Therefore, I'd like to clear the air and post my replies.

It was in his first private message where he took exception to my observation in this post, that he has been here 4 days while Buzz has been here 6 months.

Quote:My replyMy comment was not meant to be hostile. Just a statement of fact.

I stand by my statement that as a four day member, you're in no position to make the kinds of demands you're making.

I also stand by my statement in the thread you started about Buzz where I thought that Buzz is not the greatest member, but entitled to his opinion. On that note, you're also entitled to discuss your ideas. As such, I recommended the Free Speech Zone as a method to prevent it from being deleted.

That does NOT mean I support your actions or ideas. I merely support your right to have those ideas, and to present them without being deleted because they are unpopular.

It was after I sent that message, and before I saw his next PM, that he deleted his posts.

Quote:My reply to his replyAs I think about it, I realize that his [Buzz'] use of the term "thief" was inaccurate. Given his position on the subject, I think a more appropriate description would be "snake oil salesman"

Sorry to see that you're leaving, but buzz was not the only one who disagreed with your ideas. But he was one of a few who disagreed with your right to present them. As you noticed, there were many who disagreed with the ideas but who also discussed them. Thats what the forum is all about.

For the record, I'd love to know who got your threads killed. That was unfair to you.

He sent a reply to that message. I did not bother to continue the conversation.

Quote:statmanI'm not claiming that anyone's results are wrong, but one thing you have to be on the watch for in experimental mathematics is rounding error and cancellation error. In using a spreadsheet or a compiler you will be computing with hardware double-precision floating point math.

Not if you're using integers. You don't need floating-point math until the very end, and the results will be exact until then.

And your results *were* wrong because you used the wrong methodology. See my prior post that sets out how you were answering a different question than you asked. Being off by more than one percent is not rounding error.

If you know how to use Maple, it has the built-in function "multinomial(n, k1, k2, ..., km)". Your tables *should* be the results of a multinomial summation for n=trial size, m = 38, where at least one of the ki is zero (for the number that doesn't appear), or alternately at least one of the ki is K for the number repeated K times. If they're not, your tables are answering a different question than you think they are.

But as before, such tables aren't really useful in a casino setting. If you know the probability P of having a K-repeated number in n spins of a fair wheel, and you observe n spins of a real wheel, you have exactly one datapoint. Then what? You can't reasonably conclude anything from that experiment and it will take you hours to days to complete. You can't get away with sitting at a roulette table for a day without betting, so what are you going to do -- camp out in the coffee shop with a telephoto lens aimed at the recent-number display? That'll get you arrested.

The "Pentium Bug" is long gone ... accuracy of floating point division is precise, except for possibly the last digit ... for example, 0.000001 may be actually stored as 0.000000994 (though you won't find a 6 decimal floating point any more ... with 8 byte doubles, they're usually good to 15 digits) ...Quote:MathExtremistNot if you're using integers. You don't need floating-point math until the very end, and the results will be exact until then.

--Ms. D.

Quote:Richard A. Epstein, "The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic", prefaceEven mathematicians have fallen prey to the clever casuistry of gambling fallacies. Special wards in lunatic asylums could well be populated with mathematicians who have attempted to predict random events from finite data samples.

As for me not being the best poster, that is to be expected. I just wish more viewers would post. I see some post have 9 replies and 200 or 300 views. I am constantly amazed at the knowledge some people possess and take it for granted everybody else already knows it. The one thing I can say about my posts is often I get replies from people with only 4 or 5 prior posts.

PM's are always available for anyone who's feathers I have ruffled.

He removed his posts I believe, because lots of these threads show up on a Google search, and he might lose future victims !

I hope I get that credit. I think it was the right thing to do.

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.

There is a reason the WIZ has that rule.

You did. But the way he worded that response, caused me to think of "Illuminati".Quote:buzzpaff"For the record, I'd love to know who got your threads killed. That was unfair to you."

I hope I get that credit. I think it was the right thing to do.

But I still think it was wrong to delete them. Controvercial or not, they caused a lot of discussion. And a lot of the replies had good information in it.

Similarly, this thread has good information too. But because of the holes, not many people will understand it.

Some of it eventually may reappear on the web site of the

Rancocas Valley Journal of Applied Mathematics

Please flag this page so that it may be deleted.

Many thanks to those who have been helpful.

Quote:statmanThe chi-square test tests the wheel as a whole. The tables are intended to assess the significance of the most frequently occurring number. A high value of chi-square indicates a biased wheel. Although I haven't gone into it in detail, I suspect that a wheel may have a high value of chi-square without having a number of probability exceeding 1/35, which is what you need to make money. Casinos relying on chi-square therefore may take wheels out of service as money-losers to sophisticated players when really they are not.

That's the whole point. The casino detects bias faster than you can, and removes/corrects biased wheel problems before the player can figure it out. The Murphy article says that a wheel played over 20k spins was found to have a bias, but it doesn't say that any player detected it. He said:

Quote:Murphy articleThe duration of time the roulette inquiry took, to reach 20,504 spins was approximately 48 days. The roulette table was opened approximately 12 hours a day, with steady play estimated at around 8 hours each day.

But he then goes on to assume that a player at the *beginning* of those 48 days already knew about the bias and was able to exploit it. How much sense does that make?

But you seem to be saying that you can watch a roulette wheel for merely 1% of the time he did and reliably detect a bias (after 200 spins). Do you actually believe this? What if I said that there's a roulette wheel in Nevada right now where the number 00 came up 9 times in the past 200 spins. Yes or no: is the wheel biased?