EvenBob

The fact that you guys are discussing standard deviations in a thread dealing with Bob and his roulette method(method LOL) is totally retarded.

Quote: AxelWolf

The fact that you guys are discussing standard deviations in a thread dealing with Bob and his roulette method(method LOL) is totally retarded.
link to original post

That, too, is seriously funny. LOL X 8.

tuttigym

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wizard

I can confirm that EB are ironing out the details of the challenge. I think I can say we both want to do this. How the challenge is to be conducted and the results reported are sticking points, but we're trying to work that out.
link to original post

Wizard,
Let's look at two scenarios:-
1)
You and EveBob come up with some statistical test which tests the hypothesis that his method has some merit with x% probability: The test is clearly defined and goes ahead and results get announced. Either YOU conclude that "There is (very)/(some)/(no) statistically significant merit to EvenBob's claims of having an advantage"
Humanity can argue the toss after the event and either side of the debate can take your report as an endorsement.

2)
You observe EvenBob's play and come out with some warm fuzzy comment like "I observed EvenBob's play but came up with no conclusive evidence of the merit of his claim." You're a polite fella and I can see you not wanting to be controversial. But then all of humanity can claim "Wizard saw EvenBob's method and concluded it was BS" while EvenBob could claim "This was the x% of the time where it didn't work, but I always said that can happen. Wizard did not prove that my method is BS"

If you let scenario 2 happen, it will be one heck of a dereliction of duty and a crying shame.

That's why I predict that "No meaningful challenge will occur" And I note that EvenBob agrees with my "educated guess"

Make no compromise here. Make the challenge such that you either endorse EvenBob's method completely, or you absolutely call it out for what it is. No middle ground.

If EvenBob can't proceed on that basis, and why wouldn't he, then still make a ruling.
link to original post

Of course it's going to be number 2, we're not going to do enough testing for him to come even close to making any diagnosis of mathematical certainty. That would take a long time and we're not going to do that. He doesn't want to do it, I don't want to do it. So if that's what you're looking for don't even bother reading anymore of this thread. This is a challenge, not an in-depth study. This is working out exactly like I said it would. No matter what happens it will not be enough. Just what I've been saying all along. Thank you for clarifying that.

Quote: AxelWolf

The fact that you guys are discussing standard deviations in a thread dealing with Bob and his roulette method(method LOL) is totally retarded.
link to original post

Hmmm. 'Retarded' might not be the ideal word, because it usually refers to people rather than facts or actions. But I get the sentiment.
For the record, I do not consider Axelwolf's suggestion that I or my posting discussing standard deviations is retarded as any sort of personal insult. I can't speak for wizard or anyone else. Indeed, if we are talking about the post, rather than the poster, I'm inclined to agree with AW, but substitute 'Stupid'. If I have posted about standard deviations, probability or percentages in this thread, I deeply apologise for my abject stupidity. It would be like posting about the mechanics of jet propulsion systems on a Mumsnet eyebrow trimming discussion forum. The facts might all be true and accurate, but the placement, frankly rather stupid, or misguided at best.

Maybe this thread would have been more appropriate on a Mumsnet or mumbo jumbo forum, in the first place?. It already does feature, in a similar form on one mumbo jumbo forum, but EvenBob kindly imported it here for his further edification*.

Wizard is showing tables that feature Standard deviations, for the benefit of those who have the first clue about standard deviations. He is tabulating percentages for those of us with the first clue about percentages. He is generally mentioning probability for those of us with the first clue about probability. He's done some of the math for our benefit. He is in short, tabulating and posting for the benefit of 'Math Guys' in this thread.
That there are Math guys even engaging in this thread seems only a heartbeat away from if we all went over to Mumsnet instead. At what point are Math guys 'stupid' to engage?
EvenBob, by his own admission is not a 'Math guy'. So I doubt that wizard posted that for EvenBob's edification. Nor did I respond for EvenBob's benefit.
I suggest that EvenBob is NOT posting at all about standard deviations, and so is not as stupid as those of us that do. He's just 'different'
Thinking again, 'Retarded' or even 'Stupid' is a rather negative word. It sort of attacks the person. A person can be stupid but do sensible stuff. Another person can be 'advanced' but do stupid stuff. So I characterise my post here about standard deviations as stupid, dumb, misguided.
When Evenbob strays into percentages and probability, he seems to get some pushback. I wonder why? Well, I don't wonder why. I remember why: EvenBob demonstrating his not being a Math Guy. He's 'different'

edification
ĕd″ə-fĭ-kā′shən
noun
Intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement; enlightenment.
The act or process of building; construction.
The thing built; a building; an edifice.

