Proposed rule change on restricting free speech.
Poll
 | 55 votes (70.51%) | ||
| | 13 votes (16.66%) | ||
| | 5 votes (6.41%) | ||
| | 2 votes (2.56%) | ||
| | 3 votes (3.84%) |
78 members have voted
March 26th, 2014 at 5:22:17 PM
permalink
It has been proposed in this post, as well as many other times, that this forum should not be used as a platform to advocate betting systems and other unsubstantiated ways to beat casino games with a negative expectation.
Personally, I bristle when members like gr8player pontificate about their secret method to beat games like baccarat, while providing no evidence to substantiate the claim. However, my hands are tied by my own rules allowing for free speech.
The question for this poll is should a rule be added to the forum rules that prohibits advocating any mathematically unsound or unproven method to improve the players odds in any casino game? This leads to the question of whether this policy should cover dice influence? Let me put forth two possible resolutions:
Resolution 1: Prohibit speech that advocates betting systems and other unproven mathematical voodoo, but allow for discussion of dice influence.
Resolution 2: Prohibit speech that advocates betting systems and other unproven mathematical voodoo, to include dice influence.
Personally, I bristle when members like gr8player pontificate about their secret method to beat games like baccarat, while providing no evidence to substantiate the claim. However, my hands are tied by my own rules allowing for free speech.
The question for this poll is should a rule be added to the forum rules that prohibits advocating any mathematically unsound or unproven method to improve the players odds in any casino game? This leads to the question of whether this policy should cover dice influence? Let me put forth two possible resolutions:
Resolution 1: Prohibit speech that advocates betting systems and other unproven mathematical voodoo, but allow for discussion of dice influence.
Resolution 2: Prohibit speech that advocates betting systems and other unproven mathematical voodoo, to include dice influence.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
March 26th, 2014 at 5:30:07 PM
permalink
I don't really care much either way because I simply don't get involved with the people who choose to talk about gaming systems but here is my 2 cents worth anyway.
I voted for keeping resolution 1. Here is why:
I don't think betting systems have a place here, not unless they have some proof attached and we all know that the proof simply doesn't exist at this point in time. Also those threads are almost always contentious. People get hot under the collar and good posters get suspended as well due to getting caught up in the heat of the moment. Do we really need this type of aggravation?
As for DI, I don't mind it as they are not advocating that they can eviscerate the HE, they simply say they can control the dice to roll their numbers more often than a normal shooter can. (Unless I haven't read through threads where they say otherwise which may also be the case).
Get rid of the taboo topics that is causing good members here to lose their cool (rightly so I might add).
Keep DI because it makes for fun reading and it keeps me amused.
I voted for keeping resolution 1. Here is why:
I don't think betting systems have a place here, not unless they have some proof attached and we all know that the proof simply doesn't exist at this point in time. Also those threads are almost always contentious. People get hot under the collar and good posters get suspended as well due to getting caught up in the heat of the moment. Do we really need this type of aggravation?
As for DI, I don't mind it as they are not advocating that they can eviscerate the HE, they simply say they can control the dice to roll their numbers more often than a normal shooter can. (Unless I haven't read through threads where they say otherwise which may also be the case).
Get rid of the taboo topics that is causing good members here to lose their cool (rightly so I might add).
Keep DI because it makes for fun reading and it keeps me amused.
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
March 26th, 2014 at 5:37:33 PM
permalink
I voted opposed to both.
The DI folks are at least good for a chuckle now & then.
If BillyJoeJimBob signs up and starts espousing their Magical Plan for Winning at Roulette or whatever, anyone that believes them deserves whatever results from this belief.
Gambling can be a lot of fun - I certainly enjoy it - but just like the lottery is a voluntary tax on the bad at math, casino games are not that different. There is no positive expectation casino game, and any talk of AP (advantage play) or DI (dice influence) is either A) cheating [counting cards, for example] or B) bullshit [much more amusing].
I guess there might be some kind of AP comp scheme that might be genuinely profitable but the entire notion of somebody with an advantage over the house is laughable.
I'm new here, but that's my $0.02.
The DI folks are at least good for a chuckle now & then.
If BillyJoeJimBob signs up and starts espousing their Magical Plan for Winning at Roulette or whatever, anyone that believes them deserves whatever results from this belief.
