Thread Rating:

darkoz
darkoz 
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 262
  • Posts: 8917
August 24th, 2021 at 4:26:30 AM permalink
Quote: Dieter

IANAL translates to "I Am Not A Lawyer", and is a standard disclaimer applied to posts which could be misconstrued as legal advice.

As for the rest; consider that if everyone is arguing with you, you might be wrong and their sincere hope is to bring you to an epiphany.



I also did not know what IANAL meant.

I'm also sorry to say that I just kept attributing it's meaning to saying it as it kinda sounds.

I anal. It made sense to me!
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
August 24th, 2021 at 4:37:23 AM permalink
Quote: Dieter


As for the rest; consider that if everyone is arguing with you, you might be wrong and their sincere hope is to bring you to an epiphany.

yes, and I shouldn't need to be unmercifully derided to get to the epiphany.

And many may not have the wherewithal to know how to put their objections in print?

Also consider that there may seem many arguing with me because of the kind of posters drawn to this site....a site upholding a certain mathematical point of view. In that case, the naysayers should be comfortable enough not to need to delve into the betting systems area of the website, and WOV can only have an enlarged audience with a separate believers area under "BETTING SYSTEMS."

There are other sites that cater for believers. I may not need to be shown the epiphany over there? Telling me I should stick over there has value, but there's also value in the kind of separate area (BETTING SYSTEMS) opportunity on this site, too.
Last edited by: Wellbush on Aug 24, 2021
All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
Dieter
Administrator
Dieter
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 2320
Thanks for this post from:
WellbushBoSox
August 24th, 2021 at 4:54:49 AM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

yes, and I shouldn't need to be unmercifully derided to get to the epiphany.

And many may not have the wherewithal to know how to put the objections in print?

Also consider that there may seem many arguing with me because of the kind of posters drawn to this site....a site upholding a certain mathematical point of view. In that case, the naysayers should be comfortable enough not to need to delve into the betting systems area of the website, and WOV can only have an enlarged audience with a separate believers area under "BETTING SYSTEMS."



Many of our mathematically talented members enjoy enthusiastically dissecting betting systems as good intellectual sport.

Some people would prefer to have their ego battered in vigorous debate with well informed counterparts instead of having their bankroll decimated by a belief in a mathematically disprovable approach.

How much you bet isn't going to change how the dice land or how the cards come out.

I make no value judgment; it's your money to squander as you see fit. I'm fond of coin pushers, personally.
May the cards fall in your favor.
Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
August 24th, 2021 at 5:11:11 AM permalink
Quote: Dieter

Many of our mathematically talented members enjoy enthusiastically dissecting betting systems as good intellectual sport.

Some people would prefer to have their ego battered in vigorous debate with well informed counterparts instead of having their bankroll decimated by a belief in a mathematically disprovable approach.

How much you bet isn't going to change how the dice land or how the cards come out.

I make no value judgment; it's your money to squander as you see fit. I'm fond of coin pushers, personally.

if that's the underlying attitude (vigorous debate), then why has OD, on more than one occasion, shut me down?

I think a clear majority in both camps (naysayers and believers) would rather post without it getting too nasty. Hence why I think it's better to separate the two areas.

That brings another opportunity, and my view in this regard is "more is more." WOV could have a discussion area (maybe headed: Objections) for dissecting anything anyone wants dissecting.

A couple of added areas (1. Betting Systems, 2. Objections) to the WOV website that I think would only add, rather than detract, from this site. A dissecting area would probably have to have rules to limit excessive behaviours.

A dissecting area would also allow anyone with a disagreement with a thread, to voice their objection there, without objecting in the thread being objected to.
Last edited by: Wellbush on Aug 24, 2021
All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
Dieter
Administrator
Dieter
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 2320
Thanks for this post from:
BoSoxsabre
August 24th, 2021 at 5:39:18 AM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

if that's the underlying attitude (vigorous debate), then why has OD, on more than one occasion, shut me down?



Sincere questions rooted in a genuine failure to comprehend a topic are often identical in appearance to insincere questions based on feigned incomprehension.

The former is the basis of learning; the latter is the basis of trolling.

In either case, if the first five answers didn't form a suitable reply, it is unlikely that further restatements of the same information will better inform the questioner, but would "feed the troll".
May the cards fall in your favor.
Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
August 24th, 2021 at 5:57:40 AM permalink
Quote: Dieter

Many of our mathematically talented members enjoy enthusiastically dissecting betting systems as good intellectual sport.

Some people would prefer to have their ego battered in vigorous debate with well informed counterparts instead of having their bankroll decimated by a belief in a mathematically disprovable approach.

How much you bet isn't going to change how the dice land or how the cards come out.

I make no value judgment; it's your money to squander as you see fit. I'm fond of coin pushers, personally.

Regarding the seeming attitude by some toward me on this site, Dieter, I don't think I'm blind to the mathematical truths that they think I am. I have a BA (Psychology) and I had to do some majors in statistics and probability. Far from the levels of those doing a major in Math, but still, some understanding at least.

The basic subjects I did were enough for me to know that math theory is not all sown up. Historically, different formulae are updated as more accurate one's take their place.

Personally, I would like to think I'm open-minded, rather than stubborn, when it comes to the mathematical truths of gambling. I don't think winning gamblers should be outright dismissed as being imposters, and MD is testament to that.

Just as much as some here can dress me down about the mathematical truths re gambling, I can fire back with competing views. And it has very little to do with stubbornness. If I'm firing back it's to query the argument, not for the sake of arguing.
All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
August 24th, 2021 at 6:27:03 AM permalink
Quote: Dieter

Sincere questions rooted in a genuine failure to comprehend a topic are often identical in appearance to insincere questions based on feigned incomprehension.

The former is the basis of learning; the latter is the basis of trolling.

In either case, if the first five answers didn't form a suitable reply, it is unlikely that further restatements of the same information will better inform the questioner, but would "feed the troll".

Let me answer this post Dieter, by using the "Teaching EV to Wellbush" thread, as an example. You are aware of that thread. I learnt something more about EV and the way it's calculated. The formula for EV, as far as OD explained it, seemed fairly simple and gave the EV for my use of the G Marty as 0.

Okay, now I can go away and say: "That's it! Epiphany arrived at! Everyone, just follow the formula. All betting systems can be analysed and debunked according to the formula for EV. I (Wellbush) have arrived and I'm on the naysayer side for evermore!!"

I can easily do that and it wouldn't be a problem for me to. I still may, who knows?

But what many here may not realise, is that I won't immediately do that for the reasons they think. They would probably think, and some have voiced this already, that I'm stubborn and insulting. I can see why they think that, but they're wrong!

I am actually in limbo. I can see the EV formula and I'm learning more about it over time. But I don't think the EV formula is necessarily all encompassing.

If people were shown the history of math, and how different theories have evolved and dissipated over time, they may not accept every seemingly fitting glorious formula! Hell, we'd be in the dark ages (or worse!) if all scientists and mathematicians did that.

I can't go into details lest this post get exceedingly longer than what it already is, but suffice to say, I don't query and refuse to believe the math, simply because I'm stubborn!
All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
QFIT
QFIT
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 315
August 24th, 2021 at 6:38:09 AM permalink
I fear you are confusing simple math with complex physics.
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
sabre
sabre
Joined: Aug 16, 2010
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 1172
August 24th, 2021 at 6:39:45 AM permalink
Quote: QFIT

I fear you are confusing simple math with complex physics.



I fear you are confusing a legitimate posted with an illegitimate one.
MDawg
MDawg
Joined: Sep 27, 2018
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 3626
August 24th, 2021 at 7:28:38 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

we define hijacking as posting something completely unrelated to the topic at hand. However, it's considered one of the more mild offenses and we often don't notice it or let it go if the infraction isn't too blatant. If posting a story is relevant to the topic at hand, that should be okay.


Thank you for posting the clarification about hijacking. Wizard, please correct me if I am wrong, but then this means that my posting about my experiences in casinos, win, lose, or draw, as they relate to the thread topic is okay. In other words, there is no such rule as: “MDawg is talking or boasting about himself again, so that is trolling or hijacking” – because that sort of “rule” was way out.

As an aside, yes, I may mention that whatever I am doing works for me, but that doesn’t mean automatically that my post is solely for aggrandizement purposes. I just post about the way that I navigate life and casinos, as might anyone else.

So, Wizard, just clarifying that there are no special rules for hijacking or trolling when it comes to me.
I tell you it’s wonderful to be here, man. I don’t give a damn who wins or loses. It’s just wonderful to be here with you people. https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/33908-the-adventures-of-mdawg/

  • Jump to: