knows what I was betting, but the numbers are 6 figures.
link to original post
Yet another complete Thread Hijack from ChumChange. I invite him to explain himself. Is it a cognitive inability to post in the correct or new thread?
Thanks CCQuote: ChumpChangeI was busy replying to Wellbush and hadn't noticed you hijacked the thread by suspending him before I hit Send. I was just trying to give Wellbush a taste of statistics that he so rails against. I'm not sure he didn't change the thread title while I was replying either. My PM service went down and it refused to let me check the "I'm not a robot box". Could just be a sporadic internet glitch..
link to original post
Explanation appreciated and accepted.
It was not clear to me that you were trying to give him a stats example. I doubt it would be clear to him.
With wellbush, such subtlety needs a lot more explicit explanation.
Quote: unJonThis thread is amazing in all ways.
link to original post
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐀𝐂𝐘 𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐄𝐑𝐒 𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐀
for the love of:
martingales and all its variations (reverses, Laboucheres, D'Alemberts, Oscar's Grinds)
betting streaks
stop losses and stop wins
hit and runs
leave cold tables - look for hot tables
𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙩'𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙚
there are thousands, maybe millions in LV and elsewhere who've gotten rich from these techniques________they've made 𝑴𝑰𝑳𝑳𝑰𝑶𝑵𝑺
for people who are very, very shrewd like the Fallacy Deniers___________𝑨𝑵𝒀 𝑪𝑨𝑺𝑰𝑵𝑶 𝑨𝑵𝒀𝑾𝑯𝑬𝑹𝑬 𝑰𝑺 𝑳𝑰𝑻𝑬𝑹𝑨𝑳𝑳𝒀 𝑨 𝑮𝑶𝑳𝑫 𝑴𝑰𝑵𝑬
.
.
Quote: WellbushThe Gambler's Falacy states that every fair play in a game of chance, is independent, and has no better or worse chance based on past play.
How pathetic that the math community believe this! So, the math community unequivocally state the percentages that will eventually occur in each game, for the house, and the gambler.
But how can this be true, due to the Gambler's Falacy???? Another paradox!!!!
How can math say on one hand, you cannot give predictions re chances, but on the other hand predict future chances down to percentage points? Is the math community moronic???
link to original post
I guess someone should give this an answer---just in case someone is actually interested in this question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
Okay, so let's give a quick example of Regression Towards the Mean:
Imagine if a Craps Player is betting the Pass Line and it's the first time in his entire life he has ever done so---that person wins (49.29% probability), so now that person has won 100% of his Pass Line bets.
Probability says that event has already happened and that the next attempt is independent and comes with probabilities 49.29% and 50.71%, winning and losing, respectively.
Imagine that our fortunate first-time player wins his next five bets in a row, so he now has six consecutive Pass Line winners: (.4929)^6 = 0.01434012407
Thus, he has experienced an event with 1.434% probability, but it is 100% since it has already happened.
For the next trial, his probability of winning remains 49.29%, which nobody disputes.
However, let's suppose that he loses just that one attempt, so he goes from:
Win 6, Lose 0---Win 100%, Lose 0%
TO:
Win 6, Lose 1---Win 85.7143% (Rounded) Lose 14.2857% (Rounded)
Critically, his winning percentage can never be 100% again, which is a short-run example of how Regression Towards the Mean works in the long run. In other words, the Gambler's Fallacy is relatively focused on the notion that a short-run phenomenon (usually many consecutive losses) will not happen based on the fallacious position that, after a particular series of losing results---the next result(s) to be losing becomes less probable.
Regression Towards the Mean, on the other hand, describes what happens in the long run. Simulations bear this out, but more importantly, relatively long-term real world results will also bear this out. You can win 80% of your total bets on the Pass Line at Craps, for example, but not for particularly long.
Regression Towards the Mean also does not mean that there will be a series of six losing results in a row to offset the six winning results that happened before. However, in a long-term series of results...long winning AND losing streaks will not be uncommon.
Let's imagine that after our first-time Craps players' first loss the results go W-L for the next ten results, which makes him:
Win 11, Lose 6---Win 64.7059% (Rounded) Lose 35.2941% (Rounded)
Despite the fact that the player opened up with six consecutive wins and has never lost more than once consecutively, we see that his winning percentage is now down from 100% to 64.7059%.
I'm obviously cherry-picking short-term results here to try to do a short-term illustration of a long-term concept. The point is that every loss (when the actual winning percentage is more than 50%) will have a greater impact on the overall percentage than every win. Let's take our 11-6 and see what happens to the winning percentage if the next is a win and if the next is a loss:
Win (12-6): 66.6667% (Rounded)
Difference: 66.667-64.7059 = 1.9611%
Loss: (11-7) 61.1111% (Rounded)
Difference: 64.7059 - 61.1111 = 3.5948%
As you can see, Regression Towards the Mean doesn't require that a long run of winning results is offset by a long run of losing results---though you would expect to see long runs of both in a large sample anyway. Regression Towards the Mean relies on two components:
1.) In a large sample size, any long runs of results are mostly going to be offset by running relatively as expected for a very long time.
AND:
2.) If a result is coming up either more, or less, than expected---then the result that is not yet running, "As Expected," will be moved more towards the mean for every time it DOES happen than it is moved away from the mean if it fails to happen again.
Another example is that of a Video Poker player who has never had a Royal Flush in his first 60,000 hands, which means he has run more than one, "Royal cycle," without getting it. He currently has 0.000000% Royal Flushes, but as soon as he gets one, then he is above 0.000000% and can never be at 0% again just by virtue of that one Royal Flush.
The Royal Flush will also pull his overall return percentage up on the game as significantly as any hand could, or more, with only a few exceptions such as Four Deuces with a Joker on DJW (somewhat rare game) which actually pays more than a natural Royal.
Specifically, it will pull it up by 800x the bet, assuming full coins, so let's imagine that he has played 60,000 hands at an overall return of 96.9% before that Royal:
Credits Played: 300,000 Credits Won: 300,000 * .969 = 290,700
Okay, so let's imagine that he hits the Royal Flush and also what would have happened if the hand had paid nothing instead:
Credits Played: 300,005, Credits Won: 294,700---Actual Return Percentage: 98.232% (Rounded)
NO ROYAL---LOSING HAND:
Credits Played: 300,005, Credits Won: 290,700---Actual Return Percentage: 96.8984% (Rounded)
What you will notice here is that, as anyone would expect, the Royal has a much more profound impact on the player's overall return percentage than does having a losing hand, which barely moves the percentage. Another thing that you will notice (pretend it's JoB or Bonus Poker) is that a 10 credit return on Two Pair:
Credits Played: 300,005, Credits Won: 290,705---Actual Return Percentage: 96.9017% (Rounded)
Has a slightly more pronounced impact on the overall return percentage (simply because 0% is closer to 96.9% than 200% is) which we also expect to work itself out in the long-run.
Video Poker has more variance than Pass Line bets on Craps, so you might need a more significant sample size of hands to see Regression Towards the Mean fully play itself out. A player could be running a couple Royals, "To the good," or, "To the bad," and resulting, could run well below (relatively speaking) or well-above, the Expected Return of the game for a very long time.
So, no, the math community is not moronic. The simple answer to this one is that the Gambler's Fallacy (particularly as relates negative expectation betting) is only concerned with short-term results (at least, in a given trial---perhaps some system players have trouble thinking long-term?) and the, "Math Community," primarily as it relates to concepts such as, "Regression Towards the Mean," is more concerned with the long-term.
Anyway, this has been a much longer answer than your post deserves, but there are many posters and readers here that do deserve an explanation of the difference, so there it is.
AND---It's for that reason that I defended something, such as the 18 YO's claim, as being theoretically possible. Do I think it happened exactly that way---probably not. If you're going to rely on the math, then it's very important to remain consistent---so nobody should say such a result is impossible. It has a non-zero probability, though not much above zero, but any specific string of 18 results has a very close to zero probability of occurrence (by virtue of the fact that so many combinations of events are possible), but the dice must do something.
In fact, the most likely string of 18 dice rolls, which is to say the highest single probability, is 18 sevens in a row:
(1/6)^18 = 9.8464004e-15
Which is to say 0.0000000000000098464004 or 1/0.0000000000000098464004 = 1 in 101,559,960,000,000
Virtually impossible, but technically the most likely specific sequence of 18 rolls of fair dice. If you go to a Craps Table and observe a series of eighteen rolls, then that specific series was (unless all 7's) less likely than the 1 in 101.56 TRILLION chance of them all being sevens.
Of course, if I come to the Forum and report that I observed a Craps Table with the following sequence:
7-7-5-2-3-9-5-7-11-12-3-7-8-4-4-5-9-7
Nobody would bat an eye, despite that specific series being substantially (well, relatively speaking) less likely than all 7's.
Conclusion
The, "Math Community," simply understands how numbers relate to each other and many betting system believers (and I am not saying you specifically) do not fully comprehend it. The math community's belief in a long-term concept does not debunk the math community's opinion of why gambling systems can fail in the short-term and would fail in the long-term on a negative expectation game.
The concept of a long streak does not change the concept of Regression to the Mean.
Why not?
Going back to the Craps Table----let's take into consideration every Pass Line bet that has been made in all of history; I can't even estimate how many that might be: How much do you think a string of 30 consecutive Pass Line losses would change the overall winning percentage of all Pass Line bettors in history?
Answer: It wouldn't even be enough to qualify as a rounding error.
The probability of rolling an 11 on any individual trial certainly does not change; nor the probability of winning a Pass Line bet on any one trial.
Quote: Mission146I guess someone should give this an answer---just in case someone is actually interested in this question:
...
I'm obviously cherry-picking short-term results here to try to do a short-term illustration of a long-term concept. The point is that every loss (when the actual winning percentage is more than 50%) will have a greater impact on the overall percentage than every win. Let's take our 11-6 and see what happens to the winning percentage if the next is a win and if the next is a loss:
...
As you can see, Regression Towards the Mean doesn't require that a long run of winning results is offset by a long run of losing results---though you would expect to see long runs of both in a large sample anyway. Regression Towards the Mean relies on two components:
...
So, no, the math community is not moronic. The simple answer to this one is that the Gambler's Fallacy (particularly as relates negative expectation betting) is only concerned with short-term results (at least, in a given trial---perhaps some system players have trouble thinking long-term?) and the, "Math Community," primarily as it relates to concepts such as, "Regression Towards the Mean," is more concerned with the long-term.
Anyway, this has been a much longer answer than your post deserves, but there are many posters and readers here that do deserve an explanation of the difference, so there it is.
link to original post
Thanks Mission.
I fear that your answer brought in too many opportunities for WellBush or others to choose to not understand.
Craps and VP stats also complicated things. My zod. you used lots of numbers and maths and dragged in the concept of regression to the mean. A noble effort wasted.
If Wellbush want's to say that he has debunked the Gamblers Fallacy, that he's debunked everything you ever posted, or that he derides that none of the maths community can debunk his paradoxes, then he's going to do so indefinitely. And 'The maths community' will bang their heads against the wall, getting nowhere.
He's already asserted that we are all unable to debunk his so called paradox. He can and will assert any old nonsense. I think it's time he found a new audience of his peers.
Quote: OnceDear
Thanks Mission.
I fear that your answer brought in too many opportunities for WellBush or others to choose to not understand.
Craps and VP stats also complicated things. My zod. you used lots of numbers and maths and dragged in the concept of regression to the mean. A noble effort wasted.
If Wellbush want's to say that he has debunked the Gamblers Fallacy, that he's debunked everything you ever posted, or that he derides that none of the maths community can debunk his paradoxes, then he's going to do so indefinitely. And 'The maths community' will bang their heads against the wall, getting nowhere.
He's already asserted that we are all unable to debunk his so called paradox. He can and will assert any old nonsense. I think it's time he found a new audience of his peers.
link to original post
I should like to think that the time has come for Wellbush to take his deliberate choice to not understand somewhere else---permanently---but Administration will do with him what it will do with him. I don't know how many times directly insulting the math community should be permitted here, though. It's basically a direct insult to the Wizard, who built these sites on the math...so Wellbush's post is the equivalent of walking into someone's house and urinating on their carpet...
I don't consider the effort wasted as long as at least one other person reads it and learns something from it. I've had people thank me for putting things in a mathematical perspective and teaching them certain concepts before, both publicly and privately---and just one thank you is enough to make the work worth it. One person who might have bought lots of lottery tickets and stops doing so, one person who might have played betting systems with real money and chose not to---you know what it is.
I usually don't like to pat myself on the back, but that's also one of my better more recent posts and I expressed what I wanted as concisely as you will ever see me do, so I'm also happy with that.
Quote: WellbushThe Gambler's Falacy states that every fair play in a game of chance, is independent, and has no better or worse chance based on past play.
... So, the math community unequivocally state the percentages that will eventually occur in each game, for the house, and the gambler.
But how can this be true, due to the Gambler's Falacy???? Another paradox!!!!
How can math say on one hand, you cannot give predictions re chances, but on the other hand predict future chances down to percentage points? Is the math community moronic???
link to original post
I see some moderator changed the title of the thread to make it less hostile. Thanks.
