Will the D'Alembert produce a win on a 50/50 game of chance?

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Yup....

Really, AxiomOfChoice? To me, that brings your ability to judge one's character into question.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Infinity%

Et tu, Ibeatyouraces? And from a fellow "advantagist"....

Quote: AxelWolf

You sound like the type of person that just loves to talk and talk and talk about the same nothing(tailored strike rates/Variances. GIVE ME A BREAK) You like to hear yourself talk and see how creative you can be with the same old garbage. You use fancy words to make things sound as if what you are saying has some kind of merit. NO ONE, with any merit believes you can beat Bac. TBH, most people think you are a joke, you are probably the only one who dose not see it. I see no difference between you Varmenti,TournamentKing,Rob singer...... actually NO, I think they have more credibility, at least they are willing to show there faces and attempt to prove their claims.

I think... you don't care if you beat Bac or not, you only care if people believe you do. You desperately want just one person to believe you. Narcissistic comes to mind.

You have been playing for years, yet no one has ever seen you. You have been offered different scenarios/opportunity's that would help prove what you are saying.(even one that would not revile you or your system) The only thing you have to hide from is the fact that you probably don't play at all, or play so small it would be laughable(I think you occasionally play small win and lose small) . If anything you say is true, then the fact that you lost 250k should be the only thing people should be concerned with.

Ahhh, I've just no time for this dance, AxelWolf. Believe as you will, my friend. It's your dime....

Quote: gr8player

Really, AxiomOfChoice? To me, that brings your ability to judge one's character into question.

No, it shows that I can do basic math.

You claim to be doing something which is mathematically impossible. I am no idiot, so I know that you are either lying or mistaken. I don't particularly care which...

deleted

Quote: gr8player

Ahhh, I've just no time for this dance, AxelWolf. Believe as you will, my friend. It's your dime....

Lost for more useless words I see. It has a ring of truth and we both know it. Hopefully no one will ever buy into your baloney or they will end up losing their last dime.... You have no time for the truth, and that's the real truth. Your time is better wasted on coming up with different ways to say the same thing and to confuse and convince novice gamblers of the impossible.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

You have no advantage. Therefore we are not "fellows" in that sense.

Oh No You Didn't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCv_OEtTn2M

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

All of us don't


Yes, it really does. Do you even know what the law of large numbers is?



There is no difference between theoretical and practical. This "distinction" is usually made by people who don't understand either.

The purpose of my post was to ask how anyone can prove the result of an uncertain future event with certainty. Probability Theory is only a tool to be used and cannot prove or disprove anything on it's own .It has first to be asked a question and that question is based on an assumption.It is all too often taken for granted ,for example, that we must lose "in the Long Run" while playing roulette but no one tells when that Long Run will come.I have read all sorts of " abouts".About 5,000 bets-About 10,000 bets -About 100, 000 bets and so on - which tells me that no one knows.It is simply based on the fact that the casino doesn't pay fair odds and so we can never win when there is a negative expectation. But that is a Theory which can only be tested in Practice and will prove to be false when even one person - a Black Swan -is an overall winner. But who would divulge a truly profitable system?
There are many Theories that have proven to be wrong in Practice so you are indulging in semantics when you say there is no distinction between them. As Edison put it " I have not failed.I have just found a thousand things that do not work ". Incidentally, why all the bile in your posts ?
Good to hear that you have found an advantage but didn't you use a computer to work out a way to beat the casino's Edge ?
You may be interested in the following post from another site.
About 5 years ago, on the forum, ( Gambling.co.uk ) a guy called "Diceman" posted the following ;

" For that stat I inputted 100,000 trials. Suppose you bet £1 on every spin, always on one number (I think we'd get the same result for any strategy or combination but it'd be harder to work out), then you need to win over 2777 times (100000/36) to break even or make a profit. Probability of success is 0.027027027... (1/37), then press "calculate" and the cumulative probability of winning between 0 and 2777 times is 92.8%, so the probability of winning more times than that is 7.2%.

If you spin a million times you have a 1 in 540541 chance of breaking even. That's not impossible by any means which is why nobody ever gets to play the statistical "long term". But it's still a very irrational thing to do. "
If his calculations are right then clearly it is not true that we MUST lose when playing roulette. Incidentally, what game do you play ?

A math girly, with a PHD from the University of Toronto told me that the "long run" at games of chance like the baccarat, that resolve to a close to 50-50 state, is ten million decisions. If she is correct then I will never live long enough to see that "long run". But, hey it is nice to see the gr8888888888888one goin to war with the resident ap wiseguys, hey hey.

deleted