Gambling can be a lot of fun - I certainly enjoy it - but just like the lottery is a voluntary tax on the bad at math, casino games are not that different. There is no positive expectation casino game, and any talk of AP (advantage play) or DI (dice influence) is either A) cheating [counting cards, for example] or B) bullshit [much more amusing].
I guess there might be some kind of AP comp scheme that might be genuinely profitable but the entire notion of somebody with an advantage over the house is laughable.
I'm new here, but that's my $0.02.
March 26th, 2014 at 5:37:43 PM
permalink
As always, I'll not offer an answer, but rather information.
If you ban it, you will lose much of the contention found in the forum. A system thread almost always goes south, so it might be less of a problem to manage your site. You will also make the statement, rather definitively, that systems have no place in rational, learned thought. The down side is that it will certainly be used against you. I'm sure titles like "mathite", or our very own "MathExtremist", are titles you hold with pride. But people will try to damage you with them just the same.
If you allow it, you keep your belief of free speech, and sometimes integrity is worth a little hassle. You will also avoid having to referee every single thing. For example, there are plenty of people who know you can't beat the edge, but that you can change the short term details with a system and would like to know how theirs measures up. Are those types of threads also banned? But what if it's a one time session? But what about this new game with this new bet? What about in Papau - New Guinea on a July Sunday? If you ban those, too, you might lose a little value for those who want to play outside of the strict script of House Way / Don't Pass with max odds, ect..
Just some surface thoughts...
If you ban it, you will lose much of the contention found in the forum. A system thread almost always goes south, so it might be less of a problem to manage your site. You will also make the statement, rather definitively, that systems have no place in rational, learned thought. The down side is that it will certainly be used against you. I'm sure titles like "mathite", or our very own "MathExtremist", are titles you hold with pride. But people will try to damage you with them just the same.
If you allow it, you keep your belief of free speech, and sometimes integrity is worth a little hassle. You will also avoid having to referee every single thing. For example, there are plenty of people who know you can't beat the edge, but that you can change the short term details with a system and would like to know how theirs measures up. Are those types of threads also banned? But what if it's a one time session? But what about this new game with this new bet? What about in Papau - New Guinea on a July Sunday? If you ban those, too, you might lose a little value for those who want to play outside of the strict script of House Way / Don't Pass with max odds, ect..
Just some surface thoughts...
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
March 26th, 2014 at 5:38:41 PM
permalink
Tough one, because when someone is so full of it that it's entertaining, that actually provides a comedic value.
Ideally, they'd need to prove to the Wizard that their system indeed works , and then they'd have free reign to post all about it. But that's the same thing as voting for resolution 1.
Ideally, they'd need to prove to the Wizard that their system indeed works , and then they'd have free reign to post all about it. But that's the same thing as voting for resolution 1.
March 26th, 2014 at 5:46:39 PM
permalink
Quote: Wizard
Resolution 1: Prohibit speech that advocates betting systems and other unproven mathematical voodoo, but allow for discussion of dice influence.
Resolution 2: Prohibit speech that advocates betting systems and other unproven mathematical voodoo, to include dice influence.
I would suggest that Resolution 2 absolutely does not work because, on your own WoO on dice influence:
https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/4/
Quote: WoOI don't rule out the possibility, but I'm not convinced.
I would therefore suggest that it would be inconsistent to outlaw discussion on something that you yourself have not ruled out.
That having been said, I don't think that there is a problem with betting system discussion in and of itself. There have been occasions where betting systems can be shown to accomplish an (arguably) practical purpose, or there are some people that just like betting systems. Betting system analysis also makes for some interesting work for some members of the Forum (myself included, in fairness) where we tear the system apart and show, specifically, why the expected result of enough trials of the system shall result in exactly the house edge of the game.
However, one could argue that there is no place for betting system discussion in which a person adamantly refuses to elaborate, specifically, on the betting mechanics (and other mechanics) of the betting system in question. The result of this is an individual making nothing more than vague statements which can only be answered with vague statements pertaining to the house edge to which the betting system advocate will respond with something approximating, "Your vague notion of a house edge has no impact on my system because my system beats the house edge."
