Discussion III about the Suspension List
Quote: gordonm888Who killed OnceDear? Was it murder or assisted suicide?
**************************************
Active Mods: Wizard, Dieter, Gordonm888
Inactive Mod recently returned: BeachBumBabs
Former Mod who still has mod powers: Mission146
Secret Mods: Secret- Maybe one? or two? Or Zero?
Inactive Mods: JB, FACE
***************************************
I honestly don't know. People who may know: OnceDear, TigerWu, the Murderer
link to original post
I have nothing to say other than it wasn't me.
Quote: billryanI'm curious how my third suspension in a short time got me a seven-day vacation while a certain someone has four in the same period and only got a three-day. I'd thought this conjecture about someone being given a longer leash because they were good for clicks was nonsense, but is the proof in the pudding?
link to original post
Bob’s was a rule 17 violation. And relatively minor. He of course deserved the suspension. I can’t remember why you were suspended, but I’m sure it was a really mean post you made….. I’m just babbling. Welcome back.
Has EB really had 4 recent suspensions?
Quote: gordonm888Who killed OnceDear? Was it murder or assisted suicide?
...
I honestly don't know. People who may know: OnceDear, TigerWu, the Murderer
link to original post
I know who. I know why. There is no problem.
Quote: Mission146Quote: gordonm888Who killed OnceDear? Was it murder or assisted suicide?
**************************************
Active Mods: Wizard, Dieter, Gordonm888
Inactive Mod recently returned: BeachBumBabs
Former Mod who still has mod powers: Mission146
Secret Mods: Secret- Maybe one? or two? Or Zero?
Inactive Mods: JB, FACE
***************************************
I honestly don't know. People who may know: OnceDear, TigerWu, the Murderer
link to original post
I have nothing to say other than it wasn't me.
link to original post
Quote: OnceDearQuote: gordonm888Who killed OnceDear? Was it murder or assisted suicide?
...
I honestly don't know. People who may know: OnceDear, TigerWu, the Murderer
link to original post
I know who. I know why. There is no problem.
link to original post
Solidarity. It's a word that isn't used often enough these days. Beware. Beware of the Risen People.
Quote: OnceDearQuote: gordonm888Here the rules for a forum -actually a sports-related facebook group -that I am in. They are very similar to those of the WOV Forum.
link to original post
And, in the interest of clarity, here are the rules of THIS forum.
These rules should be considered as a guideline of what we will not tolerate. Just because a behavior is not on this list does not mean it will be tolerated or go unpunished. The administration reserves the right to punish any activity it deems disruptive to the forum, whether against these rules or not.
- Absolutely no personal insults. If you disagree with another forum member, politely attack the writing, not the writer. This policy also applies to family members of forum members, but is considered a more severe infraction, especially female family members. (Amended 2/23/14 to not allow personal insults at all. The previous policy was more lenient. Amended again 1/31/19 to include family members.)
- Respect copyright: Don't post entire articles from other sources. If you must quote without permission, do so sparingly, and properly indicate the source.
- No free advertising. If you want to advertise on this site then expect to pay. Members in good standing may plug their own product or service, with prior permission. However, "good standing" must be earned. Definitely don't post an ad in your very first message!
- Respect privacy. Do not post any personal information about someone else that is intended to be private or quote from private communication. This rule applies to protecting the privacy of everybody, but especially forum members.
- Do not post the same message more than once. This includes posting the same message in two or more places, and re-posting because nobody replied the first time. If you didn't get a response the first time, chances are nobody else had anything to say about it.
- Keep it PG. No pornographic or violent images or text. Profanity is prohibited, especially the F word. (Amended 2/23/14 to not allow profanity at all. The previous policy was more lenient.)
- No hijacking: Try to keep threads on topic. If you want to veer off on a tangent, please make a new thread for it.
- Keep it legal: Don't post anything that would violate the laws of Nevada or the United States. For example, anything libelous, or promoting anything obviously illegal.
- No thumbtacking. Don't post one or two words just to keep a thread in the top of the list. If that is your motive, at least add something substantive to say about the topic, or at least a joke.
- Betting systems: Methods of varying bet size, based on previous wins and losses, not only can't overcome the house edge, they can't even dent it. However, if you're one of the many mathematically ignorant gamblers who think adding up negative numbers can result in a positive one, please keep your comments restricted to the betting systems sty. Betting systems may not be offered for sale anywhere on the site.
- Multiple accounts: One account per person. Posting under multiple identities is cause for immediate expulsion. (Added 12/30/2010)
- No bullying/trolling: Members are expected to act like ladies and gentlemen. Members may not be overly divisive or abusive to another member. This includes starting a thread only the for purpose of attacking another member. (Added 2/24/2012). This also includes threats against another member. (added 9/3/12) If the totality of one's posts is one huge lie, then it becomes trolling. (Added 2/2/22)
- Posting limits: For the first 30 days of membership, the number of threads you may start is equal to the number of days you have been a member plus two, and the maximum number of posts you can make is limited to the number of days you have been a member plus 10. This is to help combat spam. (Added 3/8/2012)
- Private Messaging: Private messages are supposed to be private. Of course, by mutual agreement they can be quoted to a larger audience. The rules above also apply to private messaging, including rule #1. An exception to the privacy rule is that abuses may be reported to an administrator. We will treat it like a "coach's challenge" in the NFL. If a banning is warranted, it will be given. If not, a banning of a perceived victim may be made for making a false claim. (Added 8/17/2012)
- Flagging: The primary purpose of flagging is to rid the forum of spam but can also be used for other obvious rule violations. Flagging legitimate posts, for any reason, is not allowed. (Added 4/15/2016)
- Messages from banned members: Do not quote anything, neither public nor private, a banned member has said. If we ban somebody it means we don't want to hear from them any longer. (Added 6/9/2016)
- Misquoting: If you quote another member, do not remove, add, or change any wording within the portion quoted. If you wish to emphasize a particular part of the quote, any formatting by the one quoting should be disclosed immediately after the quote. (Added 6/8/2018)
- Hate Speech: While we try to promote free speech as much as we can, racial slurs, vulgar terminology or advocating violence against any person or group of people are not welcome. (Added 1/10/2019)
- Controversial Speech: In an effort to keep the focus of the forum on gambling, Vegas, and math, comments of a political, racial, religious, sexual, or otherwise controversial nature are not allowed. We recommend taking such discussion elsewhere (Added 8/13/19).
- Nuclear option: Finally, if the site administrators feel that a member is so disruptive to the site, even while abiding by the rules above, a "nuclear option" may be invoked to permanently ban the offender. This will be used sparingly for only the worst of trolls. (Added 2/20/11)
The punishment for violating these rules will be meted out on a case by case basis. Options include a warning, temporary ban, and permanent ban.
link to original post
I love Rule # 10. I know there is some "math" (computer generated) that provides HE probabilities but is there ANY longitudinal studies of actual gambling at each venue? Doesn't science require actual real data produced in proper settings? Just asking.
tuttigym
We don't need 'computer generated math' to arrive at the conclusion that betting systems over a sequence of -EV bet won't be +EV. This was proven with conventional math long before computers were invented. If Xi/Yi = C, where C is a constant, it known that sum(Xi)/sum(Yi) = C.Quote: tuttigymQuote: OnceDearQuote: gordonm888Here the rules for a forum -actually a sports-related facebook group -that I am in. They are very similar to those of the WOV Forum.
link to original post
And, in the interest of clarity, here are the rules of THIS forum.
These rules should be considered as a guideline of what we will not tolerate. Just because a behavior is not on this list does not mean it will be tolerated or go unpunished. The administration reserves the right to punish any activity it deems disruptive to the forum, whether against these rules or not.
- Absolutely no personal insults. If you disagree with another forum member, politely attack the writing, not the writer. This policy also applies to family members of forum members, but is considered a more severe infraction, especially female family members. (Amended 2/23/14 to not allow personal insults at all. The previous policy was more lenient. Amended again 1/31/19 to include family members.)
- Respect copyright: Don't post entire articles from other sources. If you must quote without permission, do so sparingly, and properly indicate the source.
- No free advertising. If you want to advertise on this site then expect to pay. Members in good standing may plug their own product or service, with prior permission. However, "good standing" must be earned. Definitely don't post an ad in your very first message!
- Respect privacy. Do not post any personal information about someone else that is intended to be private or quote from private communication. This rule applies to protecting the privacy of everybody, but especially forum members.
- Do not post the same message more than once. This includes posting the same message in two or more places, and re-posting because nobody replied the first time. If you didn't get a response the first time, chances are nobody else had anything to say about it.
- Keep it PG. No pornographic or violent images or text. Profanity is prohibited, especially the F word. (Amended 2/23/14 to not allow profanity at all. The previous policy was more lenient.)
- No hijacking: Try to keep threads on topic. If you want to veer off on a tangent, please make a new thread for it.
- Keep it legal: Don't post anything that would violate the laws of Nevada or the United States. For example, anything libelous, or promoting anything obviously illegal.
- No thumbtacking. Don't post one or two words just to keep a thread in the top of the list. If that is your motive, at least add something substantive to say about the topic, or at least a joke.
- Betting systems: Methods of varying bet size, based on previous wins and losses, not only can't overcome the house edge, they can't even dent it. However, if you're one of the many mathematically ignorant gamblers who think adding up negative numbers can result in a positive one, please keep your comments restricted to the betting systems sty. Betting systems may not be offered for sale anywhere on the site.
- Multiple accounts: One account per person. Posting under multiple identities is cause for immediate expulsion. (Added 12/30/2010)
- No bullying/trolling: Members are expected to act like ladies and gentlemen. Members may not be overly divisive or abusive to another member. This includes starting a thread only the for purpose of attacking another member. (Added 2/24/2012). This also includes threats against another member. (added 9/3/12) If the totality of one's posts is one huge lie, then it becomes trolling. (Added 2/2/22)
- Posting limits: For the first 30 days of membership, the number of threads you may start is equal to the number of days you have been a member plus two, and the maximum number of posts you can make is limited to the number of days you have been a member plus 10. This is to help combat spam. (Added 3/8/2012)
- Private Messaging: Private messages are supposed to be private. Of course, by mutual agreement they can be quoted to a larger audience. The rules above also apply to private messaging, including rule #1. An exception to the privacy rule is that abuses may be reported to an administrator. We will treat it like a "coach's challenge" in the NFL. If a banning is warranted, it will be given. If not, a banning of a perceived victim may be made for making a false claim. (Added 8/17/2012)
- Flagging: The primary purpose of flagging is to rid the forum of spam but can also be used for other obvious rule violations. Flagging legitimate posts, for any reason, is not allowed. (Added 4/15/2016)
- Messages from banned members: Do not quote anything, neither public nor private, a banned member has said. If we ban somebody it means we don't want to hear from them any longer. (Added 6/9/2016)
- Misquoting: If you quote another member, do not remove, add, or change any wording within the portion quoted. If you wish to emphasize a particular part of the quote, any formatting by the one quoting should be disclosed immediately after the quote. (Added 6/8/2018)
- Hate Speech: While we try to promote free speech as much as we can, racial slurs, vulgar terminology or advocating violence against any person or group of people are not welcome. (Added 1/10/2019)
- Controversial Speech: In an effort to keep the focus of the forum on gambling, Vegas, and math, comments of a political, racial, religious, sexual, or otherwise controversial nature are not allowed. We recommend taking such discussion elsewhere (Added 8/13/19).
- Nuclear option: Finally, if the site administrators feel that a member is so disruptive to the site, even while abiding by the rules above, a "nuclear option" may be invoked to permanently ban the offender. This will be used sparingly for only the worst of trolls. (Added 2/20/11)
The punishment for violating these rules will be meted out on a case by case basis. Options include a warning, temporary ban, and permanent ban.
link to original post
I love Rule # 10. I know there is some "math" (computer generated) that provides HE probabilities but is there ANY longitudinal studies of actual gambling at each venue? Doesn't science require actual real data produced in proper settings? Just asking.
tuttigym
link to original post
There is plenty of 'science' being done by theorists in science departments. These theorists are usually incapable of doing the necessary experiments themselves. Experimental scientists test whichever theories they feel will advance their careers. Science doesn't require any scientist to do anything. If the science community agrees on something having been sufficiently proven, then it is up to doubters to prove that the established ideas are wrong with experiments or even new theoretical ideas applying existing facts to the theory in question.
Please go out in the real world and prove us wrong. Until then, I am quite happy to stick with what I reasonably know to be true.
Quote: billryanIt seems we need a rule about not posting dishonestly. Marcus Clark was banned when he was caught telling an impossible tale. EB posts about impossible results. Just the other day, he posted that he was 100% sure he would be ahead after X amount of spins. I understand he brings a good bit of unintentional comedy to the forum, but allowing people to post lies is beyond dumb.
link to original post
You’re onto something. There’s only a rule about accusing someone of lying. But saying something is “impossible” is a way around it.
