Poll

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

28 members have voted

rainman
rainman
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 1860
Joined: Mar 28, 2012
July 17th, 2012 at 3:51:07 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

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).



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.
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 3:55:51 AM permalink
Quote: rainman

So 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.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 9:07:14 AM permalink
I've proved Bob wrong twice on this thread. I don't care to prove him wrong a third time (re: random walks being a "theory or supposition" and hence discardable).
"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
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28574
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 1:12:40 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Wow!
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.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
mustangsally
mustangsally
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 2463
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
July 17th, 2012 at 1:50:24 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob


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.

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
I Heart Vi Hart
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28574
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 2:00:00 PM permalink
Quote: mustangsally

A 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..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 2:13:56 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Not 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.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
mustangsally
mustangsally
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 2463
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
July 17th, 2012 at 2:28:42 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

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..

Oh, I see your angle!
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.
I Heart Vi Hart
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28574
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 2:41:16 PM permalink
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.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28574
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 2:43:31 PM permalink
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..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 3:50:00 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

You 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?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28574
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 4:07:10 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

No, 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.

"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 4:52:37 PM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28574
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 4:54:43 PM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Quote: EvenBob

And 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.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 5:50:20 PM permalink
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.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
July 17th, 2012 at 5:55:40 PM permalink
Hey 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>
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 6:03:10 PM permalink
Quote: buzzpaff

Hey 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.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28574
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 6:31:44 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

What 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.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 6:45:17 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

I'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.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Mission146
Mission146
  • Threads: 142
  • Posts: 16832
Joined: May 15, 2012
July 17th, 2012 at 6:48:23 PM permalink
God 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.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 6:50:45 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

I'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.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
avargov
avargov
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 615
Joined: Aug 5, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 6:54:43 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

God 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
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes." ~ William Gibson
vendman1
vendman1
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 1034
Joined: Mar 12, 2012
July 17th, 2012 at 7:09:30 PM permalink
Quote: avargov

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



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.
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28574
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 7:21:11 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

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



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..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
24Bingo
24Bingo
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1348
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
July 17th, 2012 at 9:06:22 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

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.



...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."
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.
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
July 17th, 2012 at 9:13:33 PM permalink
" "Random walks are not subscribed to by everybody" - produce one credible non-"subscriber."

ME !
EvenBob
EvenBob
  • Threads: 441
  • Posts: 28574
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
July 17th, 2012 at 9:20:52 PM permalink
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.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
24Bingo
24Bingo
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1348
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
July 18th, 2012 at 4:31:23 AM permalink
I'm not going to produce any because I know that, unlike you claim, they don't effing exist. You did no research whatsoever, or maybe gleaned a few arguments off creationist sites, because they're the only ones who define "law" and "theory" in the way you do.

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).
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.
  • Jump to: