Does counting work....

Quote: heather

There are at least two online casinos that have been running that exact promotion for a few years now. Must be working out okay for them, because they're still doing it.

The only ones I heard of with such promotions, were, I think, charging a commission either on bets or on winnings on those "zero-house-edge" games, effectively, no only negating the value of the promotion, but actually making it worse than the regular game. Ah, greed ...

Quote: weaselman

Yeah ... I stand corrected. I was thinking about one player playing against casino, and still not having a very good shot at finishing ahead. On average over all the players, the casino will not be winning.

This is a remarkable post! A forum member made a post which was factually incorrect, then read a subsequent post, and changed his mind! Congrats, weaselman! It hurts my brain when someone says the casino will eventually make money on true even money bets.....

Quote: heather

There are at least two online casinos that have been running that exact promotion for a few years now. Must be working out okay for them, because they're still doing it.

It might be working out for them for a few different possible reasons....
1. They cheat the players, and if they set the game to pay 99% no player would probably ever know........
2. They make money on deposit charges and withdrawal fees...
3. Although neither winning nor losing money on this game, players might wander to other games the online casino offers...

Quote: thecesspit

Of those gamblers, 16787 busted. Only 1011 made a profit,

Take it to the end. Give the 1011 players another 100,000
spins. Then give those winners another 100K. Till there are
no winners left. Just for fun.

It seems to me that because all bets in roulette
equal the even bets, the it would favor the house
for this reason. If you carry R/B, for instance, into
infinity, not only are they never equal, they become
farther apart as time goes on.

You'll find after 10m spins, R/B are thousands of
spins apart. After 20m spins, they are even farther
apart. And so on. And this would favor the player
with the largest BR, which is always the casino.

Quote: EvenBob

It seems to me that because all bets in roulette
equal the even bets, the it would favor the house
for this reason. If you carry R/B, for instance, into
infinity, not only are they never equal, they become
farther apart as time goes on.

You'll find after 10m spins, R/B are thousands of
spins apart. After 20m spins, they are even farther
apart. And so on. And this would favor the player
with the largest BR, which is always the casino.

This is a mixture of true, misleading, and false. The R/B count at some time in the future will be equal, with probability ~1. The R/B difference follows a random walk. The largest magnitude of difference does increase over time, but there will be periods when they are very close or equal.

A casino will wipe out one player in an even game, but not all players. The other posters are correct.

removed
silly

Sally

Quote: dwheatley

The R/B count at some time in the future will be equal,

Nope, they won't. Statistically they will be closer, like
99.9997% instead of 99.9996%. But physically,
actually, they will continue to be farther apart. Forever. I'm
not making this up, do a sim. Its a fact.

How is it that a thread entitled "does counting work" with a poll, no less, has evolved into a theoretical discussion on even money roulette?

Quote: EvenBob

Nope, they won't. Statistically they will be closer, like
99.9997% instead of 99.9996%. But physically,
actually, they will continue to be farther apart. Forever. I'm
not making this up, do a sim. Its a fact.

I agree with dwheatley

You need to go back to your random walk studies and read more on "Passage times"
(you are correct when p does not equal q)

"If p = q we get
(formula left out)
by Theorem 2.
Remark 3.
The symmetric random walk will therefore, with probability 1, return to 0. This
holds after each return, so that
P(Sn = 0 i.o.) = 1.

Although the walk will return to zero infinitely often,

the expected time between returns is infinite!
The law of large numbers can therefore not be interpreted as saying that the particle usually is close
to 0. In fact, the particle is rarely close to 0 and a large proportion of the time is spent far away
from 0, even in a symmetric random walk!"


Now, back to the topic of this thread.
I say, no, today, card counting does not work.
If a player thinks it does, they have just not played enough hands and are just on the positive side of variance.
If it was true, over 100 million players would be killing the casinos with their BJ play.
That is not happening.

Quote: mustangsally

the expected time between returns is infinite!

Thats nonsense talk. One side will get ahead so
far that the other side can never get caught up
even into infinity.

Quote: EvenBob

Thats nonsense talk. One side will get ahead so
far that the other side can never get caught up
even into infinity.

No it is not. Just simple math that most will not understand :)

Again, you are only correct when p does not equal q

when p=q, the walk always returns to zero, always, an infinite number of times.


added: any stats/prob book with random walk will show this
here is one:
Random Walk

Quote: EvenBob

Thats nonsense talk. One side will get ahead so
far that the other side can never get caught up
even into infinity.

This incorrect, especially with reference to infinity.

If A can get ahead by 100, over time X, why can B not score 100 more than A over time X or 2X or 3X?

Obviously it can, else A could not have got ahead by 100.

Quote: EvenBob

It seems to me that because all bets in roulette
equal the even bets, the it would favor the house
for this reason. If you carry R/B, for instance, into
infinity, not only are they never equal, they become
farther apart as time goes on.

You'll find after 10m spins, R/B are thousands of
spins apart. After 20m spins, they are even farther
apart. And so on. And this would favor the player
with the largest BR, which is always the casino.

Actually, the sum total of all players bankrolls is probably bigger than the casino's bank roll, in real life.

Quote: thecesspit

Actually, the sum total of all players bankrolls is probably bigger than the casino's bank roll, in real life.

How so? The casino has a bottomless bank, the player does not.

Quote: jjjoooggg

Has anyone here successfully made money counting over the long term?
I have already lost money. And I'm scared to try again. Can some of yall give your story.

In the past, yes.
I now agree with PGDan, that making money from BJ card counting is dead.

Who wants to travel the world, get kicked out of casinos because you card count, it is very easy to spot a counter these days.
Do not fool yourself, no fun in it left.
The few that make money, they are just the few.

The great majority, you and I included, can do better playing poker... and have more fun.

Just look at all the great counters from the near past, they now work for wall street or write BJ books and/or sell blackjack software.
That tells me just what I need to know.

Hey South Park is on for 2 hours
Pool party!

Quote: mustangsally

Now, back to the topic of this thread.
I say, no, today, card counting does not work.
If a player thinks it does, they have just not played enough hands and are just on the positive side of variance.
If it was true, over 100 million players would be killing the casinos with their BJ play.
That is not happening.

I am in my ninth year of making a living from blackjack play. I played just under 88,000 hands in 2009. 85,755 hands in 2010. 66,975 hands in 2011 (missed nearly 3 months due to illness) and just over 32,000 so far this year, as I have expanded into a second game which has cut down my blackjack play. That's over a quarter million hands in the last 3 and a half years. Prior to 2009, I did not track my play by hands played as I do now, but rather attempted to keep track in increments of time, which I found less accurate, so I switched to tracking hands. From 2004 until 2008 I was based on the east coast prior to relocating to vegas, and was playing lower limit and had more travel time involved, so the number of hands played (which I didn't keep track of then) was probably closer to 40,000 a year. But still that is closing in on half a million hands in my 8 and a half years. At what point can I expect variance to catch up to me?? lol

100 million people aren't killing the casino's by card counting because they don't have the bankroll to do so, not because it doesn't work. Because of the worse games and higher initial house advantage to overcome, there are huge swings involved in serious play today. A very large bankroll is needed to withstand these swings and probably even more important is the mental ability to withstand such enormous negative swings. That is what keeps the number of players who actually do this seriously down.

Last year I hit my high point on June 30. Over the last 6 months of the year I went backwards to the tune of five figures. It actually was much worse than that as I went backwards 33k over a 5 week period before rebounding to finish the second half of the year down (only) 10 grand. While the year in total, was a success for me, making mid/upper 5 figures, it is that type of 6 month downswing that keeps the masses from doing it. Few players have the bankroll or the stomach to play nearly everyday for six months and come away down thousands of dollars. The first such negative variance downswing and they have had enough. In addition to the large bankroll necessary, you have to have money to pay your bills during such a period. I am talking, you better have a hundred grand BR and living expenses.... and be prepared to lose a good chunk of it during a down cycle before things turn around. That is what keeps 100 million people from killing the casinos.

If you need more proof that card counting still work, you need look no further than this one fact. Casinos commonly backoff and barr players suspected of card counting. And in juristictions where they are not permitted to bann player from playing, the use bet restricting and preferential shuffling. If card counting no longer works, why are casinos throwing out and restricting losing customers?

Quote: kewlj

If you need more proof that card counting still work, you need look no further than this one fact. Casinos commonly backoff and barr players suspected of card counting. And in juristictions where they are not permitted to bann player from playing, the use bet restricting and preferential shuffling. If card counting no longer works, why are casinos throwing out losing customers?

I agree over 99.999% of all BJ counters are underfunded.
I was.
And many still are.

I say there are way better ways to make a living.
Poker and sports betting to name a few.

You are just one of the lucky ones.
(WE also know all gamblers tell the whole truth 100% of the time)

If I was a casino, I take NO risk in my business model.
Card counters can play if they flat bet.

Public perception is card counting is cheating the casino and all the other players that do NOT count.
Even the cops think counters are breaking the law.
Where is the fun in that atmosphere?

