Thread Rating:

Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1398
  • Posts: 23603
Thanks for this post from:
MDawg
August 24th, 2021 at 7:34:27 AM permalink
Quote: MDawg

So, Wizard, just clarifying that there are no special rules for hijacking or trolling when it comes to me.



This is true.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
August 24th, 2021 at 7:41:44 AM permalink
Quote: QFIT

I fear you are confusing simple math with complex physics.

no. not at all. math has evolved, like science, believe it or not! to clarify, more complex math has evolved, not simple math.
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.
QFIT
QFIT
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 315
August 24th, 2021 at 8:06:32 AM permalink
We're talking about EV, not non-Euclidean geometries or Hilbert spaces.
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
August 24th, 2021 at 8:10:35 AM permalink
Quote: QFIT

We're talking about EV, not non-Euclidean geometries or Hilbert spaces.

Understanding EV could be construed as very simple. but are you saying EV has got the math of winning gamblers sown up?
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.
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 173
  • Posts: 10367
August 24th, 2021 at 8:13:40 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

... I think that is part of respecting free speech. ...



If I may note, BUT we don't have free speech here as certain topics are banned. So, why not refine it, since we don't have it anyway?

For instance, I can explain why it's logical to include all known new descriptions of "system" betting, but don't see the point of allowing repetitive declarations. One allowance of all flat-Earth theory is good enough isn't it? Does it need to be several volumes of discussion?

Btw, I wouldn't mind seeing a section dedicated to common gambling scams old or new explained like "3 card monte' More as a faq, than a discussion, for anyone who wants to contribute such subjects.

That's all I have to say. 1.5 cents worth.





I
Everything is in high definition today except Bigfoot and UFOs
QFIT
QFIT
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 315
August 24th, 2021 at 8:17:00 AM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

Understanding EV could be construed as very simple. but are you saying EV has got the math of winning gamblers sown up?



Of course not. EV doesn't include risk. I don't use EV. I use SCORE or win rate with risk.. As for winning, there are a large number of non-mathematic factors. But, without a positive SCORE, your risk of ruin over time is overwhelming and the other factors are not relevant. That aside, you do need a positive EV.
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
August 24th, 2021 at 8:34:59 AM permalink
Quote: QFIT

Of course not. EV doesn't include risk. I don't use EV. I use SCORE or win rate with risk.. As for winning, there are a large number of non-mathematic factors. But, without a positive SCORE, your risk of ruin over time is overwhelming and the other factors are not relevant. That aside, you do need a positive EV.

well your kind of answering the q. there are a number of various factors, beyond the formula for EV, that gamblers may be able to take advantage of, that may result in winning strategies. that's one reason (proven and witnessed winning gamblers are another) why i'm not gonna immediately jump on the "gamblers can't win" side of the argument. i'd feel quite unsure of myself on this topic, if i did.
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 8:38:47 AM permalink
No, there are other factors that can affect longevity, events per hour, etc. But, without a positive EV as a basis, they are not relevant. You must start with a positive EV.

And, "gamblers can't win" is not a valid statement. Someone will win a lottery. Just don't use the lottery as a retirement plan as the average gambler will lose in the long run.
"It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." -Epictetus
Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 824
August 24th, 2021 at 8:46:22 AM permalink
Quote: rxwine

If I may note, BUT we don't have free speech here as certain topics are banned. So, why not refine it, since we don't have it anyway?

For instance, I can explain why it's logical to include all known new descriptions of "system" betting, but don't see the point of allowing repetitive declarations. One allowance of all flat-Earth theory is good enough isn't it? Does it need to be several volumes of discussion?

Btw, I wouldn't mind seeing a section dedicated to common gambling scams old or new explained like "3 card monte' More as a faq, than a discussion, for anyone who wants to contribute such subjects.

That's all I have to say. 1.5 cents worth.

WOV could ban all systems posts. do you think WOV would be bigger and better for it? if you read the other posts, there's something to be said for having an accessible "betting systems" area on the site. personally, i think there's far better chance WOV will be bigger and better doing that.

also, some argue that the math of betting systems is not all sown up!
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 8:57:28 AM permalink
Quote: QFIT

No, there are other factors that can affect longevity, events per hour, etc. But, without a positive EV as a basis, they are not relevant. You must start with a positive EV.

Possibly. I'm sitting on the fence re this, for now. Is that allowed, or like some here, do you think i'm completely outta line for hedging and wanting time to consider this? Geez, I reckon I'd be flogged a coupla centuries ago!

Quote: QFIT

And, "gamblers can't win" is not a valid statement. Someone will win a lottery. Just don't use the lottery as a retirement plan as the average gambler will lose in the long run.

true, and you agree then that some gamblers win!?
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.

  • Jump to: