AC surrender insanity
Quote: IbeatyouracesI don't think anyone here hates you, and in fact most enjoy your reports.
It isn't hard to figure out why many of us don't post trip reports, of which I'm heading out on one tonight. No, there will be any description of what game or where we are going. :-X
You never know who's reading.
Quote: AcesAndEightsIt's been mentioned before, and I agree, that casinos would probably make MORE money by offering a theoretically advantageous rule like surrender. It seems like you have 3 kinds of people who take advantage of surrender when offered:
1) Never surrender (I would say the majority)
2) Surrender way too often (15v9, 14, 13 vs. 10s and aces, etc etc).
3) Actually use BS surrender (tiny minority).
I would guess they make more money off of group #2 than they lose on #3.
I absolutely agree. I was in PA yesterday and only 2 other players surrendered all day (#1). Of those 2, one did a fairly good job, while the was surrendering way to much (#2 and #3).
Even on the way out, AoS took a shot at those trying to help him, saying,
This kind of statement just shuts the door to knowledge. As an former professor, this was the kind of student that frustrated me the most -- obviously smart but unwilling to do any work. This site has so much knowledge and experience, AoS could have really improved if he was just willing to do the work. It's too bad that AoS took the easy way out.Quote: AosI have no energy left to deal with the theoreticians who never put their own money where their mouths are.
Quote: teliotBurn cards are unseen cards and are treated the same as cards behind the cut card.
Obviously I would not leave a good game because they switched dealers or someone else was playing badly. That is ploppy nonsense.
But I would leave if they were burning a card after each hand (assuming that the reason it was a good game was because I was counting). That decreases penetration significantly, and makes true count calculations a lot more difficult (since it's now hard to estimate the number of cards that have been dealt)
I also might leave if another player sat down, since that could make the game a lot worse.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceObviously I would not leave a good game because they switched dealers or someone else was playing badly. That is ploppy nonsense.
But I would leave if they were burning a card after each hand (assuming that the reason it was a good game was because I was counting). That decreases penetration significantly, and makes true count calculations a lot more difficult (since it's now hard to estimate the number of cards that have been dealt)
I also might leave if another player sat down, since that could make the game a lot worse.
You could mitigate the issue some by just asking to see the burn card. Overall though it's still bad if they did that.
19:47-2.8 SurrenderQuote: 98ClubsI'd like to ask when Surrender was legally permitted in an AC Casino, my VERY old knowledge is that it was "illegal" (by Gaming Commission) to offer any Surrender (Early that Uston, et al took advantage of, and as a matter of course, Late Surr.) On first or second page someone posted it was pending... yet its being offered is some form (democratic grandfathering). Can someone clarify this?
http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/actreg/reg/docs_chapter47/c47s02.pdf
Effective: 01/16/90
Quote: aceofspadesSo you would play at the table where they change dealers and burn a card after every hand…
You are all missing the point in that it is done as a nuisance to the player
Ace is spot on. This is the casino, pit manager, dealer, etc. attitude in AC that finally peed me off to the point I declared I would never set foot in AC again. That was 15 years ago, and probably close to $200,000 in craps bets made since then. It isn't the fact that they are materially changing the game, because they are not. It is the fact that those jerks think they are changing the outcome which is just plain foolish, and I have no tolerance for fools.
I will never understand why anyone with a choice would continue to go to AC.
Quote: teliot19:47-2.8 Surrender
http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/actreg/reg/docs_chapter47/c47s02.pdf
Effective: 01/16/90
Admittedly I just searched for surrender, and sped read, but it contradicts itself. In one spot it plainly ways Surrender is not allowed, but later on it explains how Surrender is executed, and says it is up to each casino. IT then says Surrender is not allowed on any 6:5 game.
I'm sure I am probably out of context, and missed some critical information in the paragraphs I skipped.
Quote: RaleighCraps...In one spot it plainly ways Surrender is not allowed, but later on it explains how Surrender is executed, and says it is up to each casino...I'm sure I am probably out of context, and missed some critical information in the paragraphs I skipped.
I read this, "3. Surrender, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:47-2.8, and insurance wagers, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:47-2.9, shall not be available;" and learned that insurance is also not allowed. But then I realized that it refers to the blackjack variation called Double Exposure.
Quote: teliot(Now that he has self-excluded) What I never understood about AoS is why he was so resistant to knowledge. He knew the system he used was weak. He got lots of feedback about things he said that were voodoo. And he got a lot of information on how to get better.