I think EvenBob posts more for his own amusement. Cannot see him getting or even seeking any 'Intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement; enlightenment.'

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: Wizard

I can confirm that EB are ironing out the details of the challenge. I think I can say we both want to do this. How the challenge is to be conducted and the results reported are sticking points, but we're trying to work that out.
link to original post

Wizard,
Let's look at two scenarios:-
1)
You and EveBob come up with some statistical test which tests the hypothesis that his method has some merit with x% probability: The test is clearly defined and goes ahead and results get announced. Either YOU conclude that "There is (very)/(some)/(no) statistically significant merit to EvenBob's claims of having an advantage"
Humanity can argue the toss after the event and either side of the debate can take your report as an endorsement.

2)
You observe EvenBob's play and come out with some warm fuzzy comment like "I observed EvenBob's play but came up with no conclusive evidence of the merit of his claim." You're a polite fella and I can see you not wanting to be controversial. But then all of humanity can claim "Wizard saw EvenBob's method and concluded it was BS" while EvenBob could claim "This was the x% of the time where it didn't work, but I always said that can happen. Wizard did not prove that my method is BS"

If you let scenario 2 happen, it will be one heck of a dereliction of duty and a crying shame.

That's why I predict that "No meaningful challenge will occur" And I note that EvenBob agrees with my "educated guess"

Make no compromise here. Make the challenge such that you either endorse EvenBob's method completely, or you absolutely call it out for what it is. No middle ground.

If EvenBob can't proceed on that basis, and why wouldn't he, then still make a ruling.
link to original post

Of course it's going to be number 2, we're not going to do enough testing for him to come even close to making any diagnosis of mathematical certainty. That would take a long time and we're not going to do that. He doesn't want to do it, I don't want to do it. So if that's what you're looking for don't even bother reading anymore of this thread. This is a challenge, not an in-depth study. This is working out exactly like I said it would. No matter what happens it will not be enough. Just what I've been saying all along. Thank you for clarifying that.
link to original post

OK. That's the Bait and switch out the way from EvenBob's angle.
Let's see if Wizard now presents his own bait and switch: The challenge that is not challenging at all.

It's either 'Put up or shut up' or it's not!

No meaningful challenge will happen!

What a wonderful experiment. If Bob successfully gets 55%+ correctly he will claim victory "I knew I would do it" If not, he claims it wasn't a meaningful experiment. What a complete joke.

p.s. I didn't call anyone or everyone retarded, I said it's retarded to discuss SDs in this situation.

Quote: AxelWolf

What a wonderful experiment. If Bob successfully gets 55%+ correctly he will claim victory "I knew I would do it" If not, he claims it wasn't a meaningful experiment. What a complete joke.

ps I didn't call anyone or everyone retarded, I said it's retarded to discuss SDs in this situation.
link to original post

Agreed and understood. But in my British interpretation, Retarded is a description directed at a person rather than his action, or in the case of your post a 'Fact'

Without a challenge, there can be no outcome.
It's like me spontaneously flipping a coin and calling 'Heads'. If it lands heads, I punch the air and whoop '100% success' If it lands tails, I shrug "I knew that was going to happen"

Quote: OnceDear

Without a challenge, there can be no outcome.
It's like me spontaneously flipping a coin and calling 'Heads'. If it lands heads, I punch the air and whoop '100% success' If it lands tails, I shrug "I knew that was going to happen"
link to original post

The useful question I would pose is not "can you flip 10 heads in a row?", but "how many total flips did it take you to get 10 heads in a row?"

Quote: Dieter

Quote: OnceDear

Without a challenge, there can be no outcome.
It's like me spontaneously flipping a coin and calling 'Heads'. If it lands heads, I punch the air and whoop '100% success' If it lands tails, I shrug "I knew that was going to happen"
link to original post

The useful question I would pose is not "can you flip 10 heads in a row?", but "how many total flips did it take you to get 10 heads in a row?"
link to original post

Futile. After the one flip, the spontaneous unannounced challenge would be declared complete.