As I understand the OP's question, I'll paraphrase as...
"If the Gamblers' fallacy says that past events cannot predict future outcomes, how can mathematicians say, at the same time; that the long term results (of say a coin toss) will occur in some known proportion?"
This is NOT a paradox.
The fallacy in the gamblers fallacy comes from a misinterpretation of 'regression to the mean'.
As we approach the first flip of a fair coin, we have absolutely zero knowledge of the first outcome. But we DO know that it will be either heads or tails.
Physics experts, or observant gamblers can assert that over the long term, we can expect to see about the same number of heads results as tails results. About 50% probability of each. But not over 1 flip!
Thus sayeth probability theory and 'the maths community. Same with a fair six sided die. We have ZERO knowledge of the first next roll. It can be 1,2,3,4,5 or 6. Intuitively and with deep analysis of physics, we can expect those outcomes to each have equal probability of 1/6 each.
Again zero prediction of the next outcome or any future outcome. Only that in the long term, we will tend towards an equal proportion of each. NOT and absolutely NOT expecting ever to have an equal number of each outcome.
So. NO predictive power to tell us the next outcome. Physical and empirical ability to predict the tendency of a large number of outcomes.
Now. Mission has referred to 'Regression towards the mean' Let's explore that with a fair coin flip.
We flip a coin 1 time and note the outcome. Count the heads and count the tails and work out percentage heads.
Repeat this with a set of 100 more flips.
Repeat this for a set of 1,000,000 flips
Repeat this for a set of 10,000,000 flips
Maintain a chart of count of heads and count of tails and ratio of those.
After 1 flip, we either have 100% heads or 0% heads. Never any other value. The absolute count difference will be one coin flip
After 2 flips we either have 0% heads, or 25% or 50% or 75% or 100% heads The absolute count difference cannot exceed 2 coin flips
After 3 flips we either have 0% heads, or 33.3% or 66.7% or 100% heads ( there are multiple ways of getting the middle two)
And so on. As we flip more and more often, we will get more and more potential results. More often tending towards the middle value.
After a very large number of repeated trials, we will TEND towards a ratio of heads to tails of 50% That's what probability theory tells us.
BUT
After 1 flip, we either have 1 head or 1 tails. A 100% difference Never any other value. The absolute count difference cannot exceed 1 coin flip
After 1 million flips might reasonably have 490,000 heads and 510,000 tails for a percentage heads of 49%. The absolute count difference would be be 20,000 coin flips.
After 10 million flips we might have 4,950,000 heads and 5,050,000 Still A reasonable result.
The percentage heads is (4,950,000/10,000,000) = 49.5% The absolute count difference would be 50,000 coin flips
Observe that the absolute numerical count difference in outcomes did NOT approach zero. It actually got bigger We did NOT get as many heads as tails and the actual count difference has quite reasonably increased from 1 through 20,000 through to 100,000
But the percentage probability of heads did as regression to the mean said. the percentage outcomes observed went from 100% through 49% to 49.5%. The percentage outcome 'tended towards the expected value of 50%'
And therein lies the fallacy that is the gamblers' fallacy: That the the difference in the count of heads and the count of tails will tend towards zero as either heads or tails 'catches up'. Probability theory does not suggest that and probability theory has been shown over centuries of growing casinos, to be reliable.
No paradox. No predictive power in the gamblers fallacy. The only predictive power in probability theory is to define and assign expected ranges of outcomes.
As far as repeated "trolling," I'd say that AxelWolf takes the opportunity to mention his belief that Baccarat is unbeatable in about 80% of his rarely-on-topic-lately posts. Another 10% he spends trying to put down anyone who follows MDawg's ideas.
In general, I don't think any Moderator should decide that content with which he disagrees is automatically trolling, especially if at the same time allowing trolling comments to pass by with which he might agree.
Wellbush is just...Wellbush. It takes all kinds to make up a community and it's odd to me that anyone would be up in arms about such content on of all places, the internet. Just don't read it if you don't want to.
Quote: MDawgWellBush should not have used the term "moronic" and therein lies the insult and perhaps suspension worthy post, although - it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, and in the past when someone made a post that was clearly insultingly directed at me she was allowed to wiggle out of it by claiming that it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. So the precedent seems to be that vague insults not directed at anyone in particular are allowed if the poster comes in and cringes and grovels for mercy.
As far as repeated "trolling," I'd say that AxelWolf takes the opportunity to mention his belief that Baccarat is unbeatable in about 90% of his rarely-on-topic-lately posts.