I think that there are two potential solutions to this much more specific problem than betting systems, in general:
1.) Repeated proponents of a betting system(s) must include a disclaimer in ALL posts pertaining to their system that their system is not sanctioned, approved, supported or even taken remotely seriously by WizardofVegas.com, WizardofOdds.com, or any Administrator thereof. A post from someone repeatedly espousing such claims lacking said disclaimer shall amount to Trolling.
OR
2.) Betting systems may not be promoted by established Members, AT ALL, unless the Member espousing such betting system will offer all specifics having to do with the system, upon request, so that the mathematics of the betting system can be analyzed by Members so inclined to do same. Any Member espousing a betting system and refusing to go into specifics would, henceforward, be Trolling.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
March 26th, 2014 at 5:48:53 PM
permalink
Quote: TerribleTom
There is no positive expectation casino game, and any talk of AP (advantage play) or DI (dice influence) is either A) cheating [counting cards, for example] or B) bullshit [much more amusing].
So, if I play Loose Deuces Video Poker at The D with a long-term expected return of 101.6%...that they know is there...I'm cheating?
If I go up to an Ultimate X machine with a bunch of multipliers left behind and play it, I'm shooting the bull?
I could list any other number of examples, if you like.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
March 26th, 2014 at 5:54:02 PM
permalink
I voted to ban both betting systems and dice influence talk. Both make the forum look bad. This should be a place for logic and reason, not mysticism.
There are real ways to control dice on a craps table. All of them are cheating. You can read about them in any number of magician books. Everything else about "influencing" dice is just willful ignorance.
There are real ways to control dice on a craps table. All of them are cheating. You can read about them in any number of magician books. Everything else about "influencing" dice is just willful ignorance.
March 26th, 2014 at 5:56:43 PM
permalink
I don't mind the discussion of betting systems, because usually someone proves how it doesn't work, or why it's a bad way to bet. It's just another way to gain knowledge. I come from the automotive field, and when something breaks, I like to know why it breaks. When I see a betting system that doesn't work, I like to know why it doesn't work. And not just the general answer of, "they all don't work."
March 26th, 2014 at 5:57:57 PM
permalink
Quote: TomspurAs for DI, I don't mind it as they are not advocating that they can eviscerate the HE, they simply say they can control the dice to roll their numbers more often than a normal shooter can
These two statements are pretty much the same.
CrapsGenious claimed that he could roll one seven every 3 rolls, on average. Of course he had no understanding of what this actually meant, mathematically, ie, you would own the casino in short order -- Kelly betting until you and all your confederates are up to table max at the highest stakes you can find (I know that Caesar's Palace has $100k tables on the main floor) and then table max (12 players ==> $800k edge PER ROLL).
March 26th, 2014 at 5:58:35 PM
permalink
You really can't ban discussion of systems
on a gambling forum, that would the same
as banning posts about cheese on a
milk forum.
What you can do is say 'enough is enough
already' when it comes to certain posters.
If they persist for dozens of posts with
no indication of what they do to win, warn
them and nuke them. Enough is enough.
I know GR8 very well. He revels in all the
attention he gets here. He lives for it.
on a gambling forum, that would the same
as banning posts about cheese on a
milk forum.
What you can do is say 'enough is enough
already' when it comes to certain posters.
If they persist for dozens of posts with
no indication of what they do to win, warn
them and nuke them. Enough is enough.
I know GR8 very well. He revels in all the
attention he gets here. He lives for it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
March 26th, 2014 at 5:58:53 PM
permalink
The betting system forum just needs a disclaimer such as, "Until all proposed systems have some mathematical basis as to an advantage, you shall be ridiculed till no end without repercussion upon the people ridiculing you."
"Man Babes" #AxelFabulous
March 26th, 2014 at 5:59:24 PM
permalink
Quote: SkittleCar1I don't mind the discussion of betting systems, because usually someone proves how it doesn't work, or why it's a bad way to bet. It's just another way to gain knowledge. I come from the automotive field, and when something breaks, I like to know why it breaks. When I see a betting system that doesn't work, I like to know why it doesn't work. And not just the general answer of, "they all don't work."
Have to +1 this.
A large part of what gaming and math knowledge I have came from exactly this - some math superstar shredding an illogical belief. Most everyone here already knows this stuff. What about new members yet to join?
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
March 26th, 2014 at 5:59:49 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobYou really can't ban discussion of systems
on a gambling forum, that would the same
as banning posts about cheese on a
milk forum.
More like banning green mold growing on cheese.
EDIT - well maybe some people find greenish mold the tasty part.
Sanitized for Your Protection
March 26th, 2014 at 6:00:03 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardResolution 1: Prohibit speech that advocates betting systems...
Let me elaborate. By "advocate" I meant claim that the betting system can lower the house edge.
Discussion of betting systems would reluctantly be allowed so long as nobody is claiming following said system or strategy dents the house edge. For example, it is completely sound to discuss methods of reaching certain win goals, for purposes of tournaments or Internet casinos bonuses. An example what would not be allowed is to claim a 98-step roulette system that can give the player an advantage.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
March 26th, 2014 at 6:00:35 PM
permalink
If it ain't broke don't fix it! In most cases those who start in with the voodoo systems are soon taken to task by the membership.
Things have a way of taking care of themselves.
Things have a way of taking care of themselves.
March 26th, 2014 at 6:01:52 PM
permalink
Has this poll been authenticated by the Winkie Country Supreme Court ?
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
March 26th, 2014 at 6:05:39 PM
permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThese two statements are pretty much the same.
CrapsGenious claimed that he could roll one seven every 3 rolls, on average. Of course he had no understanding of what this actually meant, mathematically, ie, you would own the casino in short order -- Kelly betting until you and all your confederates are up to table max at the highest stakes you can find (I know that Caesar's Palace has $100k tables on the main floor) and then table max (12 players ==> $800k edge PER ROLL).
I thought he said 1 in 5.......I'll have to go back and check.
I understand the similarities in what I had posted. Perhaps I should have said that they CLAIM they can roll their numbers more often than a regular shooter. I don't remember seeing anyone of them saying that they can turn the HE in their favor with their shooting ability but as I mentioned, I may just have missed those posts if they do exist.
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
March 26th, 2014 at 6:05:39 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardQuote: WizardResolution 1: Prohibit speech that advocates betting systems...
Let me elaborate. By "advocate" I meant claim that the betting system can lower the house edge.
Discussion of betting systems would reluctantly be allowed so long as nobody is claiming following said system or strategy dents the house edge. For example, it is completely sound to discuss methods of reaching certain win goals, for purposes of tournaments or Internet casinos bonuses. An example what would not be allowed is to claim a 98-step roulette system that can give the player an advantage.
You should ban users who can't prove their system works. For some value of proof.
"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
March 26th, 2014 at 6:06:48 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardQuote: WizardResolution 1: Prohibit speech that advocates betting systems...
Let me elaborate. By "advocate" I meant claim that the betting system can lower the house edge.
Can't you lower the daily post count of users? Could you just lower the post count of users who keep claiming that day after day. Until they are allowed 1 post a day.
Well, it would be amusing (to me anyway).
Sanitized for Your Protection
March 26th, 2014 at 6:09:19 PM
permalink
Systems posters are given 50 posts. They can gamble to get more posts by playing one of several casino games. Obviously, if their system works, they will gain more posts to talk about their system.
"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
March 26th, 2014 at 6:09:49 PM
permalink
I am opposed to both.
A lot of active posters on this site are very smart and know HE can not be overcome bla bla bla. However, a lot of new people who come here do not know that. There are tons of people who come on here and think they are beating a game. People of course jump in and explain to them why they can not so I think this site adds a service to the people who don't know any better. If you eliminate these people I think you will see more threads pop up with stupid questions.
PLUS.. there is a block button so if you don't like the conversation then just simply block it and be done with it.
A lot of active posters on this site are very smart and know HE can not be overcome bla bla bla. However, a lot of new people who come here do not know that. There are tons of people who come on here and think they are beating a game. People of course jump in and explain to them why they can not so I think this site adds a service to the people who don't know any better. If you eliminate these people I think you will see more threads pop up with stupid questions.
PLUS.. there is a block button so if you don't like the conversation then just simply block it and be done with it.
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed.
I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
March 26th, 2014 at 6:10:02 PM
permalink
I voted prohibit both. Allowing betting systems on a math oriented forum is like allowing creationists a voice on Cosmos.
A falling knife has no handle.