People who post “impossible” results should have their threads closed.
Mods put this before closing it.
THREAD RESULTS DECLARED IMPOSSIBLE. THREAD CLOSED.
That still leaves open threads which are merely unlikely and everything below that. Eliminates some of the spamming and trolling in thread topics.
Quote: billryanI'm curious how my third suspension in a short time got me a seven-day vacation while a certain someone has four in the same period and only got a three-day. I'd thought this conjecture about someone being given a longer leash because they were good for clicks was nonsense, but is the proof in the pudding?
link to original post
I certainly do not take it easy on someone because they are "good for clicks." There may occasionally be differences between moderators in terms of length of suspension for various reasons. If you are searching for meaning, a longer suspension may (or may not) mean:
1. Your offense was judged to be more objectionable.
2. The moderators are becoming weary of your behavior, which may (or may not) include borderline violations that we chose to let go.
Quote: lilredrooster.it's kind of an interesting mystery (to me anyway) how OnceDear was wrongfully suspended and the 3 people who have the power to do it did not suspend him. anybody have any clues how this could happen__________?
A.I., the Rise of the Machines.
It's begun.
Quote: tuttigym
I love Rule # 10. I know there is some "math" (computer generated) that provides HE probabilities but is there ANY longitudinal studies of actual gambling at each venue? Doesn't science require actual real data produced in proper settings? Just asking.
tuttigym
link to original post
STEPS:
1. We meet up.
2. We flip three coins consecutively.
3. If any combination EXCEPT Heads, Heads, Heads, comes up, I pay you $1.
4. If Heads, Heads, Heads, comes up, you pay me $20.
5. We can do this any number of times that I wish and only I can choose to stop the game.
Would you like to play this game? Why or why not? It sounds like something we should do for science.
Of course, you wouldn't want to play this game because you know that the only possible outcome, over anything even close to statistically significant, is you losing money. I wouldn't want to play this game because there is no amount of money that would ever compel me to satisfy Step #1.
I am not following you. Gamblers lose because of what they do, not because of what they believe. I grant you that the vast majority of gamblers make questionable decisions based on what they wrongly believe. But the actual play makes them losers, not their superstitions and beliefs. Most people go into a casino with a plan designed to lose, and then they succeed at that plan.Quote: tuttigymQuote: Mental
Please go out in the real world and prove us wrong. Until then, I am quite happy to stick with what I reasonably know to be true.
link to original post
There seems to be plenty of real world winners here on the forum, i.e., EB; MDawg, DarkOz, even you Mental apparently gambling mega $$$ over the years, and all are still here not bankrupt or destitute.
What is "reasonably " true is that the vast majority of folks who do some gambling lose because they somehow believe that they can break the bank or the house. ...
The odds of the wager do not produce losers. Negative expectation games produce losers. The expectation value involves the odds AND the payoffs. I sometimes play a slot game where the odds against me to win anything on any spin are over 1700:1, but the minimum payoff is 1599:1. It is a 99% RTP game, so anything over 1% in FSP makes it +EV and affords me an edge over the house. Odds against of 1700:1 or 36:1 or 19:18 can all be +EV or -EV depending on the situation.Quote: tuttigym... It is not the HE; it is the actual odds of winning any given wager that produces losses or as some would call it the "variance."
Winners have variance, too. In fact, winners probably incur more variance than losers. Winners can play longer and afford to make riskier plays. It is the EV that makes people winners or losers. The variance merely determines how long it takes to prove who is which.
Quote: tuttigym
tuttigym
link to original post
Quote: billryanEB posts about impossible results. Just the other day, he posted that he was 100% sure he would be ahead after X amount of spins. I understand he brings a good bit of unintentional comedy to the forum, but allowing people to post lies is beyond dumb.
link to original post
You have posted this opinion dozens, perhaps hundreds, of times and it is thus a rule 5 violation and I also find it to be trolling.
Since you just came off a one week suspension, let's make it two this time.
I have a radical idea for everyone who doesn't appreciate my stance on free speech -- if you don't like Evenbob's posts on allegedly beating roulette, don't read them.
Quote: Mission146Quote: tuttigym
I love Rule # 10. I know there is some "math" (computer generated) that provides HE probabilities but is there ANY longitudinal studies of actual gambling at each venue? Doesn't science require actual real data produced in proper settings? Just asking.
tuttigym
link to original post
STEPS:
1. We meet up.
2. We flip three coins consecutively.
3. If any combination EXCEPT Heads, Heads, Heads, comes up, I pay you $1.
4. If Heads, Heads, Heads, comes up, you pay me $20.
5. We can do this any number of times that I wish and only I can choose to stop the game.
Would you like to play this game? Why or why not? It sounds like something we should do for science.
Of course, you wouldn't want to play this game because you know that the only possible outcome, over anything even close to statistically significant, is you losing money. I wouldn't want to play this game because there is no amount of money that would ever compel me to satisfy Step #1.
link to original post
STEPS:
1. We meet up at a craps table. ($10 min.)
2. You buy in for $1,000.
3. You bet the PL only for $10.
4. You lose three times in a row.
5. You throw up your hands and leave because you know the only outcome is increased stress due to risk aversion.
For all your math knowledge, please tell us the HE for the GAME of craps. How about the HE for a 3 point Molly or the Iron Cross?
tuttigym
Ignoring the math, here are the problems with what you propose, in order. (Quotes separated a and b added to #1)
1(a).
Quote:We meet up
Haha. No.
1(b).
Quote:at a craps table. ($10 min.)
I wouldn't play at any table with a minimum greater than $5. If no such $5 Tables exist anymore, then I guess I'll just never play Craps again, which is fine with me. Actually, given all of these discussions we've had about Craps over these decades...what...it's only been years(!?)...I actually kind of hate Craps, in general.
Quote:2. You buy in for $1,000.
Why? Even if it was a $10 Table, I'd have no need to buy in for that much.
Quote:3. You bet the PL only for $10.
Well, $5, but sure.
Quote:4. You lose three times in a row.
Did I ever establish a point? If I establish a point on my first bet, and lose, I just quit.
Quote:5. You throw up your hands and leave because you know the only outcome is increased stress due to risk aversion.
I throw up my hands and leave because it occurs to me I had no reason to play Craps in the first place.