Meanwhile
https://nrich.maths.org/6954
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1uJD1O3L08

Quote: OnceDear

OK. That's the Bait and switch out the way from EvenBob's angle.
Let's see if Wizard now presents his own bait and switch: The challenge that is not challenging at all.

It's either 'Put up or shut up' or it's not!

No meaningful challenge will happen!
link to original post

No bait and switch just unreasonable expectations on your part. Dark-Ozzy actually said something useful the other day, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. He said why are you doing the challenge online when you're playing at online casinos. And he was correct. I would have to be a mouth breathing moron to let the number one gambling math person conclude that I do exactly what I claim to do and give all the details on a well-known gambling forum. That could be disastrous for me. So the information you're going to get from this challenge is very limited. Keep up all the negativity and it ain't going to happen at all, because I don't need the grief.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: AxelWolf

I will/can achieve 55% or better over 10 spins, I can guarantee you that. Care to wager?
link to original post

I'll take you up on that wager, subject to the details.
link to original post

Mike accepted this wager because he knows if you can do 55% consistently on a single 0 wheel you have the game beat. Axel's going to find out that he's not even going to be able to do 50% cuz even at 50% you have the game beat because you will win with every progression you use. Mike knows all this and he knows this is an easy wager to win.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: OnceDear

OK. That's the Bait and switch out the way from EvenBob's angle.
Let's see if Wizard now presents his own bait and switch: The challenge that is not challenging at all.

It's either 'Put up or shut up' or it's not!

No meaningful challenge will happen!
link to original post

No bait and switch just unreasonable expectations on your part. Dark-Ozzy actually said something useful the other day, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
link to original post

Wrong!

It's always five o'clock somewhere in the world.

Guess I am always right.

Quote: EvenBob

Keep up all the negativity and it ain't going to happen at all, because I don't need the grief.
link to original post

Whoa!! Who saw that coming?

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: Wizard

Quote: AxelWolf

I will/can achieve 55% or better over 10 spins, I can guarantee you that. Care to wager?
link to original post

I'll take you up on that wager, subject to the details.
link to original post

Mike accepted this wager because he knows if you can do 55% consistently on a single 0 wheel you have the game beat. Axel's going to find out that he's not even going to be able to do 50% cuz even at 50% you have the game beat because you will win with every progression you use. Mike knows all this and he knows this is an easy wager to win.
link to original post

EB,
You cannot see Axel's advantage play in that, can you? Just as you cannot see that if you achieved >55% in a ten wager demonstration, that you will have provided no evidence of your 'having the game beat. None. Nill, Zip, Sod all.

Quote: OnceDear

[
You cannot see Axel's advantage play in that, can you?
link to original post

All I see is that axle will never do 55%. Or even 50%. What am I supposed to see, I don't have a crystal ball like you.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: OnceDear

[
You cannot see Axel's advantage play in that, can you?
link to original post

All I see is that axle will never do 55%. Or even 50%. What am I supposed to see, I don't have a crystal ball like you.
link to original post

I don't know how AW would select his wagers. I just logged into my online casino and found I had 81p credit. So I decided I'd do better than 55% success rate over the next 10 spins at 10p Euro roulette (rng)
I figured 80p would be plenty to get 10 spins.

Betting red or black as the mood took me.

Lost the first spin. Damn! Bad start.
Won 7 of the first 10: 70% Easily> 55%
Won 9 of the first 15: 60% Easily> 55%
I proceeded to take my balance from 81p to £2.01 before squandering it $:o)

And these were consecutive spins. I didn't even need to wait hours between spins for the crystal ball to clear.

Do i have the game beat? Did I demonstrate anything at all? Except maybe >5/10 is nothing special at all
No. Of course not.... Except that I don't maintain much of an account balance, since I got dumped off the VIP program for winning too much.

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: OnceDear

[
You cannot see Axel's advantage play in that, can you?
link to original post

All I see is that axle will never do 55%. Or even 50%. What am I supposed to see, I don't have a crystal ball like you.
link to original post

I don't know how AW would select his wagers. I just logged into my online casino and found I had 81p credit. So I decided I'd do better than 55% success rate over the next 10 spins at 10p Euro roulette (rng)
I figured 80p would be plenty to get 10 spins.

Betting red or black as the mood took me.

Lost the first spin. Damn! Bad start.
Won 7 of the first 10: 70% Easily> 55%
Won 9 of the first 15: 60% Easily> 55%
I proceeded to take my balance from 81p to £2.01 before squandering it $:o)

And these were consecutive spins. I didn't even need to wait hours between spins for the crystal ball to clear.

Do i have the game beat? Did I demonstrate anything at all? Except maybe >5/10 is nothing special at all
No. Of course not.... Except that I don't maintain much of an account balance, since I got dumped off the VIP program for winning too much.
link to original post

See how easy it is? You won 9 of the first 15, piece of cake. Now just figure out how to do that over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, and you'll soon be doing 75%. Because it's a skill and like any skill the more you practice the better you get at it.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: OnceDear

I don't know how AW would select his wagers. I just logged into my online casino and found I had 81p credit. So I decided I'd do better than 55% success rate over the next 10 spins at 10p Euro roulette (rng)
I figured 80p would be plenty to get 10 spins.

Betting red or black as the mood took me.

Lost the first spin. Damn! Bad start.
Won 7 of the first 10: 70% Easily> 55%
Won 9 of the first 15: 60% Easily> 55%
I proceeded to take my balance from 81p to £2.01 before squandering it $:o)

And these were consecutive spins. I didn't even need to wait hours between spins for the crystal ball to clear.

Do i have the game beat? Did I demonstrate anything at all? Except maybe >5/10 is nothing special at all
No. Of course not.... Except that I don't maintain much of an account balance, since I got dumped off the VIP program for winning too much.
link to original post

See how easy it is? You won 9 of the first 15, piece of cake. Now just figure out how to do that over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, and you'll soon be doing 75%. Because it's a skill and like any skill the more you practice the better you get at it.
link to original post

Yes, It's easy to have statistically insignificant results. I can have statistically insignificant results every hour of every day.

Because it's a NOT a skill and unlike any skill, the more you practice the more you stay the same at it

I have no roulette skill. You have no roulette skill. That guy Axelwolf has no roulette skill either. About the only skill one could have in roulette would be how quickly and how neatly one could get their chips on the felt,

Your only skill is playing this game. Not roulette.
Good luck in evading your challenge with Mike.

Come on EvenBob. I believe in you!

If you drop out I will be as disappointed as I was on that day in July 1969 when Neil Armstrong climbed down from the moon rocket and said " I don't need to prove anything to anyone. I did all that training for myself. I don't need the grief."

Quote: OnceDear

It's easy to have statistically insignificant results. I can have statistically insignificant results every hour of every day.

Because it's a NOT a skill and unlike any skill, the more you practice the more you stay the same at it

I have no roulette skill. You have no roulette skill. That guy Axelwolf has no roulette skill either. About the only skill one could have in roulette would be how quickly and how neatly one could get their chips on the felt,

Your only skill is playing this game. Not roulette.
Good luck in evading your challenge with Mike.
link to original post

You could not be more wrong if you were forcibly trying to be wrong. It's very much a skill and one that you can improve on. I've been playing this for 18 years and I joined my first gambling Forum in 2006 and there are people here who remember that and they remember that I was saying then exactly what I'm saying now. This is nothing new for me. If this was some kind of long con as you seem to imply what am I getting out of it. Attention? You must be joking, I have 25000 posts here why would I need attention from something ridiculous like this. How is it that I know so much about roulette? I am the roulette expert on this forum, not the math expert, the game playing roulette expert. Because I do it every single day either in practice or for real. What you really mean to say is you can't do it so you assume nobody can do it. And you've never even tried to do it that's how pathetic your conclusions are. They're based on nothing but your wrong opinion and wishful thinking. If you came here and said that you tried this for 2 months everyday and it doesn't work I would respect that but you will never do that because if you do it for 2 months you'll find it does work. It's attitudes like yours that held back progress and innovation for centuries in Europe and in the United States. You can't do it so you think nobody could do it so why waste your time even trying. Imagine if everybody had your attitude we'd still be living in grass huts eating with our hands and hunting and gathering.

I'm not going to evade the challenge with Mike but I am going to see that the smallest amount of information possible is released about it. For various reasons. I want to go on record saying that I don't like you, I've never liked you because you seem to have two faces. And every once in a while we get to see that other face the one that you hide. Like how you pitched a fit when I came back to the Forum to the moderators, like how is that any of your business. I left of my own accord I could come back on my own accord. Yet when you talk to me we see the other face, the hail-fellow-well-met face. I don't trust you, who would.