In general, I don't think any Moderator should decide that content with which he disagrees is automatically trolling, especially if at the same time allowing trolling comments to pass by with which he might agree.
Wellbush is just...Wellbush. It takes all kinds to make up a community and it's odd to me that anyone would be up in arms about such content on of all places, the internet. Just don't read it if you don't want to.
link to original post
So I remember a few times people saying, that is a stupid way you wager, or what an a**hole way to bet, etc.
Does that mean I am those things.
Or not?
Just saying. Kinda along the same lines.
Quote: Marcusclark66
So I remember a few times people saying, that is a stupid way you wager, or what an a**hole way to bet, etc.
Does that mean I am those things.
link to original post
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
If MDawg or his #1 fan want to discuss moderator actions or suspension decisions, there is a thread for thatQuote: MDawgWellBush should not have used the term "moronic" and therein lies the insult and perhaps suspension worthy post, although - it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, and in the past when someone made a post that was clearly insultingly directed at me she was allowed to wiggle out of it by claiming that it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. So the precedent seems to be that vague insults not directed at anyone in particular are allowed especially if the poster comes in and cringes and grovels for mercy.
As far as repeated "trolling," I'd say that AxelWolf takes the opportunity to mention his belief that Baccarat is unbeatable in about 80% of his rarely-on-topic-lately posts. Another 10% he spends trying to put down anyone who follows MDawg's ideas.
In general, I don't think any Moderator should decide that content with which he disagrees is automatically trolling, especially if at the same time allowing trolling comments to pass by with which he might agree.
...link to original post
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/info/rules/36338-discussion-iii-about-the-suspension-list/
Unfortunately i cannot MOVE these two posts. In future, such discussion about suspension, in thread, might be deemed hijacking or, as has been suggested to me, 'trolling the green team' . I will not answer MDawg's comments here.
Said the guy who has a dedicated section on a blog site for the sole purpose of bashing members of this and other forums, a blog site that has been previously mentioned here on WOV.Quote: MDawgWellBush should not have used the term "moronic" and therein lies the insult and perhaps suspension worthy post, although - it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, and in the past when someone made a post that was clearly insultingly directed at me she was allowed to wiggle out of it by claiming that it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. So the precedent seems to be that vague insults not directed at anyone in particular are allowed especially if the poster comes in and cringes and grovels for mercy.
As far as repeated "trolling," I'd say that AxelWolf takes the opportunity to mention his belief that Baccarat is unbeatable in about 80% of his rarely-on-topic-lately posts. Another 10% he spends trying to put down anyone who follows MDawg's ideas.
In general, I don't think any Moderator should decide that content with which he disagrees is automatically trolling, especially if at the same time allowing trolling comments to pass by with which he might agree.
Wellbush is just...Wellbush. It takes all kinds to make up a community and it's odd to me that anyone would be up in arms about such content on of all places, the internet. Just don't read it if you don't want to.
link to original post
Baccarat IS beatable when real Advantage Play strategies are used, that's a fact.
No betting system can beat baccarat or any -EV game that's dealt randomly. IIRC Mike said somewhere on the forum that he didn't witness you using any Advantage play method, or somthing like that, but then you asked him to delete that post or whatever.
Have you seen the supposed members of your fan club? It's not too impressive, there are perhaps 3. The members of your hate club far outnumber your fan club, many of them we know are legit members who have been around for years. There are probably SOME 60 members of your hate club.
Your supposed fan club seems to post things frequently that warrant being call out. One might say your supposed fans have come here for no other reason than to troll the forum.
I belive those things to be true.Quote: Marcusclark66Quote: MDawgWellBush should not have used the term "moronic" and therein lies the insult and perhaps suspension worthy post, although - it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, and in the past when someone made a post that was clearly insultingly directed at me she was allowed to wiggle out of it by claiming that it wasn't directed at anyone in particular. So the precedent seems to be that vague insults not directed at anyone in particular are allowed if the poster comes in and cringes and grovels for mercy.
As far as repeated "trolling," I'd say that AxelWolf takes the opportunity to mention his belief that Baccarat is unbeatable in about 90% of his rarely-on-topic-lately posts.
In general, I don't think any Moderator should decide that content with which he disagrees is automatically trolling, especially if at the same time allowing trolling comments to pass by with which he might agree.
Wellbush is just...Wellbush. It takes all kinds to make up a community and it's odd to me that anyone would be up in arms about such content on of all places, the internet. Just don't read it if you don't want to.
link to original post
So I remember a few times people saying, that is a stupid way you wager, or what an a**hole way to bet, etc.