Quote: Wizard
I have a radical idea for everyone who doesn't appreciate my stance on free speech -- if you don't like Evenbob's posts on allegedly beating roulette, don't read them.
link to original post
Advice taken, but your stance on EvenBob's posts is still very disappointing considering the rules and what this forum is supposed to be about.
Quote: WizardQuote: billryanEB posts about impossible results. Just the other day, he posted that he was 100% sure he would be ahead after X amount of spins. I understand he brings a good bit of unintentional comedy to the forum, but allowing people to post lies is beyond dumb.
link to original post
You have posted this opinion dozens, perhaps hundreds, of times and it is thus a rule 5 violation and I also find it to be trolling.
Since you just came off a one week suspension, let's make it two this time.
I have a radical idea for everyone who doesn't appreciate my stance on free speech -- if you don't like Evenbob's posts on allegedly beating roulette, don't read them.
link to original post
Mike, EvenBob has posted his make believe stories, hundreds, maybe thousands of times. And the rest of us find it to be trolling the forum. Why doesn’t he get suspended for the same reason you just suspended Billy? I just don’t understand? Someone making something up can repeat it ad infinitum but the person pointing it out can’t? I’ll bet Billy has pointed it out FAR fewer times than EB has made his silly claims.
Quote: Mental
I am not following you. Gamblers lose because of what they do, not because of what they believe. I grant you that the vast majority of gamblers make questionable decisions based on what they wrongly believe. But the actual play makes them losers, not their superstitions and beliefs. Most people go into a casino with a plan designed to lose, and then they succeed at that plan.
That is exactly correct. I have no disagreement with that statement.
Quote: MentalThe odds of the wager do not produce losers. Negative expectation games produce losers. The expectation value involves the odds AND the payoffs. I sometimes play a slot game where the odds against me to win anything on any spin are over 1700:1, but the minimum payoff is 1599:1. It is a 99% RTP game, so anything over 1% in FSP makes it +EV and affords me an edge over the house. Odds against of 1700:1 or 36:1 or 19:18 can all be +EV or -EV depending on the situation.
That is just plain wrong. The vast majority of people who gamble do not know EV from an SUV. While the game might be a "negative expectation," the player is hoping for the best. Perhaps you could enlighten all of us as to a "situation" that would turn a 1700:1 odds event into a +EV.
Quote: MentalWinners have variance, too. In fact, winners probably incur more variance than losers. Winners can play longer and afford to make riskier plays. It is the EV that makes people winners or losers. The variance merely determines how long it takes to prove who is which.
Wrong again. It is the variance that makes the winners as well as the losers.
Example: Craps Multiple point ---- 7 outs losers
Shooter holding the dice for an hour with multiple point conversions winners.
Long streaks which go against all the prevailing math in any venue.
tuttigym
Quote: Mission146I might be inclined to tell you that in a Craps thread. I'm actually kind of confused that you would choose the, 'Discussion About the Suspension List,' thread to make your inane 'Point' for probably the 4,328th time on this forum, in the first place.
Ignoring the math, here are the problems with what you propose, in order. (Quotes separated a and b added to #1)
1(a).Quote:We meet up
Haha. No.
1(b).Quote:at a craps table. ($10 min.)
I wouldn't play at any table with a minimum greater than $5. If no such $5 Tables exist anymore, then I guess I'll just never play Craps again, which is fine with me. Actually, given all of these discussions we've had about Craps over these decades...what...it's only been years(!?)...I actually kind of hate Craps, in general.Quote:2. You buy in for $1,000.
Why? Even if it was a $10 Table, I'd have no need to buy in for that much.Quote:3. You bet the PL only for $10.
Well, $5, but sure.Quote:4. You lose three times in a row.
Did I ever establish a point? If I establish a point on my first bet, and lose, I just quit.Quote:5. You throw up your hands and leave because you know the only outcome is increased stress due to risk aversion.
I throw up my hands and leave because it occurs to me I had no reason to play Craps in the first place.
link to original post
Thanks, Mission. Good Talk.
tuttigym
I'm honored that you think of me like a hero. 14 days...wow, I didn't realize I had a 14 day suspension.Quote: MDawgQuote: MDawgAxelWolf and his constant suspensions are starting to resemble a Greek tragedy.
link to original post
link to original post
If you will notice my latest EvenBob insult timing ...
A day or so before Thanksgiving.
I was certain I wasn't going to have the time or even care to be posting on the forum until today.
I will leave you to your own ideas about gambling. I doubt that I can change your point of view.Quote: tuttigymQuote: Mental
I am not following you. Gamblers lose because of what they do, not because of what they believe. I grant you that the vast majority of gamblers make questionable decisions based on what they wrongly believe. But the actual play makes them losers, not their superstitions and beliefs. Most people go into a casino with a plan designed to lose, and then they succeed at that plan.
That is exactly correct. I have no disagreement with that statement.Quote: MentalThe odds of the wager do not produce losers. Negative expectation games produce losers. The expectation value involves the odds AND the payoffs. I sometimes play a slot game where the odds against me to win anything on any spin are over 1700:1, but the minimum payoff is 1599:1. It is a 99% RTP game, so anything over 1% in FSP makes it +EV and affords me an edge over the house. Odds against of 1700:1 or 36:1 or 19:18 can all be +EV or -EV depending on the situation.
That is just plain wrong. The vast majority of people who gamble do not know EV from an SUV. While the game might be a "negative expectation," the player is hoping for the best. Perhaps you could enlighten all of us as to a "situation" that would turn a 1700:1 odds event into a +EV.Quote: MentalWinners have variance, too. In fact, winners probably incur more variance than losers. Winners can play longer and afford to make riskier plays. It is the EV that makes people winners or losers. The variance merely determines how long it takes to prove who is which.
Wrong again. It is the variance that makes the winners as well as the losers.
Example: Craps Multiple point ---- 7 outs losers
Shooter holding the dice for an hour with multiple point conversions winners.
Long streaks which go against all the prevailing math in any venue.
tuttigym
link to original post
I just wanted to point out my error in my response above because I was thinking in terms of dollars and not odds and it was a $10 bet. Here is the corrected version:
Quote: Mental (corrected from previous post)The odds of the wager do not produce losers. Negative expectation games produce losers. The expectation value involves the odds AND the payoffs. I sometimes play a slot game where the odds against me to win anything on any spin are over 170:1, but the minimum payoff is 159:1. It is a 99% RTP game, so anything over 1% in FSP makes it +EV and affords me an edge over the house. Odds against of 170:1 or 36:1 or 19:18 can all be +EV or -EV depending on the situation.
No, I do not intend to name the game. There are only about 3000 different slot games out there. You should be able to find it yourself. It is the highest variance game that I have ever played, by far. (I have never played Russian Roulette.)
Quote: tuttigym
That is just plain wrong. The vast majority of people who gamble do not know EV from an SUV. While the game might be a "negative expectation," the player is hoping for the best. Perhaps you could enlighten all of us as to a "situation" that would turn a 1700:1 odds event into a +EV.
Royal flushes have longer odds against than that. There have been any number of Progressive Video Poker machines such that the RF Progressive yielded an expected return of 100%+.
Quote:
Wrong again. It is the variance that makes the winners as well as the losers.
Example: Craps Multiple point ---- 7 outs losers
Shooter holding the dice for an hour with multiple point conversions winners.
Long streaks which go against all the prevailing math in any venue.
tuttigym
link to original post
First of all, start a Craps thread. Secondly, the "Prevailing math," does nothing to suggest that it's impossible for one shooter to hold the dice for an hour. All the, 'Prevailing math,' suggests is that shooter isn't particularly likely to do so on an individual attempt.
There are a lot of variables in how long a person holds the dice.
If you want to talk about something that, 'The Math,' couldn't figure out on Craps, then it would be that. What is the probability that the same shooter (even assuming a fixed number of rolls in an hour) somehow holds the dice for an hour without sevening out? I don't think that could actually be determined.
I guess you could for a specific number of rolls as you could just have a computer determine every possible series of outcomes, but it would take one hell of a computer. There's certainly no easy formula to get there.
One huge variable would be the number of Come Out roll winners and losers. The more of those you have in the set of rolls, the more likely you are to last for an hour. If the only goal was to last for an hour, then as many rolls as you can get being resolved on the CO is great because you can't seven out on a CO.
Anyway, even if the probability of someone going at least an hour before Sevening Out could be determined, which would be a HUGE ask, the, 'Prevailing Math,' does nothing to forbid it. In fact, given enough new shooters of the dice, the, 'Prevailing Math,' would suggest that when the sample size of attempts (read: new shooters) grows sufficiently large, it should have happened (more likely than not) at least once.
With that, I don't know why you think that someone held the dice for an hour invalidates math or why the math would invalidate that, on rare occasion, there are hour long turns.
Again, to clarify, I was talking about a game where you are 170:1 against winning anything on any given spin. I have had losing streaks of over 6000 spins in a row several times.Quote: Mission146
Royal flushes have longer odds against than that. There have been any number of Progressive Video Poker machines such that the RF Progressive yielded an expected return of 100%+.
link to original post
With video poker, you might be 4000:1 against getting a RF but usually you have odds better than 3:2 for winning or pushing on any given hand. On the other hand, if you use the 'double up' feature on every win, you can turn any VP game into a high variance game where the odds of getting paid anything on any given hand are very long.
Quote: MentalAgain, to clarify, I was talking about a game where you are 170:1 against winning anything on any given spin. I have had losing streaks of over 6000 spins in a row several times.Quote: Mission146
Royal flushes have longer odds against than that. There have been any number of Progressive Video Poker machines such that the RF Progressive yielded an expected return of 100%+.
link to original post
With video poker, you might be 4000:1 against getting a RF but usual better than 3:2 for winning or pushing on any given hand. On the other hand, if you use the 'double up' feature on every win, you can turn any VP game into a high variance game where the odds of getting paid anything on any given hand are very long.
link to original post
I understand what you're saying; I just couldn't think of anything off of the top of my head with those kinds of odds against that was a strict win/loss binary.
In any event, we obviously agree with each other. My counter to TuttiGym was the three consecutive coin flips where I win his $20 12.5% of the time and he wins my $1 87.5% of the time and the fact that I'd play all day under those rules. I'd stipulate that only I could stop the game, which wouldn't happen until I was WELL ahead to the point of him having lost every dollar to his name. If he brought $1,000 to the dance, it looks like he's over 99% to be totally busted before he survives 1,000 attempts. The point at which he is down money, never to recover, comes WAY before that.
The only reason I'd even stipulate that only I can end the game is because, if he won the first attempt (which he would be very likely to do), he'd probably immediately demand that the game end and feel justified in declaring (on the forum, anyway) that all math is irrelevant.
Quote: Mission146
I have nothing to say other than it wasn't me.
It is hard to take someone serious when they are quoting Shaggy.
Quote: DRichQuote: Mission146
I have nothing to say other than it wasn't me.
It is hard to take someone serious when they are quoting Shaggy.
link to original post
Saw me clicking on the button...
"Wasn't me."
Putting up both middle fingers....
"Wasn't me."
That's just a joke, by the way. Without getting into any specifics, OD and I chat with some regularity.
Quote: tuttigym
Quote: MentalThe odds of the wager do not produce losers. Negative expectation games produce losers. The expectation value involves the odds AND the payoffs. I sometimes play a slot game where the odds against me to win anything on any spin are over 1700:1, but the minimum payoff is 1599:1. It is a 99% RTP game, so anything over 1% in FSP makes it +EV and affords me an edge over the house. Odds against of 1700:1 or 36:1 or 19:18 can all be +EV or -EV depending on the situation.
That is just plain wrong. The vast majority of people who gamble do not know EV from an SUV. While the game might be a "negative expectation," the player is hoping for the best. Perhaps you could enlighten all of us as to a "situation" that would turn a 1700:1 odds event into a +EV.
tuttigym
link to original post
Tuttigym.
I thought we'd enlightened you on the meaning of EV, but you just keep falling back to being WRONG in your assertions. I'll have another stab, but you really need to take this to another thread.
Nobody, and no maths give a dam about what the player is hoping for. Hoping, thinking, believing does not change the mathematical reality of a wager.
A wager is +EV, very simply if EV> 0 and the formula for EV = (Probability of Winning)x(Profit from Winning) - (Probability of Losing)x(Cost of Losing)
That is by definition and it is absolute.