Even on the way out, AoS took a shot at those trying to help him, saying,This kind of statement just shuts the door to knowledge. As an former professor, this was the kind of student that frustrated me the most -- obviously smart but unwilling to do any work. This site has so much knowledge and experience, AoS could have really improved if he was just willing to do the work. It's too bad that AoS took the easy way out.
I think the thing with Ace is he was purely a recreational player who enjoyed a simple count that he could keep track of easily and not really have to worry to get involved in the proper mechanics of it all.
Do I think his comments went over the line sometimes, especially here at the end, yes, but I don't think that was ace. He had simply had enough of people trying to tell him what to do with his money. He wasn't around to try and beat the game (I don't think), he played for fun and entertainment. If he was able to make a profit along the way, then so be it. I know his falling off the wagon comment wise started when he had the bad trip and that was the time he should have listened to the learned people on here but I think he may have been too far along then to turn around.
Sometimes we should just consider leaving people to their devices unless they specifically ask for help?
Just my opinion of course.
My counter argument is that if they read more posts, they will figure out that is not what other members believe, and will either ask a question, or will see other ways of play. So in the end, they should get the proper advice.
I asked AoS one time if he varied his bets based on the SC and he admitted he did not. I agree with Tomspur, I think he kept the SC as a way to kill time, and put him ahead of the average black chip player on his tables, but in the end, the count didn't really factor into his bet sizings. That would also explain why he never seemed to get any heat, even when he was probably easily identifiable by pit personnel with his participation here.
Quote: RaleighCrapsI agree with Tomspur. We have a duty to provide good education for new players, and those asking questions. But once a person has demonstrated they know what they are doing, it is a disservice to keep pointing out how bad their method of play is. Of course, some will argue that not pointing it out each time may allow a new reader to fall under the impression that this method of play is okay.
My counter argument is that if they read more posts, they will figure out that is not what other members believe, and will either ask a question, or will see other ways of play. So in the end, they should get the proper advice.
I asked AoS one time if he varied his bets based on the SC and he admitted he did not. I agree with Tomspur, I think he kept the SC as a way to kill time, and put him ahead of the average black chip player on his tables, but in the end, the count didn't really factor into his bet sizings. That would also explain why he never seemed to get any heat, even when he was probably easily identifiable by pit personnel with his participation here.
The more I've thought about it, the more I think the problem wasn't so much SC and criticism of it, but the discussion within it calling him out on improbable streaks. Not sure how to turn that around, except to again say that I believe he reported what he experienced, despite the odds. No one else was there. I don't think it was out of bounds to express disbelief, but the sheer weight of crap that came down on him over that part seems to be the tipping point. Like RC and Tom said above, when it's evident (and it was) that your friend has taken his stance, and heard what you said, your next move is to stop haranguing him.
A group I was (and still am) part of was famous for "eating our young". Take a person who's productive, fun, useful, find their sensitive spot, and burrow in continuously; you'll burn them out every time. It's the Internet, and that does seem to be the source of a lot of negativity and extreme criticism on lots of sites, especially when people can be anonymous. I'm hoping Ace is just on tilt from an excess of criticism and decides to return, but I'm afraid he was the snack of the week and won't be back.
Someone once said, "Unsolicited advise is usually taken as criticism." It holds true on more than one thread here.Quote: TomspurSometimes we should just consider leaving people to their devices unless they specifically ask for help?
Quote: teliot19:47-2.8 Surrender
http://www.state.nj.us/casinos/actreg/reg/docs_chapter47/c47s02.pdf
Effective: 01/16/90
Thanks teliot. I see that in the quoted section, 6:5 BJ is EXCLUDED. Wow, that sux on a bad game.
Quote: beachbumbabs
The more I've thought about it, the more I think the problem wasn't so much SC and criticism of it, but the discussion within it calling him out on improbable streaks. Not sure how to turn that around, except to again say that I believe he reported what he experienced, despite the odds. No one else was there.
What is your basis for this belief? It worries me that any seemingly rational individual could have read that thread and concluded anything other than the streaks claimed by Ace did not happen.
Quote: beachbumbabs
A group I was (and still am) part of was famous for "eating our young". Take a person who's productive, fun, useful, find their sensitive spot, and burrow in continuously; you'll burn them out every time. It's the Internet, and that does seem to be the source of a lot of negativity and extreme criticism on lots of sites, especially when people can be anonymous. I'm hoping Ace is just on tilt from an excess of criticism and decides to return, but I'm afraid he was the snack of the week and won't be back.
I also don't agree with this. I really don't think anyone meant to attack Ace or burn him out. I definitely wasn't. I just don't believe everything I read, especially when those things are billions to one against, when it's so easy for someone to mis-remember something or make a mistake. I like Ace and I hope he returns to posting but it seems like he was going through a lot emotionally and couldn't handle any negative attention toward his posts.
If you don't want your posts to be questioned or fact-checked, don't make them. No one is infallible, especially when claiming extremely improbable events again and again.
Ace seemed to enjoy the positive attention he got, and maybe went a little overboard in reporting his losing streaks. It happens.
Quote: sodawaterWhat is your basis for this belief? It worries me that any seemingly rational individual could have read that thread and concluded anything other than the streaks claimed by Ace did not happen.
It's not so much that people are irrational; it's just that they are not mathematical.
Anyone who is mathematical is going to conclude that it's extremely unlikely that these events happened, simply because all the other explanations are far, far, far more likely.
Someone who is not mathematical is not going to be able to ballpark these numbers, and is therefore completely unable to compare them. Most people simply do not have a grasp of values that are very large or very small. 1 in a thousand, 1 in a million, 1 in a billion, 1 in a trillion... to most people these are all about the same. 18 yo's in a row, 30 blackjack losses in a row, a 9-card dealer 21, that time that that person hit 2 royal flushes in a day.... what's the difference, right? Most people bucket these things together in their head, and reason that if their buddy can hit 2 royals in a day, then someone can roll 18 yo's in a row.
People do think that 1 in a million is "about the same" as 1 in a billion. But there's a large, large gap between them.
Quote: sodawaterYeah, that does make sense.
People do think that 1 in a million is "about the same" as 1 in a billion. But there's a large, large gap between them.
How big a gap? Lol
Quote: Lemieux66How big a gap? Lol
It's not about the absolute size of the gap, it's about the ratio.
Suppose someone (or something) reports something that occurs 1 time in a billion. But the false positive rate is 1 in a million. Even though the absolute difference between those two numbers is small, the false positives totally dominate the data, so almost all your reports are false positives.
This is why (for example) it doesn't make sense to test the general population for extremely rare diseases. The false positive rate is significantly higher than the actual occurrences of the diseases, so most positive results are false.
It's also why if you report seeing an extremely unlikely event, you are probably wrong. It's not that you are a liar or an idiot, it's that everyone makes mistakes with some non-zero frequency, and if your mistake rate is orders of magnitude higher than the incident rate, you are wrong almost all the time that you report that incident. This is just simple, basic logic and math, but for some reason it really, really offended AoS.
Quote: RaleighCrapsAce is spot on. This is the casino, pit manager, dealer, etc. attitude in AC that finally peed me off to the point I declared I would never set foot in AC again. That was 15 years ago, and probably close to $200,000 in craps bets made since then. It isn't the fact that they are materially changing the game, because they are not. It is the fact that those jerks think they are changing the outcome which is just plain foolish, and I have no tolerance for fools.
I will never understand why anyone with a choice would continue to go to AC.
I am going to AC next month for 4 days. Where else can I get 4 nights free during the summer on the beach? Plus I have a ton of comps saved so I will basically eat for free. I don't think I will gamble more than $200. Why would I when PA already has great rules.
Quote: teliot
Even on the way out, AoS took a shot at those trying to help him, saying,This kind of statement just shuts the door to knowledge. As an former professor, this was the kind of student that frustrated me the most -- obviously smart but unwilling to do any work. This site has so much knowledge and experience, AoS could have really improved if he was just willing to do the work. It's too bad that AoS took the easy way out.
Quote: odiousgambitAoS's time on WoV Earth was doomed to be limited. He was entertaining for the wrong reasons; at the same time, he wanted no advice about how to be a better gambler. Sooner or later was going to get angry about it.
I tentatively disagree with these points.
I completely agree with teliot that to shun knowledge is one of the worst failures of man. Everyone at all times should look to improve themselves in every aspect. If someone has the skills to rise even higher, then not realizing that potential is a downright tragedy.
However, I can't deny the value of marching to your own tune, even when it is a song less productive. Sometimes the path less traveled reveals value outside of the journey.
Ace knows SC sucks, yet he chooses to do it anyways. I know I'm in the minority, but I don't see that as horrible. I use a military style entrenching tool in the garden instead of a shovel. It's a hell of a lot less efficient and more physically demanding, but it's what I use. I know a shovel is better, I have a shovel right in the garage. I don't want a shovel. I want what I want.
Ace knows SC is inferior. He knows Hi-Lo is easier. He wants SC anyways. And so it goes.
Edit: Yikes, almost forgot - Please give your attention to my sig before continuing ;)
Quote: FaceQuote: odiousgambitAoS's time on WoV Earth was doomed to be limited. He was entertaining for the wrong reasons; at the same time, he wanted no advice about how to be a better gambler. Sooner or later was going to get angry about it.
I tentatively disagree with these points.
I completely agree with teliot that to shun knowledge is one of the worst failures of man. Everyone at all times should look to improve themselves in every aspect. If someone has the skills to rise even higher, then not realizing that potential is a downright tragedy.
However, I can't deny the value of marching to your own tune, even when it is a song less productive. Sometimes the path less traveled reveals value outside of the journey.
Ace knows SC sucks, yet he chooses to do it anyways. I know I'm in the minority, but I don't see that as horrible. I use a military style entrenching tool in the garden instead of a shovel. It's a hell of a lot less efficient and more physically demanding, but it's what I use. I know a shovel is better, I have a shovel right in the garage. I don't want a shovel. I want what I want.
Ace knows SC is inferior. He knows Hi-Lo is easier. He wants SC anyways. And so it goes.
Edit: Yikes, almost forgot - Please give your attention to my sig before continuing ;)
I think you're missing the point, though.
I don't think Ace was nearly as upset about the criticism of his "speed count" as he was about people doubting / proving wrong his outlandish claims of 30 blackjack losses in a row with no pushes, the 9-card dealers 21, and the two separate 15 BJ losses in a row on the same trip as the dealer 21.
Quote: sodawater
I think you're missing the point, though.
I don't think Ace was nearly as upset about the criticism of his "speed count" as he was about people doubting / proving wrong his outlandish claims of 30 blackjack losses in a row with no pushes, the 9-card dealers 21, and the two separate 15 BJ losses in a row on the same trip as the dealer 21.
No, I get what you're saying, and I totally agree. I was just voicing an opinion at comments that caught my attention.
I dunno, it's a wierd thing. Everyone should feel free to tell their stories. Everyone should feel free to dissect them. But I wonder how far it should go. It's an interesting thing to watch. Must all stories of this nature be hammered on until one party relents? Can there exist a cease fire without losing information? Certainly the breaking down of probabilities was informative and interesting. But where is that point where it ceases to be?
I'd like to define that point. Impossible, probably, but it's a fun game for me.
Quote: sodawaterI don't think Ace was nearly as upset about the criticism of his "speed count" as he was about people doubting / proving wrong his outlandish claims of 30 blackjack losses in a row with no pushes, the 9-card dealers 21, and the two separate 15 BJ losses in a row on the same trip as the dealer 21.
I know you added "doubting" but you did add "proving wrong".
My opinion is that, no matter how remote a possibility his claims had, nobody on this board could categorically prove him wrong.
I think he was mad at the amount of people who took him no about his claims and flat out disagreed with him when, according to him, he was the only person who could corroborate what had happened.
It is a great sport for some on here to prove other people wrong, the live for it every single day. There is nothing wrong with that considering that this is a mathematicians web page. HOWEVER, there are other people here who I haver to say, can add just as much value to this site as what the mathematicians can.
Sometimes we need to share the world with all shapes and sizes and give each his chance to enjoy their time here.
Ace got crucified and had enough.......some can roll over and others just can't.
Quote: TomspurI know you added "doubting" but you did add "proving wrong".
My opinion is that, no matter how remote a possibility his claims had, nobody on this board could categorically prove him wrong.
How do you define proof? We live in reality. We need to be able to have a threshold to say something is or isn't so, even though there's always an infinitesimal chance it's the other way.
Like I mentioned before -- there is a certain probability that if I place a baseball on my wooden desk, it will quantum teleport through the desk without touching it. There IS a probability of that happening. But it's so small we can ignore it.
If I buy a single Powerball ticket, there is a probability I could win the jackpot. But it's so small, I can ignore it. I can say I am certain I will not win. If I can't say that, then I'll be paralyzed by much smaller probabilities. I couldn't leave my house because there's a 50,000 to 1 chance I'll die in a car wreck.
We have to live our lives in the real world. And when Ace says he lost 30 blackjack hands in a row, yes, we can categorically prove him wrong. Just like it would be wrong that the next time I put a baseball on my desk, it will teleport through it.
Quote: sodawaterHow do you define proof? We live in reality. We need to be able to have a threshold to say something is or isn't so, even though there's always an infinitesimal chance it's the other way.
Like I mentioned before -- there is a certain probability that if I place a baseball on my wooden desk, it will quantum teleport through the desk without touching it. There IS a probability of that happening. But it's so small we can ignore it.