Does that mean I am those things.
Or not?
Just saying. Kinda along the same lines.
link to original post
Quote: MDawg[snip]
In general, I don't think any Moderator should decide that content with which he disagrees is automatically trolling, especially if at the same time allowing trolling comments to pass by with which he might agree.
[snip]
link to original post
I agree with MDawg on the above concept 100%.
I used to endure posts from a certain game developer/dealer (paigowdan) who asserted in over 100 posts that card counting was cheating. This was insulting to the entire community of card counters in this forum, but no moderator ever even suggested that stating this opinion was an actionable offense. Because, of course, it was not.
People here have also expressed very insulting opinions of casino security personnel calling them thugs, etc. That has never been cited as an actionable offense.
The phrase "personal insult" has the adjective "Personal" in it. The phrase "Free speech" has the phrase "Free" in it.
Wellbush more than that, because he’s doing the equivalent of calling the math community moronic just for believing that head gaskets exist and sometimes need to be changed.
In the meantime, there’s almost never anything interesting or useful in any of his posts. His posts do nothing but subtract from the quality of the forum and he calls the math community, “Pathetic?”
IMO, he’s had his fun here and it’s time for him to move on. Free Speech in good faith is one thing, but I don’t see how anyone can maintain that he’s even conceivably posting in good faith anymore.
Quote: Mission146If I were to go on a forum dedicated to auto repair and criticize the way that mechanics participating on that forum describe how to change a head gasket as, “Moronic,” and, “Pathetic,” how long do you think until they ban me?
Wellbush more than that, because he’s doing the equivalent of calling the math community moronic just for believing that head gaskets exist and sometimes need to be changed.
In the meantime, there’s almost never anything interesting or useful in any of his posts. His posts do nothing but subtract from the quality of the forum and he calls the math community, “Pathetic?”
IMO, he’s had his fun here and it’s time for him to move on. Free Speech in good faith is one thing, but I don’t see how anyone can maintain that he’s even conceivably posting in good faith anymore.
link to original post
Again, paigowdan, asserted countless times, on a forum with many card-counters, the oddball and unjustifiable notion that card counting was cheating and that casino security was correct to treat it like that. Moderators such as Wizard, JB, Face,BB and Mission never interpreted that as trolling.
USPapergames asserted multiple times that the mathematicians on the WOV forum were not as smart as he was, and could not do the analyses that he could do. Read his posts. They were more directly insulting to the math community than anything Wellbush has ever said. I forget which moderators were active during that period, but none of them interpreted those comments as trolling. Eventually USPapergames did something else that resulted in his nuking.
Mission, you are not addressing the specifics of my objection. Instead, you (a non-moderator) are inventing new criteria from whole cloth as a definition of trolling, which is unhelpful. No where in the rules does it assert that attacking conventional mathematical assumptions and attacking the close-mindedness of mathameticians is considered to be trolling and will be punished.
Mission, you might as well throw a rock at the moon and try to knock it from the sky.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: Mission146If I were to go on a forum dedicated to auto repair and criticize the way that mechanics participating on that forum describe how to change a head gasket as, “Moronic,” and, “Pathetic,” how long do you think until they ban me?
Wellbush more than that, because he’s doing the equivalent of calling the math community moronic just for believing that head gaskets exist and sometimes need to be changed.
In the meantime, there’s almost never anything interesting or useful in any of his posts. His posts do nothing but subtract from the quality of the forum and he calls the math community, “Pathetic?”
IMO, he’s had his fun here and it’s time for him to move on. Free Speech in good faith is one thing, but I don’t see how anyone can maintain that he’s even conceivably posting in good faith anymore.
link to original post
Again, paigowdan, asserted countless times, on a forum with many card-counters, the oddball and unjustifiable notion that card counting was cheating and that casino security was correct to treat it like that. Moderators such as Wizard, JB, Face,BB and Mission never interpreted that as trolling.
USPapergames asserted multiple times that the mathematicians on the WOV forum were not as smart as he was, and could not do the analyses that he could do. Read his posts. They were more directly insulting to the math community than anything Wellbush has ever said. I forget which moderators were active during that period, but none of them interpreted those comments as trolling. Eventually USPapergames did something else that resulted in his nuking.
Mission, you are not addressing the specifics of my objection. Instead, you (a non-moderator) are inventing new criteria from whole cloth as a definition of trolling, which is unhelpful. No where in the rules does it assert that attacking conventional mathematical assumptions and attacking the close-mindedness of mathameticians is considered to be trolling and will be punished.
Mission, you might as well throw a rock at the moon and try to knock it from the sky.
link to original post
Excellent. No past excellent, way north of it!
Fantastic piece Gordonm888.
Thanks for you writing.
USPaperGames would have got it for trolling, sooner or later, regardless. Beyond that, he at least presented a new casino game concept—which adds more than nothing.
I don’t need to, “Invent,” anything. Beyond the fact that Trolling is itself subjective, there’s also Rule 20, which is in place for people who are generally disruptive to the Forum, even in absence of any other rule that can be directly pointed to.
If I’m speaking directly to someone who works in casinos and make the statement, “Everyone who works in a casino is an idiot,” you don’t exactly have to be great at reading between lines to understand my intent is to insult that person.
Furthermore, this thread violates the duplicate threads rule…once again, it’s the same subject matter fitting to one of any number of other relatively active threads here—a few of which were also started by Wellbush. He didn’t express anything new in the OP of this thread.
How could this not be part of the Wellbush Paradox thread? A thread basically dies and he just starts a new one in order to keep himself on the recent threads list.
Thus:
Arguably Rule 1
Rule 5 as relates duplication
Rule 12 as, even if not Trolling, you could consider the language as bullying.
And Rule 20, even if not any of the above.
With many repeated infractions, and almost certainly more to come in the future…bye-bye.
And, I’d say you also look at the sum of his posts: His posts have added nothing here.
Quote: Mission146
And, I’d say you also look at the sum of his posts: His posts have added nothing here.
link to original post
He doesn't add anything because it's difficult to add when you don't believe in math.
(Bad joke on my part)
Lets resume this over on the appropriate thread, wher I'm about to reply to Mission.Quote: darkozQuote: Mission146
And, I’d say you also look at the sum of his posts: His posts have added nothing here.
link to original post
He doesn't add anything because it's difficult to add when you don't believe in math.
(Bad joke on my part)
link to original post
Just because you do particular things idiotically certainly does not mean you are an idiot. It doesn't mean you're not an idiot, either, since much of the evidence being read here unfortunately features the things that you do idiotically, and it's therefore difficult to draw the conclusion that you're not an idiot.
Hope that was helpful.
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/what-are-the-chances-probability-made-clear
It might be useful for others to do the same.
Quote: redietzIt was a great post, Mission. Every year I try to take the time to review:
https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/what-are-the-chances-probability-made-clear
It might be useful for others to do the same.
link to original post
Thank you! I’ll check out that link right now!
Quote: Mission146If I were to go on a forum dedicated to auto repair and criticize the way that mechanics participating on that forum describe how to change a head gasket as, “Moronic,” and, “Pathetic,” how long do you think until they ban me?
If they followed the lead of wizardofvegas, they would not ban you. They would permit you to devalue everything.
Quote: WellbushThe Gambler's Falacy states that every fair play in a game of chance, is independent, and has no better or worse chance based on past play.
How pathetic that the math community believe this! So, the math community unequivocally state the percentages that will eventually occur in each game, for the house, and the gambler.
But how can this be true, due to the Gambler's Falacy???? Another paradox!!!!
How can math say on one hand, you cannot give predictions re chances, but on the other hand predict future chances down to percentage points? Is the math community moronic???
link to original post
Note: Emphasis mine.
Considering, in part, this is the fourth suspension this year, 14 days for insulting the entire forum.
I recommend you use the time to study the very basics of probability. I mean, what probability is. Your homework is to answer this question -- Given the flip of a fair coin, what is the probability it lands on tails? Your assignment is due November 1.
Also, the topic of the gambler's fallacy has been discussed many times already. It is not worthy of starting a new thread for. Your thread-starting privileges are suspended immediately and indefinitely. To be restored by me only.
Quote: WizardQuote: WellbushThe Gambler's Falacy states that every fair play in a game of chance, is independent, and has no better or worse chance based on past play.
How pathetic that the math community believe this! So, the math community unequivocally state the percentages that will eventually occur in each game, for the house, and the gambler.
But how can this be true, due to the Gambler's Falacy???? Another paradox!!!!
How can math say on one hand, you cannot give predictions re chances, but on the other hand predict future chances down to percentage points? Is the math community moronic???
link to original post
Note: Emphasis mine.
Considering, in part, this is the fourth suspension this year, 14 days for insulting the entire forum.
