Does counting work....
Poll
 | 17 votes (60.71%) | ||
| | 3 votes (10.71%) | ||
| | 8 votes (28.57%) |
28 members have voted
Quote: weaselmanWow!
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).
I'm going out on a limb and going to guess if bob doesn't believe in god he would also not believe in heaven or hell. So the threat of going to hell probably wont scare him.
Quote: rainmanSo the threat of going to hell probably wont scare him.
Well, the "threat" of statistics (or relativity) being "wrong" doesn't exactly scare me either (especially, coming from Bob). That's kinda the point.
Make some outrageous claim, and then declare that, because you like it, it is up to the opponent to prove that what you said is otter bullshit - this is a totally invincible tactics for any discussion. I haven't heard of anyone using it since I graduated kindergarten.
If he wants to be consistent though, he must admit, that he is going to Hell, whether it scares him or not, because I like my statements, and he cannot prove me wrong.
Quote: weaselmanWow!
That's a new one ...
Not at all, Supreme Ruler of the Universe. (may we call
you SRU?) In fact, you are one of the people who, in the
past, has screamed PROOF, and when I went to all the
trouble to supply the proof, you just ignored the thread
from then on.
Not being a total idiot, I thought, hmmm, I have no
problem with what I wrote, why should I be the one
to provide proof. Let them prove me wrong. So here
we are, I'm happy as a clam about it.
Oh, and theory isn't fact or law, its supposition. Einstein's
Theory of Relativity isn't the Law of Relavitity, is it.
Random Walk is a theory and not everybody subscribes
to it. Prove me wrong.
A Random Walk, either a one, two or three dimensions is not a theory.Quote: EvenBob
Random Walk is a theory and not everybody subscribes
to it. Prove me wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk
"A random walk is a mathematical formalisation of a trajectory that consists of taking successive random steps"
"Random walks... serve as a fundamental model for the recorded stochastic activity."
"Several properties of random walks, including dispersal distributions, first-passage times and encounter rates, have been extensively studied."
when p=q=0.5
"How many times will a random walk cross a boundary line if permitted to continue walking forever?
A simple random walk on Z will cross every point an infinite number of times."
No proof needed.
Other great mathematicians have beat us to it.
Sally
Quote: mustangsallyA Random Walk, either a one, two or three dimensions is not a theory.
Google Random Walk Theory and you'll get 790,000
results like this:
World English Dictionary
random walk theory
— n
stock exchange the theory that the future movement
of share prices does not reflect past movements and
therefore will not follow a discernible pattern
Of course its a theory, its certainly not a law, like
some of Newton's Law's. There's a reason for that..
Quote: EvenBobNot at all, Supreme Ruler of the Universe. (may we call
you SRU?)
It is Supreme Master of the Universe, pay attention, will you?
I consider it a personal insult when people are being so disrespectful as to refer to me by a title that is different from my wishes that I have made so painfully clear earlier.
Quote:In fact, you are one of the people who, in the
past, has screamed PROOF, and when I went to all the
trouble to supply the proof, you just ignored the thread
from then on.
I am a bit shy to ask ... but ... ummm ... do you have any proof of that by some chance? (in a form of a link to the thread, perhaps)
In general, if I "ignore" a thread, it must be for one of two reasons - either I am satisfied with the discussion, and have nothing more to add, or it dropped off the "Recent Threads" list on the front page (and I almost never look at any threads that are not there).
Whatever the reason with the particular thread you are referring to, I don't understand what is your problem with it either way. Do you need my validation so desperately, that feel incomplete without seeing my reply to something you posted? In that case I apologize. If you ever find me "ignoring" one of your posts again, that is awaiting my input, please feel free to drop me a PM with a link, and I will be sure to respond.
Quote:Not being a total idiot, I thought, hmmm, I have no
problem with what I wrote, why should I be the one
to provide proof.
You should not, unless you actually care about anyone taking what you wrote seriously. It's ok if you don't, but in that case, why bother to write anything at all?
Quote:Let them prove me wrong. So here
we are, I'm happy as a clam about it.
Except, you are going to Hell. Prove me wrong.
Oh, I see your angle!Quote: EvenBobGoogle Random Walk Theory and you'll get 790,000
results like this:
World English Dictionary
random walk theory
— n
stock exchange the theory that the future movement
of share prices does not reflect past movements and
therefore will not follow a discernible pattern
Of course its a theory, its certainly not a law, like
some of Newton's Law's. There's a reason for that..
Twist and Shout!
Ahhhhh, AAhhhhhhh, AAAhhhhhhhhhh, AAAAhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Shake it up Baby now
All here talk about a "Random Walk" but all "Random Walks" to you are just a "Random Walk Theory"
You are now mixing the two together and calling all random walks the same because of a stock market random walk model.
You say "Random Walk" and "Random Walk Theory" are both the same thing?
If you do, You are quite alone in your universe.
Quote: mustangsally
You are now mixing the two together and calling all random walks the same
All random walks ARE theory and you know it. They
aren't law, therefore they're theory. Look up Law of
Random Walks or random walk law and you won't
find bupkis. Being theory, random walks are not
subscribed to by everybody, you know this also.
Its just convenient to use them to prove a point
you can't prove any other way.
Quote: weaselman
I am a bit shy to ask ... but ... ummm ... do you have any proof of that by some chance? .
You want me to search threads over a year old so
I can prove it? So you can ignore me yet again?
Not likely, SMU..
Quote: EvenBobYou want me to search threads over a year old so
I can prove it? So you can ignore me yet again?