The Wiz and Bob have setup how this challenge will proceed. How about everyone else take a step back and let the challenge proceed? It is not up to you to decide the format. So butt out and lets get this thing underway.

Quote: vegas

The Wiz and Bob have setup how this challenge will proceed. How about everyone else take a step back and let the challenge proceed? It is not up to you to decide the format. So butt out and lets get this thing underway.
link to original post

Mike is busy till the 17th so it's probably not going to happen till at least the 20th.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: Wizard

Quote: AxelWolf

I will/can achieve 55% or better over 10 spins, I can guarantee you that. Care to wager?
link to original post

I'll take you up on that wager, subject to the details.
link to original post

Mike accepted this wager because he knows if you can do 55% consistently on a single 0 wheel you have the game beat. Axel's going to find out that he's not even going to be able to do 50% cuz even at 50% you have the game beat because you will win with every progression you use. Mike knows all this and he knows this is an easy wager to win.
link to original post

Of course I can't guess 55% correctly over a significant number of spins, but either can you or anyone else. Without doing any math I suspect getting 55% over 10 spins will happen about 40% of the time. So I guarantee I can do it, but I'm certainly not going to engage in a -EV bet with Mike.

Your experiment will be absolutely meaningless over a small number of spins.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: OnceDear

[
You cannot see Axel's advantage play in that, can you?
link to original post

All I see is that axle will never do 55%. Or even 50%. What am I supposed to see, I don't have a crystal ball like you.
link to original post

I can guarantee you I will guess at least 60% correctly. Put YOUR money where your mouth is. Mike won't bet me on my terms because he knows I CAN DO IT.

Bob, It still makes absolutely no sense why you can't just show Mike your logs. Heck, even if you cherry-picked a consecutive group of 65 bets, I bet you couldn't come up with a 78% hit rate.

I guess it does make sense BECAUSE IT'S not real, therefore there are no logs that can show that.

With my luck I'd likely lose 70% of my spins out of 100 spins. That'd be -70 units + 30 units = -40 units. If it's opposite day, I'd win 40 units instead.

Quote: ChumpChange

With my luck I'd likely lose 70% of my spins out of 100 spins. That'd be -70 units + 30 units = -40 units. If it's opposite day, I'd win 40 units instead.
link to original post

It would be hilarious if you, or EvenBob lost 80% of 100 wagers, because that would be as statistically absurd as winning 80%. Then Wizard would have to conclude that it's highly likely that Evenbob's method was doing 'something'

No meaningful challenge will happen.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: OnceDear

It's easy to have statistically insignificant results. I can have statistically insignificant results every hour of every day.

Because it's a NOT a skill and unlike any skill, the more you practice the more you stay the same at it
link to original post

You could not be more wrong if you were forcibly trying to be wrong. It's very much a skill and one that you can improve on. I've been playing this for 18 years and I joined my first gambling Forum in 2006 and there are people here who remember that and they remember that I was saying then exactly what I'm saying now. This is nothing new for me.

You have some strange beliefs, not to mention a devotion to gamblers fallacy, but with 7 Billion humans on the planet, there are bound to be a few of your ilk.

Quote:

If this was some kind of long con as you seem to imply what am I getting out of it. Attention?

No. Not a long con at all. I could post a new thread about what I believe to be your motivation, my motivation and the motivation of challenging 'Math Guys'?

Quote:

I have 25000 posts here why would I need attention from something ridiculous like this.

We could discuss that in another thread?

Quote:

How is it that I know so much about roulette? I am the roulette expert on this forum,

Devotion? Obsession? It's hardly a complex game.

Quote:

What you really mean to say is you can't do it so you assume nobody can do it. And you've never even tried to do it that's how pathetic your conclusions are. They're based on nothing but your wrong opinion and wishful thinking.

Gambler's fallacy. I didn't come up with it. I believe it to be a fallacy. I believe 200 years of analysis by brighter minds than mine.

Quote:

If you came here and said that you tried this for 2 months everyday...

You'd have the pleasure of knowing you'd stolen 2 months of my life. A form of mischief [a much stronger word redacted]

Quote:

It's attitudes like yours that held back progress and innovation for centuries in Europe and in the United States.

It's methods like yours that kept the druids and cult leaders in material for centuries.