If I buy a single Powerball ticket, there is a probability I could win the jackpot. But it's so small, I can ignore it. I can say I am certain I will not win. If I can't say that, then I'll be paralyzed by much smaller probabilities. I couldn't leave my house because there's a 50,000 to 1 chance I'll die in a car wreck.
We have to live our lives in the real world. And when Ace says he lost 30 blackjack hands in a row, yes, we can categorically prove him wrong. Just like it would be wrong that the next time I put a baseball on my desk, it will teleport through it.
How is there a probability of a baseball teleporting through a desk? What is the probability of that happening? How does one go about proving or disproving such a thing?
I was not aware teleportation was something we believed in?
Anyway, enough silliness. I get what you mean but with such small probabilities as you mention and with ace's recollection quite posiibly being affected by his rage at the time, what is the point of hammering on him until he succumbs into submission?
If you are so sure that you are right and that there is very little way of what he had said being true, is that not enough?
It seems to me, and I could be completely off base here but the victory is not so much in winning the argument but actually making the other person submit?
Quote: beachbumbabsI have never heard of a pit putting a game rule up to a vote. Seems chicken sh&* to me that they don't take responsibility for their own rules; they're just perpetuating the stupidity out there. Wow.
Yes, that's how casinos operate these days. Surrender is a "bad bet" because it "ruins the order of the cards". If a player has 16 vs. 10 and surrenders, he's taking only two cards out of the deck, but if he hits (and probably busts or loses) he takes three cards out of the deck to "preserve the order". I have been told by DEALERS that when I skipped hands and/or entered mid shoe that I "made everyone lose"! That's a great way to get a tip, by blaming me for everyone else's loss.
These day, CSMs are also liked by players because it prevents mid-shoe entry from "ruining the order of the cards".
If you know and understand quantum mechanics, then you also know this is not only probable, it is certain. If you aren't savvy on quantum mechanics (which is needed to make your computer work, by the way), then you will have a hard time understanding or believing this commonly understood principle. Quantum mechanics is not something you "believe" in any more than gravity is something you "believe" in. Established truths about the physical universe are not really something worth debating as "beliefs."Quote: TomspurHow is there a probability of a baseball teleporting through a desk? What is the probability of that happening? How does one go about proving or disproving such a thing? I was not aware teleportation was something we believed in?
Two questions.
1. What are the odds of 30 losing hands in a row in BJ?
2. What are the odds that a baseball placed on a desk will teleport through?
In other words, how many times will I have to place the baseball on the desk before it goes through?
My point is, I do not believe we are comparing equal events.
Number one is 1 in a Billion or more?
Number Two is 1 in 100 Trillion or perhaps 1 in infinity?
Another thread talks about how people don't know the diff between 1 in a M, vs 1 in a B, but isn't that exactly what we are talking about here?
The odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 175M, yet people win almost every week.
Quote: RaleighCrapsI do not understand quantum mechanics, but I will take your word on it.
Two questions.
1. What are the odds of 30 losing hands in a row in BJ?
2. What are the odds that a baseball placed on a desk will teleport through?
In other words, how many times will I have to place the baseball on the desk before it goes through?
My point is, I do not believe we are comparing equal events.
Number one is 1 in a Billion or more?
Number Two is 1 in 100 Trillion or perhaps 1 in infinity?
Another thread talks about how people don't know the diff between 1 in a M, vs 1 in a B, but isn't that exactly what we are talking about here?
The odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 175M, yet people win almost every week.
You are missing the point entirely.
If you report an event that has a probability of 1 in a billion of happening, but you make mistakes 1 time in 1000, then you are right about the event 1 time in a million, and wrong 999,999 times in a million.
Another way of saying this is that if a million completely honest people reported this, only 1 of them would be correct. The other 999,999 would be mistaken.
So, it's almost completely certain that he was wrong.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYou are missing the point entirely.
If you report an event that has a probability of 1 in a billion of happening, but you make mistakes 1 time in 1000, then you are right about the event 1 time in a million, and wrong 999,999 times in a million.
Another way of saying this is that if a million completely honest people reported this, only 1 of them would be correct. The other 999,999 would be mistaken.
So, it's almost completely certain that he was wrong.
Or, it is possible he was that 1 in a M that actually had it happen to him.
And my point was, to prove the point by comparing it to teleporting a baseball through a desk was completely unfair. One event can happen, the other, despite what QM says, I will never see happen.
Using math to say something is so unlikely to happen, therefore you are a liar, is a dangerous business. It does not prove it was a lie, since it is possible it could have happened. I understand it is likely it did not happen, but concluding it did not happen is just wrong.
