Evenbob's Roulette Thread
Quote: TigerWu
I believe EB has gambled both in casinos and online for actual money, and it's obviously completely probable for anyone who does that to have winning streaks lasting weeks or even months. But he has not "beaten" any games on a consistent basis over a period of years.
link to original post
I've said before I don't think it's actually possible to beat a casino game. What you can do is exploit it by slipping in and slipping out when you see an opportunity and making a few dollars. But I would hardly call that 'beating' it. I used to say that I beat roulette but when I thought about it that's not true. I exploit roulette is a better way to say it.
Quote: TigerWuQuote: EvenBobE=mc^2
link to original post
What does this have to do with gambling?
link to original post
Exactly... That was my point.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: TigerWuQuote: EvenBobE=mc^2
link to original post
What does this have to do with gambling?
link to original post
Exactly... That was my point.
link to original post
I think everyone knows that E=MC^2 doesn't have anything to do with gambling. You didn't have to make a "point" of it.
Quote: EvenBobI used to say that I beat roulette but when I thought about it that's not true.
link to original post
We all knew that and kept trying to tell you. Glad to see you've finally come around.
Quote: TigerWu
We all knew that and kept trying to tell you. Glad to see you've finally come around.
link to original post
It would be like saying a card counter beats blackjack. That's not true, he sees an opportunity to exploit blackjack but he doesn't beat it. That's what I do
Nope! A card counter IS beating the game of blackjack. A skilled full-play Deuces Wild player IS beating the machine. A skilled wheel roulette wheel clocker is beating the game of roulette. A skilled hole carder is beating the game of blackjack. A skilled edge sorter is beating the card game they're playing.Quote: EvenBobQuote: TigerWu
We all knew that and kept trying to tell you. Glad to see you've finally come around.
link to original post
It would be like saying a card counter beats blackjack. That's not true, he sees an opportunity to exploit blackjack but he doesn't beat it. That's what I do
link to original post
A skilled Progressive video poker/slot player is beating the game of video poker and slots. A slot vulture is beating slots. Granted, on those three particular things and others like it while you're getting your money directly from the casino/ machine your value is actually coming from other players who left value behind banking it up and played at a lower percentage than you.
Now what do all these things have in common? I would let you guess, but surely you wouldn't come up with the correct answer.
All of those things can be calculated using math to show +EV(over 100% payback) and an exact strategy can be generated. It can be explained, shown on paper, tested, taught, and simulated by anyone with the skills to do so. Everyone should come to the same conclusion.
I.E. Advantage Play METHODS.
You can't do that with your roulette SYSTEM because no matter what you come up with the math will still show -EV. And that my friend is exactly why they call them gambling SYSTEMS and have a specific term called gambler's fallacy.
Quote: AxelWolf
A card counter IS beating the game of blackjack.
link to original post
Nope, not even close. That would mean every time he sits down he wins. That would be beating the game. He doesn't do that, he keeps track of the cards and when he thinks the cards are in his favor then he bets and he exploits a very small part of the game. I do the same thing with roulette, I can't sit down and win win. I have to wait wait wait then exploit a small part of the game.
Nope not even close! Even with a huge proven mathematical advantage Advantage Players don't win every time they sit down.Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolf
A card counter IS beating the game of blackjack.
link to original post
Nope, not even close. That would mean every time he sits down he wins.]
Card counters actually lose many sessions(I can't remember the exact numbers, but probably around 50%) and can have super long losing streaks. That's why Kelly is so important to most Advantage Players.
I don't believe you have a good understanding of +EV gambling whatsoever. Most of what you claim is actually the opposite of the truth and reality. You make up you're own theories, "math", terms, and rules in an attempt to convince everyone you have a winning method. Only a few idiots might actually believe you. Don't you have some idiot believers over on GF?