Quote:

Imagine if everybody had your attitude we'd still be living in grass huts eating with our hands and hunting and gathering.

And your method makes you a pioneer? I really must get that new thread discussing our motivation.

Quote:

I'm not going to evade the challenge with Mike but I am going to see that the smallest amount of information possible is released about it.

You just defined EVADE.

Quote:

For various reasons. I want to go on record saying that I don't like you, I've never liked you because you seem to have two faces.

I'm cool with that. I could probably like you. But I'd forever despise and deride your mumbo jumbo method. I can see how you would take that personally. Actually, No. If you didn't try to preach your mumbo jumbo method, I could respect and coexist with that. But when mumbo jumbo is preached, I get on my soap box and try to counter it, for my own amusement and for the good of an audience of a forum that is fact based.

Quote:

And every once in a while we get to see that other face the one that you hide.

I'm multi faceted. When i was a moderator here, I had to promote certain policies. But I always made my true feelings quite clear.

Quote:

Like how you pitched a fit when I came back to the Forum to the moderators, like how is that any of your business.

Pitched a fit? I expressed my opinion. I made an educated guess that this thread would be a train wreck and lose members. It was a self fulfilling prophecy

Quote:

Yet when you talk to me we see the other face, the *hail-fellow-well-met face.

I can and will be sociable with you as a person. But I'll deride and mock your method as the mood takes me.

Quote:

link to original post

No meaningful challenge will occur. Nothing to see here.

To those who would have me 'Butt out'. Sorry guys. you have the option of blocking my posts. What's good for the goose...

**hail-fellow-well-met Thanks for introducing me to that expression.

Quote: OnceDear

No meaningful challenge will happen.
link to original post

It could be the best challenge ever seen in roulette and you would say it wasn't meaningful. That's because you're totally on the negative side of this so any results from any challenge will never be good enough for you and others on here like you. Just like I said from the very beginning, I predicted this. Because that's what always happens, no matter what you do it's never enough. So keep ending every post you make with no 'meaningful challenge will happen', because there is no challenge that would be meaningful for you. You would always find fault. Because that's what you do.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: OnceDear

No meaningful challenge will happen.
link to original post

It could be the best challenge ever seen in roulette and you would say it wasn't meaningful. That's because you're totally on the negative side of this so any results from any challenge will never be good enough for you and others on here like you. Just like I said from the very beginning, I predicted this. Because that's what always happens, no matter what you do it's never enough. So keep ending every post you make with no 'meaningful challenge will happen', because there is no challenge that would be meaningful for you. You would always find fault. Because that's what you do.
link to original post

Glad to be of service.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: OnceDear

No meaningful challenge will happen.
link to original post

It could be the best challenge ever seen in roulette and you would say it wasn't meaningful. That's because you're totally on the negative side of this so any results from any challenge will never be good enough for you and others on here like you. Just like I said from the very beginning, I predicted this. Because that's what always happens, no matter what you do it's never enough. So keep ending every post you make with no 'meaningful challenge will happen', because there is no challenge that would be meaningful for you. You would always find fault. Because that's what you do.
link to original post

Oh, just the opposite! The math nerds will analyze the challenge and tell you (with great precision) how likely it is that your results were obtained by luck, assuming you actually show a profit during the challenge. If you have the skills you claim, this probability will stand on its own. Look at the Wizard's charts. For a man of your skills, it shouldn't be very hard for you to hit +2 SD. If you do this, I promise to stop mocking your supposed skills. If you hit +3 SD on the first go, I will sing your praises. All hail, King of Roulette!

Even if you obtained the result by chance, you deserve praise for putting your system to the test and prevailing. I will actually be impressed. However, it should be easy for you to hit +4 SD based on your past claims. As Bela Karolyi said "you can do it".

Quote: AxelWolf

The fact that you guys are discussing standard deviations in a thread dealing with Bob and his roulette method(method LOL) is totally retarded.
link to original post

I view the term "retarded" in this context as insulting.
Please consider this a courteous warning.

Quote: EvenBob

You must be joking, I have 25000 posts here why would I need attention from something ridiculous like this.

Agreed: these claims are ridiculous.

Speaking of ridiculous claims...

Quote: EvenBob

How is it that I know so much about roulette? I am the roulette expert on this forum, not the math expert, the game playing roulette expert.

Quote: odiousgambit

Will everyone please help make sure it is very clear what the challenge is? I thank all in advance.
link to original post

In some states, the 'player location check' software is required in order to simply log in, much less play online. This software will check your process table and fail you if you have anything that smells like a VPN or screen casting program. Even an AHK installation might be against the rules. I got failed because I had a process name that was suspicious. I had to get help from the company to turn on the PLC logging in order to figure this out. The process would trigger a fail even if the process was suspended at the time.

I was also failed for trying to use a Android emulator so I could use the mobile-device version of a game.

Is it permissible to zoom while playing online? I have never tried it. I am able to use Xbox Game Bar to record sessions. Of course, a video of the screen would work, but would be of lower quality.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: AxelWolf

The fact that you guys are discussing standard deviations in a thread dealing with Bob and his roulette method(method LOL) is totally retarded.
link to original post

I view the term "retarded" in this context as insulting.
Please consider this a courteous warning.
link to original post

Your view is noted, however, in my opinion it's a _____ view(trying to think of a good word).

Can you give us some examples of how we can use the word retarded? From my understanding, we are allowed to call something retarded. We just can't call a person retarded.

Please don't give me any PC crap about the word retarded. Unless I'm using the word to describe a mentally challenged person, there's no reason to be offended. If you guys are____ (trying to think of a good word)enough to ban the word retarded that's fine, do so, but don't make something out to be an insult just because the word retarded was used. Had I used the words dumb or stupid we wouldn't be having this conversation. There's no difference.

Quote: MDawg

Not vetted! (the others)

Yes vetted! (MDawg...and perhaps soon, EvenBob too)



link to original post

Well here was an opportunity to show me just how "real" you are. Crickets.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: MDawg

Quote: MDawg

Probably what Phil Ivey said made the most sense, that he heard Robbi mention that "all I have is a 3" during the hand, that she misread her hand, then later was embarrassed and didn't want to seem dumb in front of the other pros, so was equivocal about her mistake.
link to original post

According to Ivey: "If you notice in the middle of the hand she asked, Can you beat a 3?...She misread her hand, and she didn't want to say [later] that she misread her hand, because she's at a poker table."

Phil Ivey shares what he thinks happened during the Robbi vs GMAN infamous poker hand

The fact that you seem to keep arguing that she must have cheated, makes me even more confident that I could beat you at heads up poker! I continue to believe that you have poor reads on people, including on me.
link to original post

Please quote where I'm arguing that she must have cheated. I think I made it clear I didn't think she was cheating, but I wasn't ruling anything out.

Given that you lodged a complaint against me regarding something you may have said, and I was asked to prove it, ill be seeking the same in this case.

Regarding your comment about playing heads up, I have already made a proposal a few years back and you made some type of excuse and then basically ignored it when I said we could solve those issues.

I'm more than willing to play you heads up. I think Mike would be willing to host it on a real table with real chips. I can get a professional dealer or ask Mike to deal. I already suspect you'll just try to come up with excuses or engage in some big-bet fluff situation.

To avoid that, I'll just tell you now... I'd be willing to do three 4k buy-in freezeouts. Less if you wish.
link to original post

Quote: AxelWolf

Can you give us some examples of how we can use the word retarded? From my understanding, we are allowed to call something retarded. We just can't call a person retarded.
link to original post

Quote:

My 302 is running much better since I retarded the ignition timing.

A "retarded" discussion would seem to make an implication about the participants.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: AxelWolf

Can you give us some examples of how we can use the word retarded? From my understanding, we are allowed to call something retarded. We just can't call a person retarded.
link to original post

Quote:

My 302 is running much better since I retarded the ignition timing.

A "retarded" discussion would seem to make an implication about the participants.
link to original post

In the old Model T's you had a control on the dash that lets you retard thespark plug.

"The Model T is always started in the retard position, as it was designed to be;"

Does this mean the driver was also retarded? I don't think so.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: AxelWolf

Can you give us some examples of how we can use the word retarded? From my understanding, we are allowed to call something retarded. We just can't call a person retarded.
link to original post

Quote:

My 302 is running much better since I retarded the ignition timing.

A "retarded" discussion would seem to make an implication about the participants.
link to original post

NOPE! The discussion itself, not the participants. Do you think I'm retarded enough to suggest Mike is retarded?

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: Dieter

Quote: AxelWolf

Can you give us some examples of how we can use the word retarded? From my understanding, we are allowed to call something retarded. We just can't call a person retarded.
link to original post

Quote:

My 302 is running much better since I retarded the ignition timing.

A "retarded" discussion would seem to make an implication about the participants.
link to original post

NOPE! The discussion itself, not the participants. Do you think I'm retarded enough to suggest Mike is retarded?
link to original post

On the last point, I'm sure I wouldn't know.
I do know that when I make comments like "This is a dumb idea" in person, polite people have been known to act like they're insulted and run away.
The Rules seem pretty clear on absolutely no personal insults, no racial slurs, and members are expected to act like ladies and gentlemen.
I understand if you interpolate "the line" differently than I do based on those rules and everchanging societal expectations.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: Dieter

Quote: AxelWolf

Can you give us some examples of how we can use the word retarded? From my understanding, we are allowed to call something retarded. We just can't call a person retarded.
link to original post

Quote:

My 302 is running much better since I retarded the ignition timing.

A "retarded" discussion would seem to make an implication about the participants.
link to original post

NOPE! The discussion itself, not the participants. Do you think I'm retarded enough to suggest Mike is retarded?
link to original post

Guys, Guys.... It's semantics. I'm sure AW meant no offence and was labelling the post rather than the posters.
However, depending where you look it up, you can get quite a tight definition of "Retarded"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/retarded

Quote:

retarded
adjective
US /rɪˈtɑr·dɪd/

having a slower mental development than other people of the same age:
mentally/emotionally retarded
Note:
Because "retarded" has sometimes been used as an insult, the term is now less often used to describe people with slow mental development.

A person can have slow or fast mental development, That's a human characteristic. An Idea or a forum post does not feature mental development and so, cannot be retarded. Other words such as dumb, daft, stupid don't fair much better, but one can make a stupid statement or have a daft idea. But one cannot, in the literal sense, have a retarded idea. One can have the idea of a retarded person.
Incidentally, I don't think that saying someone made a stupid post or had a stupid idea would be the same level of insult as calling someone stupid. YMMV.

As un-pc the word retarded is I note AHRC has not changed their name.

Although they claim they don't use it. It's just the same initials and they haven't picked a new name.

Quote: darkoz

As un-pc the word retarded is I note AHRC has not changed their name.

Although they claim they don't use it. It's just the same initials and they haven't picked a new name.
link to original post

????

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: darkoz

As un-pc the word retarded is I note AHRC has not changed their name.

Although they claim they don't use it. It's just the same initials and they haven't picked a new name.
link to original post

????
link to original post

AHRC

Association for Health of Retarded Children.

A very large association that houses children who suffer from retardation.

My sister was born brain damaged and has been housed with them since the seventies when she was five years old.

As requested, the tangential discussion of a previous challenge has been removed to its own thread.

It appears a few posts were unintentionally taken along for the ride. (Sorry AxelWolf, it really was not on purpose.)

The forked discussion may be found here:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/37619-darkoz-mdawg-challenge-split-from-roulette-method/#post866605

Quote: Dieter

As requested, the tangential discussion of a previous challenge has been removed to its own thread.

It appears a few posts were unintentionally taken along for the ride. (Sorry AxelWolf, it really was not on purpose.)

The forked discussion may be found here:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/37619-darkoz-mdawg-challenge-split-from-roulette-method/#post866605
link to original post

That was two full pages of off topic discussion.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: Dieter

As requested, the tangential discussion of a previous challenge has been removed to its own thread.

It appears a few posts were unintentionally taken along for the ride. (Sorry AxelWolf, it really was not on purpose.)

The forked discussion may be found here:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/37619-darkoz-mdawg-challenge-split-from-roulette-method/#post866605
link to original post

That was two full pages of off topic discussion.
link to original post

Maybe no one is interested in what you have to say anymore

Quote: AxelWolf

Can you give us some examples of how we can use the word retarded?

The rise of the yeast bun was retarded due to the addition of too many dried fruits.

Apparently, Bob creates his own reality with a mind control method. I think this explains a lot.


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/37618-time-relevance/#post866700

Quote: AxelWolf

Apparently, Bob creates his own reality with a mind control method. I think this explains a lot.


https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/37618-time-relevance/#post866700
link to original post

Lol, all he is doing is setting his clock to a different time zone. Big deal.