Quote: RaleighCrapsOr, it is possible he was that 1 in a M that actually had it happen to him.
And my point was, to prove the point by comparing it to teleporting a baseball through a desk was completely unfair. One event can happen, the other, despite what QM says, I will never see happen.
Using math to say something is so unlikely to happen, therefore you are a liar, is a dangerous business. It does not prove it was a lie, since it is possible it could have happened. I understand it is likely it did not happen, but concluding it did not happen is just wrong.
I think if you were to examine your day-to-day life, you conclude "certainties" based on far less extreme probabilities than what Ace has described.
Axiom was assuming Ace has a 1 in 1000 chance of being mistaken. That is extremely generous. Based on what I know about hobbyist table games players, I would say it's more like a 1 in 10 chance, or even more.
Anyway, let's go with Axiom's 1 in 1000 chance. Like he said, if the underlying probability of what was reported was 1 in a billion, then someone whose memory fails 1 time in 1000 will be wrong 999,999 times out of a million.
Now imagine if you lived your life thinking that 1 in a million chances were "possible." It would be a circus. We simply cannot live in reality giving such low-probability events any consideration at all. Yes, 1 in a million is "possible," but as humans we are terrible at intuiting these extreme probabilities because we have evolved to live in the real world where we need to deal with probabilities in a much meatier part of the bell curve.
I believe the reason for this inability to intuitively deal with extreme probabilities has to do with binary outcomes. Something either happens, or it doesn't. So even if we know our chances are low, we still overestimate them because "it might happen, or it might not." If you were in a drawing with a 1 in 10 chance to win, it would be more disappointing to lose than your 10% chance justified. It will feel close to 50-50, which is just a quirk of human cognitive evolution.
Quote: teliot(Now that he has self-excluded) What I never understood about AoS is why he was so resistant to knowledge. He knew the system he used was weak. He got lots of feedback about things he said that were voodoo. And he got a lot of information on how to get better.
Even on the way out, AoS took a shot at those trying to help him, saying,This kind of statement just shuts the door to knowledge. As an former professor, this was the kind of student that frustrated me the most -- obviously smart but unwilling to do any work. This site has so much knowledge and experience, AoS could have really improved if he was just willing to do the work. It's too bad that AoS took the easy way out.
I don't think he believed any of the "voodoo" (e.g. ploppies playing poorly, changing dealers, etc.) actually affected his results long-term, but all of those things clearly annoyed him and negatively impacted his playing experience. Ace is clearly a recreational-first player who is fine with a small edge. As such, something that negatively impacted his enjoyment of the game (but not his expectation) was enough to change tables or complain about here in a TR.
He had no interest in a more powerful system because he was happy with his current one and it met his goals. He isn't trying to be a world-beating AP, just gamble a bit on the weekends, get a bunch of comps, and hopefully come out ahead in the long, LONG run. With an understanding of those goals, I stopped trying to give him advice long ago.
I can see how the constant needling got to him, but he also didn't handle it very well. I wish him luck and good cards.
Quote: FaceI dunno, it's a wierd thing. Everyone should feel free to tell their stories. Everyone should feel free to dissect them. But I wonder how far it should go.
It definitely went too far this time. But ace wouldn't let it go, and neither would the other side. And so it went.
Quote: AcesAndEightsIt definitely went too far this time. But ace wouldn't let it go, and neither would the other side. And so it went.
EXACTLY. Both Ace and his detractors were fully to blame for this, but this is not the first time people have been run off for making statements that pressed credibility.
I can see pointing out how unlikely it was that something occurred, but taking it further than that should be considered trolling or harassment. If the poster doesn't agree they may have been mistaken after the first post, they aren't going to. Pressing the issue further incubates other issues.
I'm not saying I believe AoS on all of his statements, but I'm not saying they didn't happen either. Frankly, I don't really care if they happened or not. And I certainly don't understand why anyone else should either. His trip reports were entertaining, and I'm a bit miffed that he felt harassed to the point he left.
Quote: RaleighCrapsOr, it is possible he was that 1 in a M that actually had it happen to him.
Yes, that's what I said "almost completely certain". I can say with 99.9999% certainty that he was wrong.
And my point was, to prove the point by comparing it to teleporting a baseball through a desk was completely unfair. One event can happen, the other, despite what QM says, I will never see happen.
You will never see either event happen.
Quote:Using math to say something is so unlikely to happen, therefore you are a liar, is a dangerous business. It does not prove it was a lie, since it is possible it could have happened. I understand it is likely it did not happen, but concluding it did not happen is just wrong.
No one called anyone a liar. Do you understand the difference between telling a lie and making a mistake?
No one is saying "that even is so unlikely that you can't be telling the truth". What we are saying is "that event is so much less likely than the probability of you having made a mistake, that you almost certainly made a mistake".
Suppose there is a bucket with a thousand quarters in it. One of them is 2-headed, the rest are fair. I pull one at random, flip it 30 times, and get all heads. Do you think that I picked the 2-headed coin, or a fair one?
What I don't understand is, why did it become so darn important? I'm not absolving Ace in this fight, either, but he got backed into a corner with no way out to save any face, and for what?
I could understand if you had money riding on the event, but it seemed an awful lot of energy was expended just to get Ace to say, "Maybe I made a mistake". In the end, he leaves.
A couple of others have left too, when they have been similarly challenged with 99.999% certainty that they are not correct.
Is it really that critical that this board has to have 100.00% certainty on every topic, even to the point of a trip report?
Axiom, I am not trying to be accusatory with you, as I respect you and your many posts. You just happen to be the one engaging with me right now, and I have really wondered about the motives on these issues.
EDIT: I forgot to answer your question
Quote:Suppose there is a bucket with a thousand quarters in it. One of them is 2-headed, the rest are fair. I pull one at random, flip it 30 times, and get all heads. Do you think that I picked the 2-headed coin, or a fair one?
Well, you have a 1 in a thousand chance at picking the quarter, and is it 1 /(2**30) for the chance of 30 heads in a row?
If I have that right, 30 heads in a row on a fair coin is 1 in 1M, so I guess it is more likely you picked the 2 headed coin.
Quote: RaleighCraps
What I don't understand is, why did it become so darn important? I'm not absolving Ace in this fight, either, but he got backed into a corner with no way out to save any face, and for what?
Who said it was so important? At least for me, I was just discussing gaming math on a gaming math forum. Wasn't that important to me.
Also, of course he had a way to save face. He could have said "it's possible I was mistaken." Instead he had to foolishly insist he was infallible, like some sort of blackjack pope.
Quote: sodawaterWho said it was so important? At least for me, I was just discussing gaming math on a gaming math forum. Wasn't that important to me.
Also, of course he had a way to save face. He could have said "it's possible I was mistaken." Instead he had to foolishly insist he was infallible, like some sort of blackjack pope.
This is true.
I guess I would compare it to someone claiming he was having sex with a bunch of beautiful celebrity models all the time, but it was all hush hush, the models didn't want anybody to know. There would be two things about this, first off a lot of the other guys wouldnt believe it. Wouldnt you expect that? Why get testy? Secondly, that guy has had his say, he might as well drop it. If he actually has such a great sex life, fine, let the other guys envy him and ponder that smile on his face. On the other hand, getting testy that no one believes him, that just makes it seem like a lie for sure.
Lastly, Ace denied he was trying to make a case that he was being cheated. Let's accept that, so the alternative, if you ask me, is that he was making a case that the fates were picking on him with improbable stuff when he was losing. It's whiny; for example often dealer getting BJ or 21 is immaterial, because you had, you know, 16 or something.
Yet I think he was making himself believe it, I also discount the idea that he was lying.
Quote: teliotIf you know and understand quantum mechanics, then you also know this is not only probable, it is certain. If you aren't savvy on quantum mechanics (which is needed to make your computer work, by the way), then you will have a hard time understanding or believing this commonly understood principle. Quantum mechanics is not something you "believe" in any more than gravity is something you "believe" in. Established truths about the physical universe are not really something worth debating as "beliefs."
So the ball basically disintegrates and regenerates on the other side? I haven't the foggiest about these types of things but comparing an event that could take billions of years (I would assume) to something like losing 30 hands of blackjack in a row.....Just am not sure it is quite as easy as that, but here again I freely admit I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Quote: RaleighCrapsIt may not seem like it, but I do understand the distinctions you are making, and I agree with your conclusions.
What I don't understand is, why did it become so darn important? I'm not absolving Ace in this fight, either, but he got backed into a corner with no way out to save any face, and for what?
I could understand if you had money riding on the event, but it seemed an awful lot of energy was expended just to get Ace to say, "Maybe I made a mistake". In the end, he leaves.
A couple of others have left too, when they have been similarly challenged with 99.999% certainty that they are not correct.
Is it really that critical that this board has to have 100.00% certainty on every topic, even to the point of a trip report?
Axiom, I am not trying to be accusatory with you, as I respect you and your many posts. You just happen to be the one engaging with me right now, and I have really wondered about the motives on these issues.