So if probability of winning is 1/1700 we can can calculate Probability of Losing = 1699/1700
EV= (1/1700)*(Profit of winning) - (1699/1700)*(Cost of Losing)
for EV to be greater than Zero, we need (1/1700)*(Profit of Winning) > (1699/1700)*(Cost of Losing)
Multiply both sides by 1700 (Just like you would for any equation)
It's +EV if (Profit of Winning) > 1699*(Cost of losing)
That is (Profit of winning)/(Cost of Losing) > 1699
(Profit of winning)/(Cost of Losing) is the paytable rate
So if the wager paid out at say 2,000:1 but the probability of winning is 1:1,700 That is, just from the maths a +EV situation.
You insist on conflating Expectation with probability of winning. They are simply NOT the same thing. They are defined mathematically and the very definition is carved in stone regardless of the value of probability of anything.
Quote: Mission146Quote: DRichQuote: Mission146
I have nothing to say other than it wasn't me.
It is hard to take someone serious when they are quoting Shaggy.
link to original post
Saw me clicking on the button...
"Wasn't me."
Putting up both middle fingers....
"Wasn't me."
That's just a joke, by the way. Without getting into any specifics, OD and I chat with some regularity.
link to original post
Saw you swing the banhammer (It wasn't me)
Throw him in the digital slammer (It wasn't me)
Quote: SOOPOOMike, EvenBob has posted his make believe stories, hundreds, maybe thousands of times. And the rest of us find it to be trolling the forum. Why doesn’t he get suspended for the same reason you just suspended Billy? I just don’t understand? Someone making something up can repeat it ad infinitum but the person pointing it out can’t? I’ll bet Billy has pointed it out FAR fewer times than EB has made his silly claims.
link to original post
Point taken. However, EB is often responding to attacks, which he is allowed to do. If everyone quit showing interest, I bet he would stop. Funny how everyone wants him silenced, yet his posts always engender many replies. I can spend hours on a post, for example those on the Secret Santa puzzle, and nobody says a peep.
Meanwhile Billryan says the same thing over and over -- attacking me for what EB says.
Trust me, if you think EB is trolling the forum, stop responding to him and the problem will go away. I don't view this as my fault, but the moths who can't resist an open flame.
Perhaps, but I thought you were big on people honoring their word/agreements??Quote: WizardQuote: SOOPOOMike, EvenBob has posted his make believe stories, hundreds, maybe thousands of times. And the rest of us find it to be trolling the forum. Why doesn’t he get suspended for the same reason you just suspended Billy? I just don’t understand? Someone making something up can repeat it ad infinitum but the person pointing it out can’t? I’ll bet Billy has pointed it out FAR fewer times than EB has made his silly claims.
link to original post
Point taken. However, EB is often responding to attacks, which he is allowed to do. If everyone quit showing interest, I bet he would stop. Funny how everyone wants him silenced, yet his posts always engender many replies. I can spend hours on a post, for example those on the Secret Santa puzzle, and nobody says a peep.
Meanwhile Billryan says the same thing over and over -- attacking me for what EB says.
Trust me, if you think EB is trolling the forum, stop responding to him and the problem will go away. I don't view this as my fault, but the moths who can't resist an open flame.
link to original post
Bob made an agreement with the forum/Mod(s)(It was his Idea)and posted a poll/vote. He got what he bargained for, including a thread he wanted shut down. He "lost" the vote he asked for himself. Then Bob even tossed it in our faces I.E.... Haha, guys, I really wanted that roulette thread down because I'm now going to be playing baccarat and don't want to talk about roulette anymore. That's not a quote, but the gist of it.
You can get a strong reaction out of a crowd dropping a load of manure on them, if that's what you're after.
My life has been much better since I blocked EB and stopped all engagement with him.Quote: WizardTrust me, if you think EB is trolling the forum, stop responding to him and the problem will go away. I don't view this as my fault, but the moths who can't resist an open flame.
link to original post
I suggest you all try the Wizard's advice and see if it doesn't make your experience here more pleasant for everyone.
If we just create more interesting threads based on sound math, maybe nobody will feel the need to engage with forum members who post mindless chatter.
Quote: WizardQuote: SOOPOOMike, EvenBob has posted his make believe stories, hundreds, maybe thousands of times. And the rest of us find it to be trolling the forum. Why doesn’t he get suspended for the same reason you just suspended Billy? I just don’t understand? Someone making something up can repeat it ad infinitum but the person pointing it out can’t? I’ll bet Billy has pointed it out FAR fewer times than EB has made his silly claims.
link to original post
Point taken. However, EB is often responding to attacks, which he is allowed to do.
I consider EB’s nonsense posts about his make believe roulette play an attack against the entire forum. But I’m going to take your advice. Assuming EB does not specifically attack me I will avoid commenting on his gambling inanities for at least a month. Then I will reassess.
The Wiz has taken action - he has confined EB's outrageous claims to just one thread
as far as I know no other member has ever been restricted in that way
it's a difficult issue because the concept of free speech also comes into play
.
Quote: rxwine
edit, well it will probably help get rid of some of the moth effect. "quoting" enables reading posts of people you block.
link to original post
There really isn't a way to "fix" that without a massive overhaul of everything.
(I might want to block, say, Robert Frost, but I can't do much if someone insists on reciting The Road Not Taken a few feet away.)
Quote: lilredrooster.
The Wiz has taken action - he has confined EB's outrageous claims to just one thread
as far as I know no other member has ever been restricted in that way
it's a difficult issue because the concept of free speech also comes into play
.
link to original post
I still consider anything you can find on the forum free speech, as long as you can find it. Maybe not a completely free, but not actually completely blocked or censored.
Nothing is really free here, or it'd look more like 4chan
Quote: WizardTrust me, if you think EB is trolling the forum, stop responding to him and the problem will go away. I don't view this as my fault, but the moths who can't resist an open flame.
link to original post
Wait a minute.... it's not your fault for allowing someone to troll the forum repeatedly? Isn't that one of the rules?
If the rules are to be enforced, they should be enforced equally for everyone. Your showing favoritism towards EvenBob reflects poorly on not only the forum, but you as a person. As I said before, it's very disappointing to see that coming from you of all people here.
Quote: rxwineQuote: lilredrooster.
The Wiz has taken action - he has confined EB's outrageous claims to just one thread
as far as I know no other member has ever been restricted in that way
it's a difficult issue because the concept of free speech also comes into play
.
link to original post
I still consider anything you can find on the forum free speech, as long as you can find it. Maybe not a completely free, but not actually completely blocked or censored.
Nothing is really free here, or it'd look more like 4chan
link to original post
Okay, but is there any difference between one thousand crickets chirping in your bedroom at night vs one? (Perfect is the enemy of the good, and a bag of chips)
edited -was supposed to be in response to Dieter post
Quote: rxwineQuote: WizardQuote: SOOPOOMike, EvenBob has posted his make believe stories, hundreds, maybe thousands of times. And the rest of us find it to be trolling the forum. Why doesn’t he get suspended for the same reason you just suspended Billy? I just don’t understand? Someone making something up can repeat it ad infinitum but the person pointing it out can’t? I’ll bet Billy has pointed it out FAR fewer times than EB has made his silly claims.
link to original post
Point taken. However, EB is often responding to attacks, which he is allowed to do. If everyone quit showing interest, I bet he would stop. Funny how everyone wants him silenced, yet his posts always engender many replies. I can spend hours on a post, for example those on the Secret Santa puzzle, and nobody says a peep.
Meanwhile Billryan says the same thing over and over -- attacking me for what EB says.
Trust me, if you think EB is trolling the forum, stop responding to him and the problem will go away. I don't view this as my fault, but the moths who can't resist an open flame.
link to original post
I might get banned because I've said this more than once. Make the blocking someone PERMANENT, not reversable. It will get rid of the "moth effect" Or at least you can say something like if you choose not to block someone, you can get banned for repeating a complaint. Or at least make it an option. People can choose to start over, but that carries its own hazards if it's not approved, and someone is caught under new names.
edit, well it will probably help get rid of some of the moth effect. "quoting" enables reading posts of people you block.
link to original post
Just don't unblock them. PERMANENT. Fixed.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: rxwineQuote: WizardQuote: SOOPOOMike, EvenBob has posted his make believe stories, hundreds, maybe thousands of times. And the rest of us find it to be trolling the forum. Why doesn’t he get suspended for the same reason you just suspended Billy? I just don’t understand? Someone making something up can repeat it ad infinitum but the person pointing it out can’t? I’ll bet Billy has pointed it out FAR fewer times than EB has made his silly claims.
link to original post
Point taken. However, EB is often responding to attacks, which he is allowed to do. If everyone quit showing interest, I bet he would stop. Funny how everyone wants him silenced, yet his posts always engender many replies. I can spend hours on a post, for example those on the Secret Santa puzzle, and nobody says a peep.
Meanwhile Billryan says the same thing over and over -- attacking me for what EB says.
Trust me, if you think EB is trolling the forum, stop responding to him and the problem will go away. I don't view this as my fault, but the moths who can't resist an open flame.
link to original post
I might get banned because I've said this more than once. Make the blocking someone PERMANENT, not reversable. It will get rid of the "moth effect" Or at least you can say something like if you choose not to block someone, you can get banned for repeating a complaint. Or at least make it an option. People can choose to start over, but that carries its own hazards if it's not approved, and someone is caught under new names.
edit, well it will probably help get rid of some of the moth effect. "quoting" enables reading posts of people you block.
link to original post
Just don't unblock them. PERMANENT. Fixed.
link to original post
Did "just don't unblock them work?" No, it apparently does not. So, either someone needs to try something different or stop bringing it up. But that doesn't work either. I'm betting it will just keep being brought up.
Quote: rxwineQuote: rxwineQuote: lilredrooster.
The Wiz has taken action - he has confined EB's outrageous claims to just one thread
as far as I know no other member has ever been restricted in that way
it's a difficult issue because the concept of free speech also comes into play
.
link to original post
I still consider anything you can find on the forum free speech, as long as you can find it. Maybe not a completely free, but not actually completely blocked or censored.
Nothing is really free here, or it'd look more like 4chan
link to original post
Okay, but is there any difference between one thousand crickets chirping in your bedroom at night vs one? (Perfect is the enemy of the good, and a bag of chips)
edited -was supposed to be in response to Dieter post
link to original post
I "harumph" at the notion of sleeping in bedrooms. Far too many crickets.
Quote: rxwineQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: rxwineQuote: WizardQuote: SOOPOOMike, EvenBob has posted his make believe stories, hundreds, maybe thousands of times. And the rest of us find it to be trolling the forum. Why doesn’t he get suspended for the same reason you just suspended Billy? I just don’t understand? Someone making something up can repeat it ad infinitum but the person pointing it out can’t? I’ll bet Billy has pointed it out FAR fewer times than EB has made his silly claims.
link to original post
Point taken. However, EB is often responding to attacks, which he is allowed to do. If everyone quit showing interest, I bet he would stop. Funny how everyone wants him silenced, yet his posts always engender many replies. I can spend hours on a post, for example those on the Secret Santa puzzle, and nobody says a peep.
Meanwhile Billryan says the same thing over and over -- attacking me for what EB says.
Trust me, if you think EB is trolling the forum, stop responding to him and the problem will go away. I don't view this as my fault, but the moths who can't resist an open flame.
link to original post
I might get banned because I've said this more than once. Make the blocking someone PERMANENT, not reversable. It will get rid of the "moth effect" Or at least you can say something like if you choose not to block someone, you can get banned for repeating a complaint. Or at least make it an option. People can choose to start over, but that carries its own hazards if it's not approved, and someone is caught under new names.
edit, well it will probably help get rid of some of the moth effect. "quoting" enables reading posts of people you block.
link to original post
Just don't unblock them. PERMANENT. Fixed.
link to original post
Did "just don't unblock them work?" No, it apparently does not. So, either someone needs to try something different or stop bringing it up. But that doesn't work either. I'm betting it will just keep being brought up.
link to original post
it works as long as you do not unblock them. I have about 3 people blocked and gollygee I do not have to see what they say. You just have to be responsible to yourself.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: rxwineQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: rxwineQuote: WizardQuote: SOOPOOMike, EvenBob has posted his make believe stories, hundreds, maybe thousands of times. And the rest of us find it to be trolling the forum. Why doesn’t he get suspended for the same reason you just suspended Billy? I just don’t understand? Someone making something up can repeat it ad infinitum but the person pointing it out can’t? I’ll bet Billy has pointed it out FAR fewer times than EB has made his silly claims.
link to original post
Point taken. However, EB is often responding to attacks, which he is allowed to do. If everyone quit showing interest, I bet he would stop. Funny how everyone wants him silenced, yet his posts always engender many replies. I can spend hours on a post, for example those on the Secret Santa puzzle, and nobody says a peep.
Meanwhile Billryan says the same thing over and over -- attacking me for what EB says.
Trust me, if you think EB is trolling the forum, stop responding to him and the problem will go away. I don't view this as my fault, but the moths who can't resist an open flame.
link to original post
I might get banned because I've said this more than once. Make the blocking someone PERMANENT, not reversable. It will get rid of the "moth effect" Or at least you can say something like if you choose not to block someone, you can get banned for repeating a complaint. Or at least make it an option. People can choose to start over, but that carries its own hazards if it's not approved, and someone is caught under new names.
edit, well it will probably help get rid of some of the moth effect. "quoting" enables reading posts of people you block.
link to original post
Just don't unblock them. PERMANENT. Fixed.
link to original post
Did "just don't unblock them work?" No, it apparently does not. So, either someone needs to try something different or stop bringing it up. But that doesn't work either. I'm betting it will just keep being brought up.
link to original post
it works as long as you do not unblock them. I have about 3 people blocked and gollygee I do not have to see what they say. You just have to be responsible to yourself.
link to original post
Well,, why have any mods at all for anything? You're saying everyone can just be responsible. Wow. Why didn't the Wizard and everyone else think of that?
Quote: rxwineQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: rxwineQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: rxwineQuote: WizardQuote: SOOPOOMike, EvenBob has posted his make believe stories, hundreds, maybe thousands of times. And the rest of us find it to be trolling the forum. Why doesn’t he get suspended for the same reason you just suspended Billy? I just don’t understand? Someone making something up can repeat it ad infinitum but the person pointing it out can’t? I’ll bet Billy has pointed it out FAR fewer times than EB has made his silly claims.
link to original post
Point taken. However, EB is often responding to attacks, which he is allowed to do. If everyone quit showing interest, I bet he would stop. Funny how everyone wants him silenced, yet his posts always engender many replies. I can spend hours on a post, for example those on the Secret Santa puzzle, and nobody says a peep.
Meanwhile Billryan says the same thing over and over -- attacking me for what EB says.
Trust me, if you think EB is trolling the forum, stop responding to him and the problem will go away. I don't view this as my fault, but the moths who can't resist an open flame.
link to original post
I might get banned because I've said this more than once. Make the blocking someone PERMANENT, not reversable. It will get rid of the "moth effect" Or at least you can say something like if you choose not to block someone, you can get banned for repeating a complaint. Or at least make it an option. People can choose to start over, but that carries its own hazards if it's not approved, and someone is caught under new names.
edit, well it will probably help get rid of some of the moth effect. "quoting" enables reading posts of people you block.
link to original post
Just don't unblock them. PERMANENT. Fixed.
link to original post
Did "just don't unblock them work?" No, it apparently does not. So, either someone needs to try something different or stop bringing it up. But that doesn't work either. I'm betting it will just keep being brought up.
link to original post
it works as long as you do not unblock them. I have about 3 people blocked and gollygee I do not have to see what they say. You just have to be responsible to yourself.
link to original post
Well,, why have any mods at all for anything? You're saying everyone can just be responsible. Wow. Why didn't the Wizard and everyone else think of that?
link to original post
That's how it all started, according to post #2 on the forum.
I believe it says "The forum is supposed to be self-moderating."
As usual, good in theory, flawed in practice - and so here we are.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: WizardTrust me, if you think EB is trolling the forum, stop responding to him and the problem will go away. I don't view this as my fault, but the moths who can't resist an open flame.
link to original post
Wait a minute.... it's not your fault for allowing someone to troll the forum repeatedly? Isn't that one of the rules?
If the rules are to be enforced, they should be enforced equally for everyone. Your showing favoritism towards EvenBob reflects poorly on not only the forum, but you as a person. As I said before, it's very disappointing to see that coming from you of all people here.
link to original post
For the love of all that's holy, it's just a message board. It has nothing to do with Wizard as a person, and even if it did, I think it speaks favorably to him as a person.
Whether or not you or I like his posts, EvenBob has been a loyal participant here for more than a decade; he has also been a participant on DT, I believe, from its inception or close to it.
When you have someone who has been adding content for that long, and also getting interaction from others (which is more added content), then the least you can do is show some loyalty back and try to keep them around.
Do you know who you can have an unfavorable opinion of? Me. There are several people who would be Nuked by now if I was still handling the bulk of Administration. Why? Because, unlike Wizard, I don't really care about people THAT much, unless I think their posts are generally good posts.
In short, Wizard is a better person than I am as he is, clearly, the more compassionate of the two of us.
Produce good content or be banned? That sounds like a forum worth reading! I'd definitely sign up (and be subsequently banished expeditiously due to the drivel that I post).Quote: Mission146There are several people who would be Nuked by now if I was still handling the bulk of Administration. Why? Because, unlike Wizard, I don't really care about people THAT much, unless I think their posts are generally good posts.
Quote: JoemanProduce good content or be banned? That sounds like a forum worth reading! I'd definitely sign up (and be subsequently banished expeditiously due to the drivel that I post).Quote: Mission146There are several people who would be Nuked by now if I was still handling the bulk of Administration. Why? Because, unlike Wizard, I don't really care about people THAT much, unless I think their posts are generally good posts.
link to original post
I sort of oversimplified my approach, or would be approach.
Context is very important.
If the context is a new user to the Forum coming in and creating a thread in which they ask about a system, or math-related question, then I would usually answer it for them (if I could) and send a friendly PM letting them know that I had attempted an answer, but also that they should check out the work of others/other opinions, or check back to see if someone confirmed my work accurate.
I often still do that. New user asks question, I answer and follow-up with a similar PM. If I attempt an answer but am not extremely confident, then I'll say as much in the thread and make sure to let them know of my lack of complete confidence, via PM.
When someone comes into that thread with their, "Math doesn't matter because it can't be performed that way at physical tables," song and dance that we've heard 5,000 times already, not that I'm referring to anyone specific, to me, that's just taking a dump not only on that thread, but also on the new user who might feel compelled to stick around and interact if we are kind and helpful to that person.
When that would happen, my, "Just Give Me an Excuse," meter goes from zero to ten. Actually, if I were still an Admin, I'd take that happening again after I warned someone (usually via PM) not to do that kind of crap in threads created by new users as excuse enough to just Nuke them. The only way that could be undone is if they somehow got in touch with Wizard and prevailed upon him to reverse my decision...which I don't think anyone ever successfully did.
Now, if the, "Math is irrelevant," same argument for the 5,001st time is in the context of a thread filled with long-time users who all know what to expect from each other, I'd be more inclined to let that go and pleas for heavier moderation of that person would go unheard.