I recommend you use the time to study the very basics of probability. I mean, what probability is. Your homework is to answer this question -- Given the flip of a fair coin, what is the probability it lands on tails? Your assignment is due November 1.
link to original post
Extra credit: the last 8 flips of this fair coin were tails. What is the probability the next flip is tails?
Quote: gordonm888Quote: Mission146If I were to go on a forum dedicated to auto repair and criticize the way that mechanics participating on that forum describe how to change a head gasket as, “Moronic,” and, “Pathetic,” how long do you think until they ban me?
Wellbush more than that, because he’s doing the equivalent of calling the math community moronic just for believing that head gaskets exist and sometimes need to be changed.
In the meantime, there’s almost never anything interesting or useful in any of his posts. His posts do nothing but subtract from the quality of the forum and he calls the math community, “Pathetic?”
IMO, he’s had his fun here and it’s time for him to move on. Free Speech in good faith is one thing, but I don’t see how anyone can maintain that he’s even conceivably posting in good faith anymore.
link to original post
Again, paigowdan, asserted countless times, on a forum with many card-counters, the oddball and unjustifiable notion that card counting was cheating and that casino security was correct to treat it like that. Moderators such as Wizard, JB, Face,BB and Mission never interpreted that as trolling.
USPapergames asserted multiple times that the mathematicians on the WOV forum were not as smart as he was, and could not do the analyses that he could do. Read his posts. They were more directly insulting to the math community than anything Wellbush has ever said. I forget which moderators were active during that period, but none of them interpreted those comments as trolling. Eventually USPapergames did something else that resulted in his nuking.
Mission, you are not addressing the specifics of my objection. Instead, you (a non-moderator) are inventing new criteria from whole cloth as a definition of trolling, which is unhelpful. No where in the rules does it assert that attacking conventional mathematical assumptions and attacking the close-mindedness of mathameticians is considered to be trolling and will be punished.
Mission, you might as well throw a rock at the moon and try to knock it from the sky.
link to original post
There are some interesting discussions that are legitimate opinions and not arguments against facts. I can think of some types of AP that some people might decide are too unethical to personally pursue.
On such discussions, I think it is how the discussion is conducted by interested parties that is of concern to the keeping within the rules. Calling someone a cheater ,vs stating you don't agree with the ethics being the difference. Suggesting some people may be engaging in abhorrent behavior is just going to be a difficult discussion for most to navigate peacefully. That's just a fact. It may be necessary to close a thread or give some a time out. But I do think such discussions are still legitimate as they are opinion discussion on gambling that people can reasonably (or unreasonably) disagree. : )
Quote: WizardQuote: WellbushThe Gambler's Falacy states that every fair play in a game of chance, is independent, and has no better or worse chance based on past play.
How pathetic that the math community believe this! So, the math community unequivocally state the percentages that will eventually occur in each game, for the house, and the gambler.
But how can this be true, due to the Gambler's Falacy???? Another paradox!!!!
How can math say on one hand, you cannot give predictions re chances, but on the other hand predict future chances down to percentage points? Is the math community moronic???
link to original post
Note: Emphasis mine.
Considering, in part, this is the fourth suspension this year, 14 days for insulting the entire forum.
I recommend you use the time to study the very basics of probability. I mean, what probability is. Your homework is to answer this question -- Given the flip of a fair coin, what is the probability it lands on tails? Your assignment is due November 1.
Also, the topic of the gambler's fallacy has been discussed many times already. It is not worthy of starting a new thread for. Your thread-starting privileges are suspended immediately and indefinitely. To be restored by me only.
link to original post
I don't know if I agree Wizard with the phrase insulting the forum - his comment was the math community. This forum at least from the amount of marketing ads would lead me to believe it's a gambling community.
Certainly, I read his post and didn't feel insulted - but then, I don't claim to be the full math community.
Relating back to Math, I haven't looked at enough threads to be statistically relevant as to whether existing threads fulfill his query.. I'd just blindly trust that.
Quote: TwelveOr21
I don't know if I agree Wizard with the phrase insulting the forum - his comment was the math community. This forum at least from the amount of marketing ads would lead me to believe it's a gambling community.
Certainly, I read his post and didn't feel insulted - but then, I don't claim to be the full math community.
Relating back to Math, I haven't looked at enough threads to be statistically relevant as to whether existing threads fulfill his query.. I'd just blindly trust that.
link to original post
There are certainly more than zero, as well as multiple related threads started by Wellbush himself, so your trust is not misplaced.