Nope not even close! Even with a huge proven mathematical advantage Advantage Players don't win every time they sit down.Quote: AxelWolf
Nope, not even close. That would mean every time he sits down he wins.]
link to original post
Why are you making the exact same point that I just made. I said this before, I swear to God you're reading and comprehension level is somewhat mysterious. In order to be said to beat the game that would mean a player would have to sit down and win every time he played but of course that's impossible. You cannot say a card counter 'beats blackjack', he beats a tiny portion of blackjack he does not beat the entire game. I'm sure you will misread all of this and come back with some other tirade that has nothing to do with anything.
I do not beat roulette, I beat a teeny teeny tiny part of roulette when it lets me. When I see an opening I jump in make some money and jump out and leave. It's not possible to beat any casino game, but it is possible to exploit them somewhat. And even that is very difficult.
A man who lies while gambling will have many friends. A man who lies about his gambling will not.
Quote: AxelWolfYour entire claims are based on tricking/outsmarting/defying math
link to original post
Please please PLEASE tell me which math that I am tricking or outsmarting. I keep asking this question over and over and nobody ever answers it. You have no idea what math you're talking about because there is none. Certainly not the law of large numbers we've discussed that into the ground. And nice try changing the subject from a card counter beats the game of blackjack. He can sometimes beat the smallest portion of the shoe and that does not mean he 'beat' the game.
Quote: billryanA sound card counter can win long-term.
link to original post
So what. It means he jumps in and wins at a very small portion of the game and jumps back out. This does not mean he beat blackjack. He exploited the game, he took advantage of a weakness, he did not beat anything. Just exactly what I do in roulette. I exploit a small portion. I jump in and I jump out and leave. Casinos hate these kinds of players just for that reason. We don't stick around long enough for the them to have a crack at our bankroll.
I don't know how to be more clear in stating a card counter is beating the game. A card counter can show that he has an advantage. It's been proven card counting is an advantage. It's really just semantics, kinda like like... you don't hit and run, "you win and leave".Quote: EvenBobQuote: AxelWolfYour entire claims are based on tricking/outsmarting/defying math
link to original post
Please please PLEASE tell me which math that I am tricking or outsmarting. I keep asking this question over and over and nobody ever answers it. You have no idea what math you're talking about because there is none. Certainly not the law of large numbers we've discussed that into the ground. And nice try changing the subject from a card counter beats the game of blackjack. He can sometimes beat the smallest portion of the shoe and that does not mean he 'beat' the game.
link to original post
Where are you coming up with this stuff? Reading crap that others say and taking it out of context or adding your own spin? What if they are not playing a shoe? What if they have an advantage off the top? What if they only play when it's +EV?
"smallest portion of the shoe" Where did you come up with that? Depending on the game, penetration, and rules it could be a positive count near 50% of the time. I'll hazard to guess on average it's 35% of the time.
You keep talking about the law of large numbers not realizing that playing even money bets while flat betting on roulette doesn't need a large number of spins to realize negative results. Large numbers are needed in order to realize the exact HA or close.
The math for roulette has been done -2.7%(SZ)- 5.26%(DZ). That's the math you're trying to trick/outsmart. Show us the math, formula, or patterns that indicate you can achieve an 80% hit rate. It's just made up in your head. Past random gambling outcomes cannot help you achieve future above-average results... that's been proven.
Quote: EvenBob
The truth is you won't live long enough to make enough bets where the law of large numbers will have an effect on you.
A statement like that warms the heart of every successful advantage player. It tends to keep competition down.
Since Bob ignores Green and claims he can achieve his incredible hit rates on 00, a 00 simulation would be sufficient.
Thanks in advance.
I don't know if I can see the point.Quote: AxelWolf@ OnceDear or anyone with a roulette simulator that cares to bother, can you sim 250 even money bets on roulette 20+ times? I'm curious to know how many if any will be ahead. Also, What number of spins does it take to have 99.9% confidence you won't be ahead?
Since Bob ignores Green and claims he can achieve his incredible hit rates on 00, a 00 simulation would be sufficient.
Thanks in advance.
link to original post
We have EvenBob in this thread who does not use refuses to even acknowledge meanings of perfectly ordinary words and phrases. He argues about the word 'Beat', he's described himself as flat betting where he doesn't bet the same at different sessions. He once described how he used flat betting with a 'd'Alembert progression that was in fact a Martingale. He decries 'Hit and Run' as useless, but tells us of the totally different and superior practice of 'Win and Leave. And his use of the word or symbol '%' and the concepts of percentages are legendary. He even has his own definitions of 'Random' and 'Proof'.
There are no common terms of reference and a stubborn refusal to try to establish any.
So there is zero ... ZERO point in debating with EvenBob. As soon as your words reach his consciousness, he chooses whether to bat them back with 'Nope....[insert spurious text]' or else he tells us he hasn't read our yada yada.
Yup. No rounding error. No probability estimate required. Debating EvenBob is pointless. Worse than pointless. It's -EV, a dead loss.
If EvenBob were a troll, we would be feeding him. If he were a stand up comedian, we would be heckling him. And he would lap it up.
So thinks..... I simulated something from the fantasy world where one correctly guessed with an 80% hit rate and turned $100 into $50m. What the heck..... Mind you, I'll defer to others to do the confidence limits malarky.
Quote: OnceDearI don't know if I can see the point. ...Quote: AxelWolf@ OnceDear or anyone with a roulette simulator that cares to bother, can you sim 250 even money bets on roulette 20+ times? I'm curious to know how many if any will be ahead. Also, What number of spins does it take to have 99.9% confidence you won't be ahead?
Since Bob ignores Green and claims he can achieve his incredible hit rates on 00, a 00 simulation would be sufficient.
Thanks in advance.
link to original post
What the heck..... Mind you, I'll defer to others to do the confidence limits malarky.
link to original post
I simulated 100 'sets' of 250 spins, each starting with a bankroll of 250 units and each placing 250 one unit wagers on an 'even money' roulette wager at a single 0 table. I ignored the 'en partage' rule.
For each set, I calculated the final bankroll of that set. I counted the number of sets that were ahead by more than zero units after those 250 spins. I also calculated the average final bankroll for each set and the average percentage return on our 250 unit starting bankroll
I then repeated this whole exercise 4 more times. So, That's run #1, run #2, run #3, run #4 and run #5
| Sets that ended ahead | Highest Set Final Bankroll | Lowest Set Final Bankroll | Average Set Final Bankroll | Average Set Return Bankroll | Observed House Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run #1 | 27 | 292 | 212 | 242.76 | 97.104% | 2.896% |
| Run #2 | 25 | 288 | 204 | 241.56 | 96.624% | 3.376% |
| Run #3 | 30 | 286 | 206 | 243.36 | 97.344% | 2.656% |
| Run #4 | 32 | 270 | 202 | 202.24 | 96.896% | 3.104% |
| Run #5 | 40 | 300 | 208 | 246.56 | 98.624% | 1.376% |
What I suspect that AW would really like is to see how many spins it takes for 'the house edge to assert itself and settle at between about 1% and 4%,
so here's a demo of that. Typically, the real and positive house edge of between 1% and 4% is obvious after about 8,000 spins flat betting the 'even chances'
Thanks, much appropriated.Quote: OnceDearQuote: OnceDearI don't know if I can see the point. ...Quote: AxelWolf@ OnceDear or anyone with a roulette simulator that cares to bother, can you sim 250 even money bets on roulette 20+ times? I'm curious to know how many if any will be ahead. Also, What number of spins does it take to have 99.9% confidence you won't be ahead?
Since Bob ignores Green and claims he can achieve his incredible hit rates on 00, a 00 simulation would be sufficient.
Thanks in advance.
link to original post
What the heck..... Mind you, I'll defer to others to do the confidence limits malarky.
link to original post
I simulated 100 'sets' of 250 spins, each starting with a bankroll of 250 units and each placing 250 one unit wagers on an 'even money' roulette wager at a single 0 table. I ignored the 'en partage' rule.