EDIT: I forgot to answer your question
Well, you have a 1 in a thousand chance at picking the quarter, and is it 1 /(2**30) for the chance of 30 heads in a row?
If I have that right, 30 heads in a row on a fair coin is 1 in 1M, so I guess it is more likely you picked the 2 headed coin.
1 in 1B, actually, which is kind of the point. This is the exact same question as whether or not ace lost 30 in a row, phrased differently.
To be honest, I continued with the conversation because I felt that it was an interesting mathematical discussion, with real-world implications. For example, this phenomenon is exactly why it doesn't make sense to test the entire population for rare diseases -- you only want to test people if they are exhibiting symptoms and are somewhat likely to have the disease. If you test the entire population of the US, you will get a lot of positive results, but almost all of them will be false positives.
I do not understand why Ace took it so personally, and insisted that he was accused of lying, even though people said time and time again that no one thought he was lying. IMO his reaction was completely unreasonable and childish, and showed a stubborn refusal to listen to reason.
Quote: AxiomOfChoice1 in 1B, actually, which is kind of the point. This is the exact same question as whether or not ace lost 30 in a row, phrased differently.
To be honest, I continued with the conversation because I felt that it was an interesting mathematical discussion, with real-world implications. For example, this phenomenon is exactly why it doesn't make sense to test the entire population for rare diseases -- you only want to test people if they are exhibiting symptoms and are somewhat likely to have the disease. If you test the entire population of the US, you will get a lot of positive results, but almost all of them will be false positives.
I do not understand why Ace took it so personally, and insisted that he was accused of lying, even though people said time and time again that no one thought he was lying. IMO his reaction was completely unreasonable and childish, and showed a stubborn refusal to listen to reason.
So you feel like you were a perfect mathematical gentleman during your entire exchange with ace?
I think herein lies the rub. Everyone can get a little riled up when people take them on in their field of expertise. Ace argued with passion and conviction as that is what he does and you guys were using math to disprove him. Both parties went too far and now we are out another member. I don't really think it matters who was right or who was wrong. I think we can agree that Ace was a colorful character who added more to the forum than what he took away.
BTW, anybody seen JJ around lately? Seems like she has also had enough of us?
BINGO is a time consuming game. She is around but looks like she does not post often.Quote: TomspurSo you feel like you were a perfect mathematical gentleman during your entire exchange with ace?
I think herein lies the rub. Everyone can get a little riled up when people take them on in their field of expertise. Ace argued with passion and conviction as that is what he does and you guys were using math to disprove him. Both parties went too far and now we are out another member. I don't really think it matters who was right or who was wrong. I think we can agree that Ace was a colorful character who added more to the forum than what he took away.
BTW, anybody seen JJ around lately? Seems like she has also had enough of us?
Quote: AxelWolfBINGO is a time consuming game. She is around but looks like she does not post often.
We played BINGO when I was in the army......nothing like they do it today :)
Quote: TomspurBoth parties went too far and now we are out another member.
I can't speak for Axiom, but I was involved in that thread a lot, and I don't think I went too far. In fact, I went out of my way to say time and again I thought Ace was simply mistaken, and not lying. I've met Ace in real life and he is a nice guy, so I really didn't want to offend him at all.
The problem was that Ace interpreted people saying that he was mistaken as calling him a liar. He repeated that again and again. It made no sense. Maybe he was just feeling overwhelmed by the losing streak and other events in his life. It happens sometimes.
Luckily this is just a nonsense Internet forum with no real stakes attached to it. Rather than a permanent resignation, a simple break from the forum without posting might have worked for Ace. But that's not what he chose.
I assume Ace will be welcomed back if he wants to be, just like he was welcomed back last time after he permanently resigned the first time.
Quote: sodawaterI can't speak for Axiom, but I was involved in that thread a lot, and I don't think I went too far. In fact, I went out of my way to say time and again I thought Ace was simply mistaken, and not lying. I've met Ace in real life and he is a nice guy, so I really didn't want to offend him at all.
The problem was that Ace interpreted people saying that he was mistaken as calling him a liar. He repeated that again and again. It made no sense. Maybe he was just feeling overwhelmed by the losing streak and other events in his life. It happens sometimes.
Luckily this is just a nonsense Internet forum with no real stakes attached to it. Rather than a permanent resignation, a simple break from the forum without posting might have worked for Ace. But that's not what he chose.
I assume Ace will be welcomed back if he wants to be, just like he was welcomed back last time after he permanently resigned the first time.
I agree with this post unreservedly.