March 26th, 2014 at 6:12:43 PM
permalink
In the case of dice setting, members can block any thread that is properly set up in that section. They can block the whole section and never see mention of such unless the thread-starter does not start it where he is supposed to. This when happening can be redirected by moderators [I think] and also members who continue to do such can be sent on sabbatical or banned.
There is a section for betting systems too, but as the Wizard says above, all such are not nonsense. So maybe there could be an "HE defeating Betting System" or "Betting Systems that Win in the Long Run" section to which moderators can redirect and which members can totally block in the same way.
There is a section for betting systems too, but as the Wizard says above, all such are not nonsense. So maybe there could be an "HE defeating Betting System" or "Betting Systems that Win in the Long Run" section to which moderators can redirect and which members can totally block in the same way.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
March 26th, 2014 at 6:13:11 PM
permalink
Maybe make an "Unsubstantiated Betting Systems" subforum, where posters go and only brag about how often they win, lol.
March 26th, 2014 at 6:13:17 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardQuote: WizardResolution 1: Prohibit speech that advocates betting systems...
Let me elaborate. By "advocate" I meant claim that the betting system can lower the house edge.
Discussion of betting systems would reluctantly be allowed so long as nobody is claiming following said system or strategy dents the house edge. For example, it is completely sound to discuss methods of reaching certain win goals, for purposes of tournaments or Internet casinos bonuses. An example what would not be allowed is to claim a 98-step roulette system that can give the player an advantage.
I just think either requiring a disclaimer or disallowing the self-referential crap would be more than sufficient.
Just give us the order in which the bets are placed and what criteria must be satisfied for the bet to be made, and we will happily pounce on it like a pack of starving wolves on a three-legged cat. We LOVE destroying the tenaciously held beliefs of others!!!
For those who don't want to offer specifics as to system mechanics, you're trolling, there's the Log Out button, don't let it hit you in the derriere on the way out.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
March 26th, 2014 at 6:14:36 PM
permalink
https://wizardofvegas.com/edit/blocked/topics/ is always very useful...
"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
March 26th, 2014 at 6:16:33 PM
permalink
I think the only way we could ban discussion of systems that "dent the house edge" is if there's some sort of grace period or other leeway granted for new members and/or new discussions. I don't see how this could possibly be disallowed:
A: I found this awesome system. It's super. Here's how it works: (inane theory). I can beat the house every time!
B: That theory is inane. here's: (actual math).
A: Well darn. Thanks for the lesson!
Of course, it'd be great if the ongoing discussion of the gr8est way to play baccarat could go away and be mentioned again...
A: I found this awesome system. It's super. Here's how it works: (inane theory). I can beat the house every time!
B: That theory is inane. here's: (actual math).
A: Well darn. Thanks for the lesson!
Of course, it'd be great if the ongoing discussion of the gr8est way to play baccarat could go away and be mentioned again...
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
March 26th, 2014 at 6:19:48 PM
permalink
also if you are that worried about it looking bad for you then people like gr8 that refuse to spell out what they do should be nuked for trolling.
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed.
I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
March 26th, 2014 at 6:20:12 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardQuote: WizardResolution 1: Prohibit speech that advocates betting systems...
Let me elaborate. By "advocate" I meant claim that the betting system can lower the house edge.
Discussion of betting systems would reluctantly be allowed so long as nobody is claiming following said system or strategy dents the house edge. For example, it is completely sound to discuss methods of reaching certain win goals, for purposes of tournaments or Internet casinos bonuses. An example what would not be allowed is to claim a 98-step roulette system that can give the player an advantage.
Technically, gr8 repeatedly says that every bet that he has goes up against the house edge. He does not claim to reduce the house edge; he just claims that the house edge doesn't matter because of his betting progression or strike rate some such nonsense. He also claims that he can pick correctly between 53% and 54% of the time, although he scoffed at me when I dared suggest that picking 53% would give him a 6% edge on his player bets. Apparently, in his world, wining 53 out of 100 even-money bets does not give someone a 6% edge, because of the variance.
It's all either an elaborate troll, or he doesn't understand the words he is using (or possibly both)
March 26th, 2014 at 6:42:13 PM
permalink
Quote: GWAEalso if you are that worried about it looking bad for you then people like gr8 that refuse to spell out what they do should be nuked for trolling.
Several other people have weighed in with thoughts similar to mine, so I will shorten my response to say that I think the forum does a great service to those looking for advice on systems by debunking them. If the snake oil salesman is selling a magic elixir with a proprietary formula and making healing claims about it, and the local chemist can publish test results analyzing it as mineral oil with wintergreen and eucalyptus extracts, then people have the opportunity to think rationally about the product, not just emotionally about whether it can heal their sick mother.
Systems are about satifying emotional needs for riches, power, advantages over institutions or other people; gaming mathematics are about rationalizing expectations. Providing the opportunity for debate and contrast is valuable and somewhat unique to this forum. It errs, if at all, on the side of free speech, and provides a learning opportunity for those who are genuinely curious or in doubt.
If people hold beliefs beyond the demonstration of logical fallacy, whether for entertainment or self-delusion, there's not a lot that can be done for them. However, if someone's trying to decide whether to buy the snake oil, this forum as a chemist's shop can make them a smarter gambler and save them some money. So, as a player's advocate, I think having real people discuss these things with those who have the skills and credentials to debunk their systems, methodologies, or mathematics is one of your prime reasons for having the forum, and the pipeline should not be shut off.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
March 26th, 2014 at 6:55:45 PM
permalink
This doesn't affect me at all.
But I voted against any restrictions on general principles: overall more freedom is always better. Also to avoid seeing people suspended for posting about systems (you know they will), and to avoid discussing the issue afterwards.
But I voted against any restrictions on general principles: overall more freedom is always better. Also to avoid seeing people suspended for posting about systems (you know they will), and to avoid discussing the issue afterwards.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
March 26th, 2014 at 6:56:21 PM
permalink
I think a disclaimer would be appropriate. Can you allow moderators to insert a form post wherever they see fit saying something like:Quote: Mission146I just think either requiring a disclaimer or disallowing the self-referential crap would be more than sufficient.
"WoO and WoV do not endorse any betting system. Betting systems can change the distribution of results but they can not change the house edge. You will over time lose the same amount of money flat betting the same amount every hand as any betting system's average bet."
This is in essence my view. I would change "tenaciously held" to "provably false", but the overall idea is the same. I enjoy creating simulations (it's what I'm paid to do). There currently are more than enough members of this board willing to illustrate the downfall of any betting system.Quote: Mission146Just give us the order in which the bets are placed and what criteria must be satisfied for the bet to be made, and we will happily pounce on it like a pack of starving wolves on a three-legged cat. We LOVE destroying the tenaciously held beliefs of others!!!
+1. This has been my biggest problem with most of those debates. I am willing to post my code or analysis upon request to anyone, I only ask for a fair trade. The day I refuse to post code, delete my related posts, and start sounding like I'm in witness protection is the day that you can be sure I discovered how to turn lead into gold. If I exhibit those behaviors, I think nuking my account would be not only reasonable, but welcome. I would want no mention of my exploits.Quote: Mission146For those who don't want to offer specifics as to system mechanics, you're trolling, there's the Log Out button, don't let it hit you in the derriere on the way out.
March 26th, 2014 at 7:12:40 PM
permalink
There was a time on the Internet when people asked if you read the FAQ after some clueless posting. Extensive FAQs were there to cover the same old questions that occur over and over without starting from square one every time.
Sanitized for Your Protection
March 26th, 2014 at 7:28:14 PM
permalink
Quote: endermikeI think a disclaimer would be appropriate. Can you allow moderators to insert a form post wherever they see fit saying something like:
"WoO and WoV do not endorse any betting system. Betting systems can change the distribution of results but they can not change the house edge. You will over time lose the same amount of money flat betting the same amount every hand as any betting system's average bet."
Absolutely, we can Edit whatever we want into, or out of, any post already.
Quote:This is in essence my view. I would change "tenaciously held" to "provably false", but the overall idea is the same. I enjoy creating simulations (it's what I'm paid to do). There currently are more than enough members of this board willing to illustrate the downfall of any betting system.
Exactly!
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
March 26th, 2014 at 7:58:10 PM
permalink
Quote: beachbumbabsSeveral other people have weighed in with thoughts similar to mine, so I will shorten my response to say that I think the forum does a great service to those looking for advice on systems by debunking them. If the snake oil salesman is selling a magic elixir with a proprietary formula and making healing claims about it, and the local chemist can publish test results analyzing it as mineral oil with wintergreen and eucalyptus extracts, then people have the opportunity to think rationally about the product, not just emotionally about whether it can heal their sick mother.
Systems are about satifying emotional needs for riches, power, advantages over institutions or other people; gaming mathematics are about rationalizing expectations. Providing the opportunity for debate and contrast is valuable and somewhat unique to this forum. It errs, if at all, on the side of free speech, and provides a learning opportunity for those who are genuinely curious or in doubt.
If people hold beliefs beyond the demonstration of logical fallacy, whether for entertainment or self-delusion, there's not a lot that can be done for them. However, if someone's trying to decide whether to buy the snake oil, this forum as a chemist's shop can make them a smarter gambler and save them some money. So, as a player's advocate, I think having real people discuss these things with those who have the skills and credentials to debunk their systems, methodologies, or mathematics is one of your prime reasons for having the forum, and the pipeline should not be shut off.
Exactly this.
I voted against both.
"Scientists tell us that the fastest animal on earth, with a top speed of 120 feet per second, is a cow that has been dropped out of a helicopter."
March 26th, 2014 at 8:10:22 PM
permalink
I voted against both since open discussion should actually provide education to those who might otherwise fall for the snake oil salesmans line.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
March 26th, 2014 at 8:19:04 PM
permalink
I for one learn alot from people disproving or at least refuteing people schemes. I also have learned a lot about craps from the dice controll discussions. I don't believe it is possible to control dice but the discussion has been educational for me.Quote: kenarmanI voted against both since open discussion should actually provide education to those who might otherwise fall for the snake oil salesmans line.
March 26th, 2014 at 8:21:25 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwineThere was a time on the Internet when people asked if you read the FAQ after some clueless posting. Extensive FAQs were there to cover the same old questions that occur over and over without starting from square one every time.
They did about as much good as telling people to RT<BLEEP!>M.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
March 26th, 2014 at 8:21:48 PM
permalink
Quote: Mission146For those who don't want to offer specifics as to system mechanics, you're trolling, there's the Log Out button, don't let it hit you in the derriere on the way out.
This works, under the assumption that you're also committed to removing trolls from the forum.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
March 26th, 2014 at 8:32:12 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedThey did about as much good as telling people to RT<BLEEP!>M.
Oh Ye of little faith.
Sanitized for Your Protection
March 26th, 2014 at 8:54:54 PM
permalink
I disagree with anything that prohibits any kind of speech. Let people say what they will and if someone disagrees just be an adult and move on.
March 26th, 2014 at 9:05:43 PM
permalink
Quote: geoffI disagree with anything that prohibits any kind of speech. Let people say what they will and if someone disagrees just be an adult and move on.
Every single one of the forum rules is a restriction on free speech. That bubble has been burst already.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
March 26th, 2014 at 9:18:15 PM
permalink
For the sake of educating the public, let the mathematically unsound betting systems be debunked vigorously. The Wizard is justified in not wanting to waste his own time debunking this nonsense, but there are plenty of mathematically savvy members on this forum with an appetite (and the time) for a jolly ol' debunking-fest. If the Wizard is worried that this nonsense will reflect poorly upon his credentials as a reputable mathematician, or that people will assume the Wizard is endorsing crappy math merely by allowing discussion of it, his concerns are unfounded. The link to this page is prominently placed at the top of WoO, and the message is crystal clear: crappy math will not beat a casino game.
As for dice-setting... I rarely read those threads. With a thousand hours of practice, perhaps it's possible for a few gifted athletes to throw the dice with enough precision to influence the outcome. Sometimes. Maybe. But it can't be proven (or debunked) on an internet forum, so those threads tend to be repetitive and boring. Don't censor those threads, don't ban them. Ignore them.
As for dice-setting... I rarely read those threads. With a thousand hours of practice, perhaps it's possible for a few gifted athletes to throw the dice with enough precision to influence the outcome. Sometimes. Maybe. But it can't be proven (or debunked) on an internet forum, so those threads tend to be repetitive and boring. Don't censor those threads, don't ban them. Ignore them.
March 26th, 2014 at 10:09:18 PM
permalink
Quote: GWAEI am opposed to both.
A lot of active posters on this site are very smart and know HE can not be overcome bla bla bla. However, a lot of new people who come here do not know that. .
This is the main point, we must look at this issue in terms of someone whose brand new to casino gambling and joined this forum yesterday looking for help and advice. Navigating through these boards is tricky , and one can very easily stumble upon a gr8player post or a CrapsGenious post, read it, and walk away having no idea whatsoever that what they just read was total utter nonsense. It's not like reading a religious beliefs thread or a political views thread where it's obvious to even a new member that what they are seeing is simply opinions... Most people new to betting don't know the deal with betting systems...or they're not sure and are easily influenced. New gamblers WANT to be told that there's a method of betting that guarantees success, they want to be told that if your smarter than everyone else you can beat the house, and I'd bet that Google searches for "winning at bacarrat" or "beating roullette" are frequent.
The Wizard puts a ton of his time and effort into helping people bet smarter through knowledge . All it takes is one person to join the forum, read about gr8player and his 55% bac win rates, and then go and tell all his family and friends that he learned from the WIZARDofvegas site that bacarrat is a beatable game. I'm certain that's not the kind of thing Wizard wants his name or his site attributed to. Now is he the one that said it...no of course not. But often times when people learn something on a forum, they don't reference the exact forum member they learned it from.. They just recall the name of the forum.
March 26th, 2014 at 10:28:48 PM
permalink
Quote: michael99000The Wizard puts a ton of his time and effort into helping people bet smarter through knowledge . All it takes is one person to join the forum, read about gr8player and his 55% bac win rates, and then go and tell all his family and friends that he learned from the WIZARDofvegas site that bacarrat is a beatable game. I'm certain that's not the kind of thing Wizard wants his name or his site attributed to. Now is he the one that said it...no of course not. But often times when people learn something on a forum, they don't reference the exact forum member they learned it from.. They just recall the name of the forum.
Thank you. This is exactly how I feel.
For those who have experience at other forums, how do other forums devoted to a particular topic handle this problem? Maybe this is a bad comparison, but what would a forum on Judaism do with a Holocaust denier who was otherwise polite, well-spoken, and obeyed forum rules?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
March 26th, 2014 at 11:16:06 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardThank you. This is exactly how I feel.
For those who have experience at other forums, how do other forums devoted to a particular topic handle this problem? Maybe this is a bad comparison, but what would a forum on Judaism do with a Holocaust denier who was otherwise polite, well-spoken, and obeyed forum rules?
Some people use charm and other fancy social skills to sell bad products, ideas or services. For instance, I've heard people base their doctor's expertise on how nice and friendly he was with a good bed side manner. Better to have a jerk who knows what he is doing than a nice person who doesn't.
So, yeah, it's not a good thing, but hard to tell how harmful it would be for purposes here.. How much junk info do you want represented here? I can see your point there.
Sanitized for Your Protection
March 26th, 2014 at 11:22:14 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardThank you. This is exactly how I feel.
For those who have experience at other forums, how do other forums devoted to a particular topic handle this problem? Maybe this is a bad comparison, but what would a forum on Judaism do with a Holocaust denier who was otherwise polite, well-spoken, and obeyed forum rules?
They have a Voodoo section which is the only place that these posts are allowed. Put a disclaimer and a short explanation of why this section exists at the top of the page for all to see. Post the purpose of the Voodoo section in the rules and wherever else is necessary so that anyone reading these posts will know without any doubt that this forum does not endorse or agree with these ideas. This is a gambling forum and these things, no matter how wrong, are still part of gambling.
When a questionable post is made outside the Voodoo section, instruct the moderators to move it to that section. Don't just quietly move it. State right in the post in big red letters for all to see that it is being moved and let the reason be known. Repeat offenders can be dealt wit on a case by case basis but really all that has to be done is move the post. Just having their posts moved may give the authors pause.
Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth. - Mahatma Ghandi
March 26th, 2014 at 11:28:26 PM
permalink
Sorry. "Very few" positive expectation games in casinos.
March 27th, 2014 at 12:59:18 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardThank you. This is exactly how I feel.
For those who have experience at other forums, how do other forums devoted to a particular topic handle this problem? Maybe this is a bad comparison, but what would a forum on Judaism do with a Holocaust denier who was otherwise polite, well-spoken, and obeyed forum rules?
Pushing systems that are not mathematically sound are banned on vpFREE.
"Quit trying your luck and start trying your skill." Mickey Crimm
