Poll

17 votes (60.71%)
3 votes (10.71%)
8 votes (28.57%)

28 members have voted

EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
July 16th, 2012 at 7:13:05 PM permalink
Quote: mustangsally


My post here has a link to a math paper on the subject.
http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/10597-does-counting-work/7/#post164216

.



Random Walk is a theory, a supposition, and is not subscribed
to by everybody. Including me.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
24Bingo
24Bingo
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1348
July 16th, 2012 at 7:29:51 PM permalink
Boy howdy, that one's right up there with creationism. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's worse, since one is a matter of empirical evidence, and one of mathematical rigor.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
July 16th, 2012 at 9:57:02 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Random Walk is a theory, a supposition, and is not subscribed
to by everybody. Including me.



"A theory or supposition" - pardon? It's a phenomena based on a core tenet of what 'random' means. A theory, in the scientific world actually means something that can be held, used and works as predictive model of behaviour.

Which parts can be rejected and not subscribed to? Where is the logical step in say, that paper, that is incorrect? Which core axiom do you reject? Why is "random walk" a supposition?

If your going to reject probability theory, but yet lecture other people on it's finer points? But not actually add anything useful, just out of hand reject things... which the reader will note is neither actually answered when challenged, but is moved to another topic.

First we have 0 EV games adding up to -EV games.
Then we have a rejection of the law or large numbers for even chance games (crossing and recrossing the 50% boundary)
And now rejection of random walk.

See yah!
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
July 16th, 2012 at 10:24:08 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Why is "random walk" a supposition?



Because its a theory and all theories are suppositions.
Even Einstein's E=MC squared. They tear it apart on
a regular basis.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
July 16th, 2012 at 10:38:09 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Because its a theory and all theories are suppositions.
Even Einstein's E=MC squared. They tear it apart on
a regular basis.




They? Whose "they"?

Proof, or it didn't happen.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
July 16th, 2012 at 10:44:55 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

They? Whose "they"?

Proof, or it didn't happen.



I don't do that anymore. You have it backwards. I'm happy
with my statement. You're the one with a problem, so the
burden of proof is on your end, not mine. Go ahead and
show nobody has a problem with Einstein's theory. You know they do.

edit. Here's one among many.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
July 16th, 2012 at 10:56:47 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

I don't do that anymore. You have it backwards. I'm happy
with my statement. You're the one with a problem, so the
burden of proof is on your end, not mine. Go ahead and
show nobody has a problem with Einstein's theory. You know they do.



Whose discussing Einstein? I'm discussing probability theory.

I don't have it backwards. You do. You make unsubstantiated statements that are meaningless without context, have zero proof and are outright wrong. Easily, and provably so. When challenged, you race away to another statement, and regress to reject a core set of axioms, a core set you were using beforehand to support your incorrect statements. Your the one with a problem with :

0 EV games
Drunkard walks
The Law of Large Numbers

All there you've made statements on which are not correct. But instead of proving or stating anything useful, so people can consider the argument, you run wimpering when challenged. And when someone does PROVE their statements (which I have three times, Bob), the burden is on the person rejecting them to have more than "oh that's just a theory, I reject it".

Well done you.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 434
  • Posts: 25333
July 16th, 2012 at 11:03:45 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit


I don't have it backwards. You do. You make unsubstantiated statements



But I like my statements. If you take issue
with them, prove me wrong. I'm sick of
people syaing 'PROVE IT! and when I
do, they invariably disappear and never say
a word. So I'm done with that. I'm sure you
can see my point.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
24Bingo
24Bingo
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1348
July 17th, 2012 at 1:40:20 AM permalink
We have proven you wrong time and time again in this thread. You are ignoring us. In particular, claiming a random walk is "a theory, a supposition," when it follows from the very definition of random independent events, is stunning. You like your statements enough that you will not only judge empirical evidence, but pure mathematics - pure reason - based on how will it fits your initial conclusion.

Moreover, there's an important distinction between Einstein's theory of relativity and random walks, and that's that the former proceeds from observations of the universe, and the latter from the very nature of the concept being discussed; when the universe shows discrepancies, what's to be fixed is the universe (e.g., replacing a funny roulette wheel or an unfair die). There is nothing sacred about Einstein, and his theory existed from day one to be refined indefinitely as data grows and grows, sensationalist mass media headlines aside (the NYT and science are frenemies of legend). That doesn't mean it's unworthy of respect, since the predictions it makes hold up quite well except at very small scales, and better at all scales than the prior model. But the concept of a random walk, or almost anything else in mathematics, will not change, since it's inherent to the very concepts we're discussing.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
July 17th, 2012 at 3:07:10 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

I'm happy
with my statement. You're the one with a problem, so the
burden of proof is on your end, not mine.



Wow!
That's a new one ...

Bob, you know you are going to Hell then, right? (I don't mean it as an insult, just fact, since you have not proven that God does not exist, therefore He does, and since you don't believe in Him, you are going to Hell. I am happy with my statement... Are you?)

(In case you care, the article you linked to is based on an experiment they did in CERN, that had some surprising results ... caused by a lose contact on the measuring device. The mystery has been solved a while ago).
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"

  • Jump to: