Thread Rating:

Chapz
Chapz
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 23
January 18th, 2021 at 7:02:48 AM permalink
Quote:


I think you need to get a better understanding of the nature of Pascal's Wager. Whether the buyers or sellers of DI books/classes gain or lose money is irrelevant to our hypothetical bettor (i.e., "Pascal"). As to your objection that I have not addressed the 2nd part of your argument (i.e., "You haven't answered the 2nd part of Pascal's Wager...... What is the UPSIDE of DI?") the nature of Pascal's Argument is that the "upside" is always based on the assumption that the belief in question (in this case that DI works) is true. Proving that belief is not only not required but is also assumed to be beyond the bettor's capabilities:

Finally, as to your objection re missing out on winning streaks I will simply note that craps is a game with a negative EV with losing streaks as well as winning streaks. If it is a truly random game and DI is fantasy, which is your belief, then watching from the sidelines means fewer bets and, therefore lower loses due to the -EV property. This in turn means that even if DI does NOT work, there is an upside to making the wager.




"If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."

I understand Pascal's Wager very well.

My point is you can't apply Pascal's Wager to an event that is known. The probabilities in casino games are known. The lack of effectiveness of DI is known.

PW is applied to the question of the existent of God, which is an unknown unknown. It is convex to believe in God, that is point of PW.

Again my point about "missing out" is the incorrect belief that betting on DI shooters is more advantageous than wagering on random rollers. This aligns with your thinking.

Bottom line, if you truly want to apply Pascal's Wager to the game of craps (DI or not), you don't make the bet.
"To beat a random game you have to be good at being random."
TumblingBones
TumblingBones
Joined: Dec 25, 2016
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 437
January 18th, 2021 at 7:27:20 AM permalink
Quote:

My point is you can't apply Pascal's Wager to an event that is known. ........ The lack of effectiveness of DI is known.


That's your assumption but it is an arguable point in the opinion of others. Let's call you a "non-believer" (or DI atheist) and your opponents "believers" (aka DI theists). I myself am an agnostic. Hence PW applies.
That said, as an agnostic I've found arguing with both theists and atheists is never worth the time and energy expended so I'm going to sign-off from this thread.
My goal of being well informed conflicts with my goal of remaining sane.
Chapz
Chapz
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 23
January 18th, 2021 at 8:31:27 AM permalink
Quote: TumblingBones

That's your assumption but it is an arguable point in the opinion of others. Let's call you a "non-believer" (or DI atheist) and your opponents "believers" (aka DI theists). I myself am an agnostic. Hence PW applies.
That said, as an agnostic I've found arguing with both theists and atheists is never worth the time and energy expended so I'm going to sign-off from this thread.



Pascal believed one should wager that God exists because there is little or nothing to lose. Hence,

"If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."

Like I said, your mistake is applying Pasacal's Wager in a casino environment where probabilities are known. Where is this Pascal Casino where if you win, you win all, if you lose, you lose nothing?

Here's the thing, unlike PW, there is something to lose with believing in DI. For example a bettor can be fooled into making bets based on the ability of a DI to throw 12s so the bettor bets his bankroll on it.

On the other hand, there is nothing to lose by NOT believing in DI.

You keep missing the point. It's not about your belief or my belief, it's about you misapplying the use of Pascal's Wager.
"To beat a random game you have to be good at being random."
unJon
unJon 
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 2355
January 18th, 2021 at 10:57:59 AM permalink
Quote: Chapz

Pascal believed one should wager that God exists because there is little or nothing to lose. Hence,

"If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."

Like I said, your mistake is applying Pasacal's Wager in a casino environment where probabilities are known. Where is this Pascal Casino where if you win, you win all, if you lose, you lose nothing?

Here's the thing, unlike PW, there is something to lose with believing in DI. For example a bettor can be fooled into making bets based on the ability of a DI to throw 12s so the bettor bets his bankroll on it.

On the other hand, there is nothing to lose by NOT believing in DI.

You keep missing the point. It's not about your belief or my belief, it's about you misapplying the use of Pascal's Wager.

He’s not missing the point. You keep misconstruing what he is saying.

He’s saying that if someone is going to play craps, you might as well set the dice and try DI. At worst it doesn’t change your outcome.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
Chapz
Chapz
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 23
January 18th, 2021 at 11:27:54 AM permalink
Quote: unJon

He’s not missing the point. You keep misconstruing what he is saying.

He’s saying that if someone is going to play craps, you might as well set the dice and try DI. At worst it doesn’t change your outcome.



No, at worst you lose your wager.

Pascal's Wager says if you lose, you lose nothing.
"To beat a random game you have to be good at being random."
unJon
unJon 
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 2355
January 18th, 2021 at 11:28:50 AM permalink
Quote: Chapz

No, ar worst you lose your wager.

Pascal's Wager says if you lose, you lose nothing..



Lol. Keep carrying on the conversation with yourself.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
camz1969
camz1969
Joined: Dec 6, 2016
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 35
Thanks for this post from:
TumblingBones
January 19th, 2021 at 3:27:40 PM permalink
I have never played craps but I'll put some clarity into this PW debate. The reason you two are disagreeing is it depends on what gambler X will do anyway. If gambler X is going to spend Y amount of dollars ANYWAY until he/she loses it all to -EV then PW type logic applies because there is no loss created from trying DI. The total loss from -EV is going to happen either way so DI itself has zero risk in that scenario. The loss really has zero connection to the DI itself. Like it was stated earlier, if they sit out some rolls DI actually becomes a gain as far as rate of loss. However, if gambler X "learns" DI to begin playing craps or plays MORE craps because they think it will work, it becomes a loss if they are wrong. So you're both right depending on the intentions of the gambler.
Chapz
Chapz
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 23
January 19th, 2021 at 3:54:13 PM permalink
My point from the start is you can't apply Pascal's Wager to known events like casino games or craps. The probabilities are known and there is no potential for a fat tailed event or black swan event.

Craps with DI is still a -EV game so that in itself disqualifies it from the idea of PW: "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."
"To beat a random game you have to be good at being random."
camz1969
camz1969
Joined: Dec 6, 2016
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 35
January 19th, 2021 at 4:17:11 PM permalink
Your belief is that DI is a known then (in that it will never work). The only known is the -EV on a completely random game of craps which can be tested with a computer simulation but if someone can actually control dice then it can absolutely be +EV and you cannot prove that nobody is capable of it. You would have to get all 8 billion people in the world to try to control dice for a number of trials that is statistically significant. Even then, people that have died already or people that will be born in the future may be capable. On this note though, I am assuming we're talking about the current tables with the spikes...I remember watching a documentary a while back about somebody or a team that was able to DI on the old flat sides. They even got banned and all. It's been a while though so I'd have to search it down again. To keep it simple, we're talking with spikes. Again, the funny part is I could care less about craps and personally very skeptical about DI with the current tables but it's interesting conversation. The bottom line is if I tell you I am going to blow my whole life savings on craps either way...there is no loss to adding DI. The loss is 100% on my decision to blow all of my money on a known -EV game. Adding DI does not change my result at all but adds that tiny possibility I can actually turn it +EV and make a lot of money. Now, if you buy a table, practice all day every day, etc...those are costs but again my point is the debate depends on the details of the scenario. You don't have to do anything but try to DI next time you play craps if you were going to play anyway.
Chapz
Chapz
Joined: Feb 26, 2020
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 23
January 19th, 2021 at 4:38:56 PM permalink
I do believe people can influence the dice...... by not hitting the spikes. In other words, they are cheating at craps by short rolling.

Casinos will no roll you, bowl dump you, or at worst back you off only if you keep missing the spiked wall. Ever wonder why casinos don't care how you throw as long as you hit the spikes?

So these DIs bragging that they were trespassed or banned for their throws were in reality just reprimanded for not hitting the wall.

Adding DI may increase your chances as much as me blowing on the dice And it may also ruin your bankroll faster due to the false sense of security that leads a person to bet bigger.

Again, the idea with DI that you have nothing to lose, only to gain is simply not true. The only people that gain are the sellers of books and programs on DI.

Here's the million dollar question: Why are DIs not treated like card counters by casinos?
"To beat a random game you have to be good at being random."

  • Jump to: