Albert Einstein on math
Quote: mustangsally
Seems like a tough job to retrieve the dice when they leave the table.
Quote: kenarmanSeems like a tough job to retrieve the dice when they leave the table.
Not for that eight foot tall stick man, with his waist close to everyone else's shoulder level. He could pick dice off the bottom of the pool with his head out of the water.
(Accidental pun on "stick" man.)
Quote: ncfatcatIf you would live forever everything that possibly could happen to you (both the incredibly good and bad) would happen and happen an infinite number of times.
To understand the infinite (/finite) is to "do the opposite": To not become infinitely lost in the crowd.
You have to find the, hence one unique, way to invert everyone else's thinking but which also preserves theirs, so that you can make infinite usage of it in the finite.
To take into consideration also the quote, "When everyone is against you, it means that you are absolutely wrong... or absolutely right."
Quote: Wizard
Let me give you a bit of advice that took me years to learn. There is no hope in converting anybody who doesn't believe in math.
And the opposite is true, you can't convince
a math person they're wrong about anything
involving math. You'd do better trying to convert
a Mormom to Islam.
That's because they're not wrong.Quote: EvenBobAnd the opposite is true, you can't convince
a math person they're wrong about anything
involving math. You'd do better trying to convert
a Mormom to Islam.
Quote: EvenBobFor how to sustain wins in the short term the mathletes are mute.
Who, except clairvoyants, can say anything useful about where to play the next bet? Can you? Prove it.
*Yes. I know claivoyants can't either.
Quote: OnceDearWho, except clairvoyants, can say anything useful about where to play the next bet?
That's all that counts, the next bet. That's
where you place you money. Who cares
about the 1000th bet, I want to know
where to bet right now. This is why the
math is folly when it comes to gambling,
it's useless on a bet to bet basis. I've
seen people win thousands in roulette on
a $100 buy in, and others lose it all in
10 min on a $1000 buy in. What good did
the math of roulette do either of them.
Quote: EvenBobThat's all that counts, the next bet. That's
where you place you money. Who cares
about the 1000th bet, I want to know
where to bet right now. This is why the
math is folly when it comes to gambling,
it's useless on a bet to bet basis. I've
seen people win thousands in roulette on
a $100 buy in, and others lose it all in
10 min on a $1000 buy in. What good did
the math of roulette do either of them.
What are you talking about? Any gambling math I've seen generally says something like "make this bet because it's worth XXX/roll or YYY/hour". If math is telling you something is +EV and you're not smart enough to decide that should be your next bet.....idk what to say.
Quote: RSIf math is telling you something is +EV and you're not smart enough to decide that should be your next bet.....idk what to say.
So there is math that tells you where to
place the next bet in roulette, or bac,
for instance? Math that says if you bet
on such and such right now your
chance of winning is better than your
chance of losing?
Show it to me.
Which bets in Roulette are +EV? Math seems to indicate that gambling is -EV.Quote: RSWhat are you talking about? Any gambling math I've seen generally says something like "make this bet because it's worth XXX/roll or YYY/hour". If math is telling you something is +EV and you're not smart enough to decide that should be your next bet.....idk what to say.
Not for those games, no. If you want a greater chance to win than lose, any of the lay bets in craps will suffice. But the chances of winning on lay bets don't change from roll to roll and we both know that's not what you really mean anyway.Quote: EvenBobSo there is math that tells you where to
place the next bet in roulette, or bac,
for instance? Math that says if you bet
on such and such right now your
chance of winning is better than your
chance of losing?
Show it to me.
What you really mean to convey is just another anti-mathematics rant because probability theory doesn't live up to your unrealistic expectations and include clairvoyance. Disparaging mathematics because it can't predict the next outcome of a random wagering game is like disparaging a hammer because it can't cut wood or tighten a bolt. It's not trying to, and anyone with a passing understanding of math (or a hammer) would realize it's the wrong tool for the job.
If you want to know exactly what number will show up next, go see your psychic. If you actually want to understand probability theory as it applies to gambling, there are a lot of great explanations here and elsewhere. Or you could keep up your unreasonable gripe that probability theory can't predict the next card or dice roll even though nobody has ever suggested otherwise.
Quote: MathExtremist. Disparaging mathematics because it can't predict the next outcome of a random wagering game.
You're going to do just as well or
just as badly on most casino games
if you know everything about the
math, or nothing about it.
Quote: EvenBobSo there is math that tells you where to place the next bet in roulette, or bac, for instance?
For roulette, math tells us that to be profitable you should bet on whichever number pays 38-to-1 or better. (To be unprofitable math tells us we can bet anything else other than that)
Quote: EvenBobMath that says if you bet on such and such right now your chance of winning is better than your chance of losing?
That is a far different question than which bet to make. You can bet the Cavaliers (25-9 record) against the 76ers (4-35 record) this afternoon and have a 95% chance of winning. But most Las Vegas sportsbooks that are even taking that bet are requiring you to lay at least $40 to win $1. It's the opposite of the roulette number that pays enough to overcome the house advantage: Math says you are likely to win, but it also says it won't be profitable.
Quote: EvenBobYou're going to do just as well or just as badly on most casino games if you know everything about the math, or nothing about it.
A rational person will do far better if they understand the math: they simply won't play
Quote: EvenBobYou're going to do just as well or
just as badly on most casino games
if you know everything about the
math, or nothing about it.
Not if you pay attention.
I can see where you are coming from in implying that Mathematics won't help you to play a game with random outcome.
But it can tell you where on the scale of madness any particular game, wager, or sidebet would put you.
E.g. if you know that the Perfect Pairs bet at a Blackjack table has an horrendous house edge, Maths would tell you not to bet on it for any chance of profit. If you want occasional adrenaline rushes or bragging rights, then by all means ignore the maths.
If you are faced with a casino with both American Roulette and European single zero roulette, then Maths and the most simple of probability theory would tell you to not play the double zero game (Even louder than it would tell you to not play either)
You can use maths to engineer systems where you skew the win/lose rate at a cost of skewing the win/lose magnitude and you can use Maths to help you to pace your wagering to give you the level of excitement you seek, though of course ultimately bet minimum and infrequently is the secret of longevity.
Bob, You always harp on about how Maths cannot tell you how to place your next bet, especially with your game of choice : roulette. You never suggest what can.
It's been a while since you claimed any prowess at beating that game. Have you mellowed and realised that you, and your mentors and friends really have no edge, even with your skills?
Quote: TomGA rational person will do far better if they understand the math: they simply won't play
I play not because the game is +EV from a mathematical perspective. I play because, for me, the game is +EV from a holistic sense. That is rational.
That is way too coherent and semi-highbrow response for me, just for me. But the "where you stand on the scale of madness", I can get my teeth, and wallet, into that. I may change my signature quote, again....;-)Quote: OnceDearNot if you pay attention.
I can see where you are coming from in implying that Mathematics won't help you to play a game with random outcome.
But it can tell you where on the scale of madness any particular game, wager, or sidebet would put you.
E.g. if you know that the Perfect Pairs bet at a Blackjack table has an horrendous house edge, Maths would tell you not to bet on it for any chance of profit. If you want occasional adrenaline rushes or bragging rights, then by all means ignore the maths.
If you are faced with a casino with both American Roulette and European single zero roulette, then Maths and the most simple of probability theory would tell you to not play the double zero game (Even louder than it would tell you to not play either)
You can use maths to engineer systems where you skew the win/lose rate at a cost of skewing the win/lose magnitude and you can use Maths to help you to pace your wagering to give you the level of excitement you seek, though of course ultimately bet minimum and infrequently is the secret of longevity.
Bob, You always harp on about how Maths cannot tell you how to place your next bet, especially with your game of choice : roulette. You never suggest what can.
It's been a while since you claimed any prowess at beating that game. Have you mellowed and realised that you, and your mentors and friends really have no edge, even with your skills?
Quote: TwoFeathersATLThat is way too coherent and semi-highbrow response for me, just for me. But the "where you stand on the scale of madness", I can get my teeth, and wallet, into that. I may change my signature quote, again....;-)
I was wondering if that phrase actually fitted the description of a scale of house edge. It's subjective and suggests that fighting a large house edge is 'mad'. Of course what I meant was scale of disadvantage or house edge.
Some would choose to play games where the house edge is massively stacked against the player, but where the 'jackpot prize' was also enormous. (Think your typical lottery). Is it madness to take on such wagers? I think so, but I can respect those who wager just for amusement.
That's probably true for you under your misapprehension of what "knowing everything about the math" means. It's not true for those who actually understand and care about the theoretical price of the wagers they make.Quote: EvenBobYou're going to do just as well or
just as badly on most casino games
if you know everything about the
math, or nothing about it.
I personally believe I am far better off knowing the odds than being ignorant. But my utility function also involves more than just maximizing the expectation of monetary gain. If your utility function involves only maximizing monetary gain, going to a casino is probably a terrible idea for you. It's a bad idea for virtually everyone under that criterion, including most profitable APs.
Let's say you and I go to a casino and we both get 40 100 one time use promo chips-
You place yours and my math will tell me where to place mine-
Run it once and let's see who comes out ahead is where math helps
Let a casino give me a 25 percent daily loss rebate you play your game and I'll play any game besides roulette that you tell me to/ I'm pretty sure day after day when factoring in the rebate math helps me come out way ahead of you
Quote: EvenBobSo there is math that tells you where to
place the next bet in roulette, or bac,
for instance? Math that says if you bet
on such and such right now your
chance of winning is better than your
chance of losing?
Show it to me.
Eb, just an fyi. Your posting style doesn't make sense Amy more on the new format of the forum. It did on the old but since they made it mobile friendly you are only using half the screen.
Quote:So there is math that tells you where to
place the next bet in roulette, or bac,
for instance? Math that says if you bet
on such and such right now your
chance of winning is better than your
chance of losing?
Show it to me.
For roulette: A simple linear regression formula for visual ballistics.
T=( t1 x t2 x t) / (R x (t2 – t1)
T is the function to define time
t is time duration until ball slows down from 0.6 to 1.08s.
t1 is time of first ball rotation
t2 is time of last ball rotation
R is rotor time