No, I want you to either explain what you are talking about, and substantiate your claims or shut up.
Don't accuse people of doing something you believe to be wrong unless you have something other than words to show for it. It is unbecoming.
In any event, I hope, you are satisfied with my explanation of why I might have "ignored" one of your posts in the past (I am assuming you are, because you are "ignoring" what I said to you just now, so, because you are a respectable and decent person, it must be because you are satisfied with the argument, not because you are hoping that the "spectators" will forget about that point, and think, that you "won", right?).
In that case, you must understand now, that you are going to Hell, right?
Quote: weaselmanNo, I want you to either explain what you are talking about,
You ignored it twice when you asked for proof
and I provided it. So did several others on this site.
You believeing it or not is irrelevent, my new
policy is intact no matter what you believe.
And I've been to Hell, its in upper MI. The
town of Hell.
Quote: IbeatyouracesQuote: EvenBobAnd I've been to Hell, its in upper MI. The
town of Hell.
Actually it is about 15 miles northwest of Ann Arbor.
You're right, I thought it was near the bridge for
some reason. Haven't been there in decades.
Quote: EvenBob
You believeing it or not is irrelevent, my new
policy is intact no matter what you believe.
What makes you think anyone cares about your policy?
That is not the Hell I meant. The Hell you are going to is an unpleasant place God has created for people like you to spend eternity in.
Quote: buzzpaffHey since you know God so well, could you get a HEAVEN brochure from him. All these religions all seem to be describing entirely different places>
Actually, after death, everybody just sits there quietly and reads Torah. To some it's Heaven, to others - Hell.
Quote: weaselmanWhat makes you think anyone cares about your policy?
.
I'm not sure what you mean. Why would anybody but
me care? It's my policy, after all. It only applies to me.
The only Hell I know is in MI. If you visit another, let
us know.
Quote: EvenBobI'm not sure what you mean. Why would anybody but
me care? It's my policy, after all. It only applies to me.
What I mean is why are you talking about something that you know nobody but you cares about. Just keep it to yourself. Save a few letters.
Quote:The only Hell I know is in MI.
I know, it's the only one you know. It's not the one you are going to though.
I only want to discuss card counting as relates the secular tertiary, if it's cool with everyone.
Quote: Mission146I'm pretty sure he doesn't gamble, either.
I think, He does, and I like it. You wll have to prove me wrong if you disagree.
This is how Bob's new policy works, and I am starting to really like it. I think, I am going to adopt it.
Quote: Mission146God doesn't need to count, he already knows what the dealer is holding. He could also manipulate the deck to give himself nothing but Naturals if he wanted to. I'm pretty sure he doesn't gamble, either.
I only want to discuss card counting as relates the secular tertiary, if it's cool with everyone.
This reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer is whisked off to be a missionary. He had to flee some ruckus in Springfield. Anyhow, if I remember right, he went to an island and taught the natives how to make beer, and opened a casino.
I seem to remember a native saying 'What kind of God would make an ace a one OR an eleven' and then take a big swig of beer. I recall laughing out loud, of course, I am sure one of the boards zealots will post a link or something.....
Edit: The characters name was AK, and the quote was "How can ace be one AND eleven? HUH? What kind of God would allow THAT!" Then he takes a swing at Homer. hehehe
Quote: avargovThis reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Homer is whisked off to be a missionary. He had to flee some ruckus in Springfield. Anyhow, if I remember right, he went to an island and taught the natives how to make beer, and opened a casino.
I seem to remember a native saying 'What kind of God would make an ace a one OR an eleven' and then take a big swig of beer. I recall laughing out loud, of course, I am sure one of the boards zealots will post a link or something.....
Edit: The characters name was AK, and the quote was "How can ace be one AND eleven? HUH? What kind of God would allow THAT!" Then he takes a swing at Homer. hehehe
The episode is hilarous...the best part is homer protesting that he doesn't believe in "Jebus"...as he is wisked onto the plane, and then seconds later yelling "save me Jebus" :) Also there are hookers in the casino before it even opens somehow.
Quote: weaselmanYou wll have to prove me wrong if you disagree.
This is how Bob's new policy works, and I am starting to really like it
You're endorsing my policy, whats next, claiming it as
your own idea? I could show you where in this thread
I invented it, but I don't do that anymore..
Quote: EvenBobAll random walks ARE theory and you know it. They
aren't law, therefore they're theory. Look up Law of
Random Walks or random walk law and you won't
find bupkis. Being theory, random walks are not
subscribed to by everybody, you know this also.
...bwah? Does someone on this board really need it explained that laws are lesser than theories? I mean, really?! Especially in mathematics? This old saw is facepalm-worthy on Youtube.
(And big talk when your last response to my demonstrations exactly how you were wrong was answering a rhetorical question regarding your strange terminology.)
"Random walks are not subscribed to by everybody" - produce one credible non-"subscriber."
ME !
Quote: 24Bingo.
"Random walks are not subscribed to by everybody" - produce one credible non-"subscriber."
Nope, this is your interest, not mine. You produce one. I'm
perfectly happy with what I said. I reserched it, now so can
you.
And you still haven't responded to my contention that the ever-increasing standard deviation that you correctly pointed out means that your chance of falling behind given that you're ahead, or vice versa, asymptotically approaches .5 as the number of future bets considered grows without bound, or that the casino has no bankroll advantage as long as there's fresh blood, or the frequent point that no matter how far you're ahead/behind, there's a small but nonzero chance of losing/winning every single bet until you're even (2^-1000000000000 > 0; indeed, 2^-g64 > 0).