Good Luck in your heaven

Quote: kewlj

Last year I hit my high point on June 30. Over the last 6 months of the year I went backwards to the tune of five figures. It actually was much worse than that as I went backwards 33k over a 5 week period before rebounding to finish the second half of the year down (only) 10 grand.

I think the numbers are you will only be at your bankroll highs less that 5% of the time.
I would have to open up BJ Attack for the actual numbers.

The vast majority of counters have no clue on the math of BJ
and the bankroll and bet sizes needed to be successful, even though there is lots of info available to learn to do it correctly.

Quote: EvenBob

How so? The casino has a bottomless bank, the player does not.

The casino does not have a bottomless bank, no more than the SUM TOTAL OF -ALL PLAYERS- have a bottomless bank. All players. Not just one or two.

Again, how can the sum of 0 EV results result in a positive EV situation for either side? It cannot.

Quote: kewlj

and was playing lower limit and had more travel time involved, so the number of hands played (which I didn't keep track of then) was probably closer to 40,000 a year. But still that is closing in on half a million hands in my 8 and a half years.
At what point can I expect variance to catch up to me?? lol

Thanks for all the good news.
I do agree that bankroll and travel limits most card counters.

the formula, as you should know is ev/sd and your value should be a positive number.
Do you know what that is?
Get it as high as possible, even if that that means playing up to a million of hands more :)

Quote: thecesspit

The casino does not have a bottomless bank, no more than the SUM TOTAL OF -ALL PLAYERS- have a bottomless bank.

If you make a sum of all players, you have to make
a sum of all casinos. In which case the casino always
has the best BR.

Quote: EvenBob

If you make a sum of all players, you have to make
a sum of all casinos. In which case the casino always
has the best BR.

Hmm, true, but I -think- that the sum total of the bank rolls in Vegas over a year is greater than the sum total of the casino's bankrolls. 38 Million people visited Vegas last year. At a $1000 bank roll per person : $38 Billion bankroll. That's about the market capitalisation of the Big Three casino chains (and that's a stock market number, not what the casino has on hand).

In any case, doesn't matter. A 0 EV game is a zero EV game is a zero sum game. You can't add lots of Zeroes and get anything but 0.

In short : the casino doesn't get any advantage from spreading a zero sum game. My results show that even if there is an effect, over 1.8 million made bets, there was no net gain by the house or player. The casino gets an advantage by slicing of tiny pieces of your bank roll with it's house advantage.

The only argument I'd like to put out there to the "casinos have an unlimited bankroll" is that they have very large bills to pay, so they technically don't have an unlimited bankroll. If they have a month or two in a row without making enough money, they can easily go broke if there are no investors willing to pony up the cash. The payments on the buildings is massive, along with payroll. To open 1 table game, a casino has to have around 8 employees on the clock, minimum. Consider that their expected win from one table is around $80/hour depending on how many players are on the table. Once you start adding up the wages for the pit boss, at least 2 dealers, cage cashier, security, surveillance, and waitstaff for just servicing that one table, you are easily underwater. Of course the slots are much cheaper to operate, but there are still fees to the state for each game and table.
That being said, I expect that is why you will likely never see more than a promotional game or two that offers a 0% house edge game, even if the casino could expect to make a few bucks off of it per month.

Quote: thecesspit

Hmm, true, but I -think- that the sum total of the bank rolls in Vegas

Vegas is too small. You have to consider all the casinos
in the world. Which you have to do anyway when talking
about roulette.

Quote: mustangsally

1,000 to 1
NOT bad odds at all.

Well ... I guess, you and I have very different notions of "good odds", that's all :)

Quote: EvenBob

If you make a sum of all players, you have to make
a sum of all casinos. In which case the casino always
has the best BR.

All players at a given casino. The reason they're being added together is to show you how they look to the casino, so there's no reason to add all casinos together, the same way when you're looking at how your own bankroll is faring against a trip up and down the strip, there's no reason to consider all the other suckers there just because you're considering all the casinos.

The point is that, as far as the casino's concerned, all bets are the same. They're making even-money bets against a faceless mass of "the public," and losing or winning just like you are when you make your bets with the casino. The public have essentially unlimited money, no matter how many individuals go broke, or just stop playing. What you're saying would be true if a group of people sat down, only leaving when their bankrolls were exhausted, and weren't replaced. But that's not how it works anywhere; even if they only left on exhausting their bankrolls, but were replaced, the upswings, although they'd inevitably end for each individual, would hold the house's money in perpetual abeyance. Moreover, no matter how far they get from even, over infinite time, they will always get back, since given infinite time, there will be winning and losing streaks of any arbitrary length, and it's equally likely that the casino will be down as up. It's true that as the number of bets made increases, the distance from zero in a fixed probability goes up in a function approaching a constant multiple of the square root, but no matter how far out you are, there's always eventually going to be a streak that takes you back. And, again, there's no reason for that to favor the casino, not until every last patron is broke.

Quote: EvenBob

Vegas is too small. You have to consider all the casinos
in the world. Which you have to do anyway when talking
about roulette.

They still dont have as big a bank roll as the players. Should be clear from my example of Vegas.... its nothing to do with bankrolls. Its all about a zero game cant be made to be non-zero. No more than a negative expectation game can be made positive via a series of negative bets.

By the way, I ran the sim ten times longer. 1.5% of the players were still in, and the house still had no advantage. Sixty million bets, three hundred million wagered, and the house still hasnt won any of the $2,000,000 bank roll. Sounds like a real money maker for the house.

e431312

Quote: 24Bingo

It's true that as the number of bets made increases, the distance from zero in a fixed probability goes up in a function approaching a constant multiple of the square root, but no matter how far out you are, there's always eventually going to be a streak that takes you back.

This just is not true. Taking one stream of results for
millions of spins and into infinity, one side will get
ahead and stay ahead forever. They will get closer
statistically, but never reach equality. In fact, the closer
they become % wise, the farther apart they become
in reality.

What happens is, there comes a point where one side
gets just far enough ahead, that no matter what happens
the other side can never catch up. So the gap just keeps
widening.

But you can't just look at one stream of outcomes. You
have to look at multiple streams, ultimately millions
of streams, to see where the equality is. For every
stream where red is far ahead of black, theres a stream
where black is ahead of red. If could look at enough
streams, there would be total equality.

When a player see's 12 reds in a row on a tote board,
he wrongly assumes that equality is right around the
corner, black will catch up soon. Maybe, maybe not.
In reality, on some tote board somewhere in the world,
there are 12 blacks in a row, and there's your equality.
Random numbers have to be looked at in very large
amounts, a small isolated stream tells you nothing
at all.

Quote: EvenBob

This just is not true. Taking one stream of results for
millions of spins and into infinity, one side will get
ahead and stay ahead forever. They will get closer
statistically, but never reach equality. In fact, the closer
they become % wise, the farther apart they become
in reality.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Completely incorrect.

I've already given you the thought experiment that shows why this is wrong.

The hard core mathematicians can give you the explanation in Mathematical terms.

Quote:

But you can't just look at one stream of outcomes. You
have to look at multiple streams, ultimately millions
of streams, to see where the equality is. For every
stream where red is far ahead of black, theres a stream
where black is ahead of red. If could look at enough
streams, there would be total equality.

And this is just nonsense dressed up and taken out for dinner.

Quote: thecesspit

I've already given you the thought experiment that shows why this is wrong.

The thought experiment?

This is not wrong, the two sides from a single strem
do not eventually come together given an 'infinite
amount of time'.

Quote: EvenBob

The thought experiment?

If after a time interval x, heads has "Y" more hits than tails, why cannot tails have "Y" more hits than heads over a time interval y, where y is sequentially after x? What law or mathematical phenomena means that a random coin flip now stops acting random?

Example, after 2 billion flips, heads is ahead by 3,000. Why can tails not now get 3,001 more results than heads at some point over the next 2 billion flips?

In short, if one side can "get ahead" the other can "get ahead" later.

Quote:

This is not wrong, the two sides from a single strem
do not eventually come together given an 'infinite
amount of time'.

From where do you get that result? Papers? Results? Mathematical formula showing that after a time X, the side that is ahead IS ALWAYS ahead and GURANTEED to be ahead?

Single stream or multiple streams... doesn't matter. These are random numbers and results, so previous results do not matter to the next result. The source of the numbers does not matter if they are truly random sources.

if it does matter, than that`s a different definition of `random`.

Quote: thecesspit

In short, if one side can "get ahead" the other can "get ahead" later.

Using a single stream, there is a point of no return. Its a fact
100% equality is an illusion. The closer the two sides get
statistically, expressed as a percentage, the farther they
get away from each other actually. Something to do with
the law of large numbers.

The infinite amount of time thing comes from something Sally
posted yesterday.

What even is a "stream"? Do you mean a string?

It's true that as the standard deviation narrows in terms of percentage of total bet, it grows in absolute terms; however, it's for just this reason that there is no "point of no return," since as the time window grows, the probability of at some point reaching a given distance from the mean approaches 1. Since the past is irrelevant to the future, given that you're now a certain distance out, the chance of at some point in the indefinite future finding yourself back where you started, however briefly, approaches 1. And again, this point has an equal chance of being up or down for the casino, provided that there remain bettors.

It is true that once you're ahead (or behind), that's the new mean, so the chance of being ahead after any finite amount of time will always be better than even, but even that will approach even as the time window grows to infinity (assuming an unlimited bankroll and prize pool), again, just because the standard deviation is always increasing in absolute terms.

Quote: 24Bingo

What even is a "stream"? Do you mean a string?

Its the outcomes from one source, like one roulette
wheel or one RNG.

Want to test this theory. Does Bicycle sell an infinite deck of cards ?

Quote: EvenBob

Using a single stream, there is a point of no return. Its a fact
100% equality is an illusion. The closer the two sides get
statistically, expressed as a percentage, the farther they
get away from each other actually. Something to do with
the law of large numbers.

The infinite amount of time thing comes from something Sally
posted yesterday.

"The infinite amount of time thing" is the average time between returns to zero in a symmetric walk.

Just like if you divided the number 2 by 2. How many times, on average, can you keep dividing?divide 1 by 2, and that answer by 2...
An infinite number. That is the average.

Again, you keep stating incomplete facts.
Your statement is only correct when the probability of success (P) is NOT EQUAL to the probability of failure (Q).

This stuff is stats and prob class 100
subject: Random Walks

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

But, one can believe in anything they want, even when they are not correct.

To speak on the subject: yes, counting has been successful in the past BUT, and this is a big BUT, you need to have the best rules a large bankroll and alot of other social skills to be able to do this without, ummm, consequences.

Card counting isn't dead, but it is dying as we speak. Casinos won't tolerate consistent winners in a HE game, therefore, they will alter conditions until they get the return they want. They will install CSMs. Try card counting with those. You won't play there you say? Ok, then they will give you 6:5 bj, hit soft 17, no surrender, ante blackjack, etc., etc. Casinos prevent all fleas from counting by making all red chippers play against CSMs. They offer shoe games for $25 and up, and that gives them a much smaller group to watch for counting. You can play and count to your heart's content so long as you don't win too often. So counters now have to have an immense bankroll, a good disguise for counting, the ability to travel all over to limit their exposure to scrutiny, and reasonable luck to make a living at blackjack.

The vast majority of people in America don't have anywhere near the income or savings to allow them to play "for a living". I think the fact is: if you can afford to count cards for a living, you are wealthy enough not to worry about having a real job in the first place. This is becoming just a distraction for spoiled rich kids who think the events portrayed in "21" were anything close to reality. Most of the old pros are gone, they write books and sell advice. They do this because it is no longer worth the effort for them to try to make money counting. It's kind of parallel to the "video poker pro" stories. Sure, you could make money doing that....in 2003!! Now the casinos have changed things so it isn't realistic for average people to have a prayer to do this "professionally".

Quote: 4andaKicker

To speak on the subject: yes, counting has been successful in the past BUT, and this is a big BUT, you need to have the best rules a large bankroll and alot of other social skills to be able to do this without, ummm, consequences.

Card counting isn't dead, but it is dying as we speak. Casinos won't tolerate consistent winners in a HE game, therefore, they will alter conditions until they get the return they want. They will install CSMs. Try card counting with those. You won't play there you say? Ok, then they will give you 6:5 bj, hit soft 17, no surrender, ante blackjack, etc., etc. Casinos prevent all fleas from counting by making all red chippers play against CSMs. They offer shoe games for $25 and up, and that gives them a much smaller group to watch for counting. You can play and count to your heart's content so long as you don't win too often. So counters now have to have an immense bankroll, a good disguise for counting, the ability to travel all over to limit their exposure to scrutiny, and reasonable luck to make a living at blackjack.

The vast majority of people in America don't have anywhere near the income or savings to allow them to play "for a living". I think the fact is: if you can afford to count cards for a living, you are wealthy enough not to worry about having a real job in the first place. This is becoming just a distraction for spoiled rich kids who think the events portrayed in "21" were anything close to reality. Most of the old pros are gone, they write books and sell advice. They do this because it is no longer worth the effort for them to try to make money counting. It's kind of parallel to the "video poker pro" stories. Sure, you could make money doing that....in 2003!! Now the casinos have changed things so it isn't realistic for average people to have a prayer to do this "professionally".

I agree with this. I don't think card-counting will ever truly "die," but it gets harder and harder every year, and everything else you said (time, travel, bankroll requirements) rings true. As a green* "hobbyist" card counter, I look at it as a hobby that will provide me with auxiliary income over the span of my life, probably a small fraction of my primary income from working.

*green as in "new," not as in level of play. Although I'm generally a green chip player I guess.

Quote: mustangsally

My post here has a link to a math paper on the subject.
https://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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).