For each set, I calculated the final bankroll of that set. I counted the number of sets that were ahead by more than zero units after those 250 spins. I also calculated the average final bankroll for each set and the average percentage return on our 250 unit starting bankroll
I then repeated this whole exercise 4 more times. So, That's run #1, run #2, run #3, run #4 and run #5
Sets that ended ahead Highest Set Final Bankroll Lowest Set Final Bankroll Average Set Final Bankroll Average Set Return Bankroll Observed House Edge Run #1 27 292 212 242.76 97.104% 2.896% Run #2 25 288 204 241.56 96.624% 3.376% Run #3 30 286 206 243.36 97.344% 2.656% Run #4 32 270 202 202.24 96.896% 3.104% Run #5 40 300 208 246.56 98.624% 1.376%
What I suspect that AW would really like is to see how many spins it takes for 'the house edge to assert itself and settle at between about 1% and 4%,
so here's a demo of that. Typically, the real and positive house edge of between 1% and 4% is obvious after about 8,000 spins flat betting the 'even chances'
link to original post
I love it.
"Axel, no thanks, this is a fruitless endeavor and a waste of time"
Some time later. "F it, I'll go above and beyond."
I would absolutely hire you, even with your record-stained WMOAT status.
If you can explain all this to EvenBob so he can understand it.
I'll replace the WM with a G.
Quote: OnceDearI don't know if I can see the point....
Debating EvenBob is pointless. Worse than pointless. It's -EV, a dead loss.
And yet...
Quote: OnceDearI simulated 100 'sets' of 250 spins, each starting with a bankroll of 250 units and each placing 250 one unit wagers on an 'even money' roulette wager at a single 0 table.
That right there is Bob's genius. It's obviously not winning at roulette, but rather it is getting us to engage him on his terms. If we would just ignore his posts, this would all go away and the forum's collective mental health would be all the better for it. But it's like a train wreck... we can't look away. Or worse, we are compelled to participate...
Must... Post... Rebuttal!!!!
And look... now, I am part of the problem!
Quote: EvenBob
Please please PLEASE tell me which math that I am tricking or outsmarting. I keep asking this question over and over and nobody ever answers it.
Wrong. I answered this a couple pages ago and you ignored it.
Quote:Certainly not the law of large numbers we've discussed that into the ground.
link to original post
And yet you still haven't proven how the LLN doesn't apply to you.
Quote: EvenBobThat would mean every time he sits down he wins. That would be beating the game.
link to original post
So anything less than 100% wins all the time every time a game is played is NOT beating a game?
Winning 99% of the time is not beating the game?
Winning 30% of the time is not beating the game, even if you are CONSISTENTLY making a profit?
Y'all see what EB is doing here?
Instead of admitting he is wrong, he is redefining words and concepts so that no one else can be right.... LOL
Quote: Joeman
That right there is Bob's genius. It's obviously not winning at roulette, but rather it is getting us to engage him on his terms. If we would just ignore his posts, this would all go away and the forum's collective mental health would be all the better for it. But it's like a train wreck... we can't look away. Or worse, we are compelled to participate...
link to original post
It's because the things he says are so objectively and inarguably false, we can't help but respond. It would be like someone confidently asserting that grass is blue; you just HAVE to step in and point out that's it's obviously green.
Quote: AxelWolfThanks, much appropriated.
I love it.
"Axel, no thanks, this is a fruitless endeavor and a waste of time"
Some time later. "F it, I'll go above and beyond."
I would absolutely hire you, even with your record-stained WMOAT status.
If you can explain all this to EvenBob so he can understand it.
I'll replace the WM with a G.
link to original post
Done for your benefit and my amusement. It is of no value to EvenBob and would persuade him of nothing.
Like yourself, I was curious as to what order of numbers the sample size would need to reach to demonstrate the tendency described by the LLN. Subjectively, we can now look at that latter chart and say that after 'around 8,000' spins we can expect to see the house edge assert itself. Unless, of course we have some special, roulette wagering skill.
It does nothing to prove that Henry the Unicorn never has a problem picking winning wagers.
Maybe Henry the Unicorn will join the forum (Are unicorns allowed?) and explain why his results are so much better than anything I can simulate. He's reluctant to tells me how he makes his fantastical predictions.
Quote: OnceDear
Like yourself, I was curious as to what order of numbers the sample size would need to reach to demonstrate the tendency described by the LLN. Subjectively, we can now look at that latter chart and say that after 'around 8,000' spins we can expect to see the house edge assert itself. Unless, of course we have some special, roulette wagering skill.
link to original post
I would like to remind everyone that EvenBob himself claimed approximately 8,000 spins was the total number of spins in that single picture of roulette cards he posted not too long ago. And that was just one small fraction of his records from one single box out of who knows how many he claimed to have gotten rid of already, from a fraction of his decades of gambling. And he insists the LLN does not apply to him....lol
Quote: JoemanQuote: OnceDearI don't know if I can see the point....
Debating EvenBob is pointless. Worse than pointless. It's -EV, a dead loss.
And yet...Quote: OnceDearI simulated 100 'sets' of 250 spins, each starting with a bankroll of 250 units and each placing 250 one unit wagers on an 'even money' roulette wager at a single 0 table.
That right there is Bob's genius. It's obviously not winning at roulette, but rather it is getting us to engage him on his terms. If we would just ignore his posts, this would all go away and the forum's collective mental health would be all the better for it. But it's like a train wreck... we can't look away. Or worse, we are compelled to participate...
Must... Post... Rebuttal!!!!
And look... now, I am part of the problem!
link to original post
Don't rebut anything. Just remind everyone these are the ramblings of someone who is reciting canned nonsense.
Quote: Joeman
That right there is Bob's genius. It's obviously not winning at roulette, but rather it is getting us to engage him on his terms. If we would just ignore his posts, this would all go away and the forum's collective mental health would be all the better for it. But it's like a train wreck... we can't look away. Or worse, we are compelled to participate...
link to original post
Quote: TigerWu
It's because the things he says are so objectively and inarguably false, we can't help but respond. It would be like someone confidently asserting that grass is blue; you just HAVE to step in and point out that's it's obviously green.
link to original post
'TigerWu took me into a field of grass, but it wasn't the kind of grass that I play on. 80% of grass is blue, but he showed me some of the other 20%'
For TigerWu, courtesy of Gordonm888: https://cleverjourneys.com/2021/09/18/the-donkey-tiger-and-lion-lesson/
Anyhow. Joeman is spot on. It's been said before.
Quote: billryanQuote: JoemanQuote: OnceDearI don't know if I can see the point....
Debating EvenBob is pointless. Worse than pointless. It's -EV, a dead loss.
That right there is Bob's genius. It's obviously not winning at roulette, but rather it is getting us to engage him on his terms. If we would just ignore his posts, this would all go away and the forum's collective mental health would be all the better for it. But it's like a train wreck... we can't look away. Or worse, we are compelled to participate...
Must... Post... Rebuttal!!!!
link to original post
Don't rebut anything. Just remind everyone these are the ramblings of someone who is reciting canned nonsense.
link to original post
Right..... BillRyan, Joeman, Everyone except EvenBob.....
Let's not post rebuttals to EvenBob's nonsense. Let's simply remind each-other of the futility stupidity of so doing.
Quote: OnceDearQuote: billryanQuote: JoemanQuote: OnceDearI don't know if I can see the point....
Debating EvenBob is pointless. Worse than pointless. It's -EV, a dead loss.
That right there is Bob's genius. It's obviously not winning at roulette, but rather it is getting us to engage him on his terms. If we would just ignore his posts, this would all go away and the forum's collective mental health would be all the better for it. But it's like a train wreck... we can't look away. Or worse, we are compelled to participate...
Must... Post... Rebuttal!!!!
link to original post
Don't rebut anything. Just remind everyone these are the ramblings of someone who is reciting canned nonsense.
link to original post
Right..... BillRyan, Joeman, Everyone except EvenBob.....
Let's not post rebuttals to EvenBob's nonsense. Let's simply remind each-other of the futility stupidity of so doing.
link to original post
It's a movement. We need a kool nickname and maybe some jerseys for the Wiz's meetups.
Quote: OnceDear'TigerWu took me into a field of grass, but it wasn't the kind of grass that I play on. 80% of grass is blue, but he showed me some of the other 20%'
For TigerWu, courtesy of Gordonm888: https://cleverjourneys.com/2021/09/18/the-donkey-tiger-and-lion-lesson/
Anyhow. Joeman is spot on. It's been said before.
link to original post
What a great fable. Thanks for that, OD.
There is a caveat. Kentucky is called the "Bluegrass State." and the Boise State football stadium "grass" field is blue.
tuttigym
Quote: TigerWu
Wrong. I answered this a couple pages ago and you ignored it.
And yet you still haven't proven how the LLN doesn't apply to you.
link to original post
No you didn't, you didn't do anything a couple pages ago cuz I keep asking this question and nobody answers it. If you think you did let's hear it again.
As far as the LLN goes:
"The law of large numbers applies only when a large number of observations are considered."
and
"The does not apply to a single observation or outcome. The law only applies when a large number of observations are considered."
The law of large numbers cannot and does not apply to anything that happens in the extreme short term where you make a bet. There is no law that applies to the short-term because anything can happen.
Quote: TigerWu
So anything less than 100% wins all the time every time a game is played is NOT beating a game?
link to original post
Not what I said and you know it. When you exploit just a tiny part of the game like what happens in blackjack you're not beating the game you're exploiting a small portion of it. The rest of the game if you were playing it would be beating the crap out of you. You wait till that part of the game when you can jump in and make a couple dollars and jump out. If you were actually beating the game you would be able to sit down at any BJ table and win more than you lose for the entire shoe. That's impossible.
Quote: TigerWu
I would like to remind everyone that EvenBob himself claimed approximately 8,000 spins was the total number of spins in that single picture of roulette cards he posted not too long ago. And that was just one small fraction of his records from one single box out of who knows how many he claimed to have gotten rid of already, from a fraction of his decades of gambling. And he insists the LLN does not apply to him....lol
link to original post
If you think the LLN involves such a tiny amount of spins as 8,000 then you really don't know what the law of large numbers is. 8,000 is a tiny number not a large number when it comes to casino games.
Quote: billryanQuote: OnceDear
Right..... BillRyan, Joeman, Everyone except EvenBob.....
Let's not post rebuttals to EvenBob's nonsense. Let's simply remind each-other of the futility stupidity of so doing.
link to original post
It's a movement. We need a kool nickname and maybe some jerseys for the Wiz's meetups.
link to original post
There is not enough commonality of purpose.
It's important to look beyond the words and examine the emotions behind them. Consider why the person is saying what he says, and respond to the emotion behind the statements, not the statements themselves.
Quote: OnceDearQuote: billryanQuote: OnceDear
Right..... BillRyan, Joeman, Everyone except EvenBob.....
Let's not post rebuttals to EvenBob's nonsense. Let's simply remind each-other of the futility stupidity of so doing.
link to original post
It's a movement. We need a kool nickname and maybe some jerseys for the Wiz's meetups.
link to original post
There is not enough commonality of purpose.
link to original post
We could be heroes, if just for one day.
Lolz @ Bob telling Tiger, "You don't know maths!!!11!!"Quote: EvenBobIf you think the LLN involves such a tiny amount of spins as 8,000 then you really don't know what the law of large numbers is. 8,000 is a tiny number not a large number when it comes to casino games.
link to original post
I'm not his therapist. It's not essential to me to salve his emotional scars.Quote: billryanUnderstanding that you can interact with someone spouting nonsense is essential.
It's important to look beyond the words and examine the emotions behind them. Consider why the person is saying what he says, and respond to the emotion behind the statements, not the statements themselves.
link to original post
we are all just prisoners of our own deviceQuote: billryanQuote: OnceDearQuote: billryanQuote: OnceDear
Right..... BillRyan, Joeman, Everyone except EvenBob.....
Let's not post rebuttals to EvenBob's nonsense. Let's simply remind each-other of the futility stupidity of so doing.
link to original post
It's a movement. We need a kool nickname and maybe some jerseys for the Wiz's meetups.
link to original post
There is not enough commonality of purpose.
link to original post
We could be heroes, if just for one day.
link to original post
Wow, OD, what's it like living rent-free in Bob's head? If he has to keep re-iterating that he has you blocked, you must have really gotten to him!Quote: EvenBobI keep seeing Oncedear's name here and if any of you are wondering why I don't respond to anything he might be saying about me, it's because I've arranged it so I no longer read his posts. I determined that they are a complete waste of my time because no matter what I say, no matter what position I take, he will always take the opposite position therefore his posts are a complete waste of time to me. My life has improved tremendously since I made this decision.
link to original post
Thank you, EvenBob. I'm highly honoured.Quote: EvenBobI keep seeing Oncedear's name here and if any of you are wondering why I don't respond to anything he might be saying about me, it's because I've arranged it so I no longer read his posts. I determined that they are a complete waste of my time because no matter what I say, no matter what position I take, he will always take the opposite position therefore his posts are a complete waste of time to me. My life has improved tremendously since I made this decision.
link to original post
Since you are not reading this, then you won't need to respond and I don't need to put much effort in. How cool is that.
Now, if only the other fools in this thread could get blocked too, we could have a nice dead thread, where maybe EB could shout at the wind.
Yes. And watching him unblock and reblock me for every post is a true delight.Quote: JoemanWow, OD, what's it like living rent-free in Bob's head? If he has to keep re-iterating that he has you blocked, you must have really gotten to him!Quote: EvenBobI keep seeing Oncedear's name here and if any of you are wondering why I don't respond to anything he might be saying about me, it's because I've arranged it so I no longer read his posts. I determined that they are a complete waste of my time because no matter what I say, no matter what position I take, he will always take the opposite position therefore his posts are a complete waste of time to me. My life has improved tremendously since I made this decision.
link to original post
link to original post
Quote: EvenBobQuote: TigerWu
Wrong. I answered this a couple pages ago and you ignored it.
link to original post
No you didn't, you didn't do anything a couple pages ago cuz I keep asking this question and nobody answers it. If you think you did let's hear it again.
Excuse me, it wasn't a "couple" pages ago, it was three. Bottom of page 5. Go take a look to refresh your memory then get back to me if you can prove the math wrong (hint: you can't). As a reminder, you yourself said you know more about the mathematics of gambling than professional mathematicians do.
Quote:
The law of large numbers cannot and does not apply to anything that happens in the extreme short term where you make a bet. There is no law that applies to the short-term because anything can happen.
link to original post
Agreed. I said nothing about the LLN applying to the short-term, however. I'm referring to the hundreds of thousands of spins you have been involved with over your gambling career.
Quote: EvenBobAll of the math surrounding roulette is predicated on making random bets against random outcomes. None of my bets are random, so as soon as you stop making non-random bets all the math goes right out the window. My bets are extremely deliberate, arrived at from years of observation of the outcomes in roulette. They are the polar opposite of random, and that's why, when done at the right time, they work. The casino verifies this every single time I play.
link to original post
Quick question regarding the bolded portion.
What exactly does the casino verify "every single time" you play?
Quote: OnceDearThank you, EvenBob. I'm highly honoured.Quote: EvenBobI keep seeing Oncedear's name here and if any of you are wondering why I don't respond to anything he might be saying about me, it's because I've arranged it so I no longer read his posts. I determined that they are a complete waste of my time because no matter what I say, no matter what position I take, he will always take the opposite position therefore his posts are a complete waste of time to me. My life has improved tremendously since I made this decision.
link to original post
Since you are not reading this, then you won't need to respond and I don't need to put much effort in. How cool is that.
Now, if only the other fools in this thread could get blocked too, we could have a nice dead thread, where maybe EB could shout at the wind.
link to original post
This fool has tried, he hasn't blocked me.
Never give up.Quote: rainmanQuote: OnceDear
Now, if only the other fools in this thread could get blocked too, we could have a nice dead thread, where maybe EB could shout at the wind.
link to original post
This fool has tried, he hasn't blocked me.
link to original post
"You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave"
Quote: OnceDearNever give up.Quote: rainmanQuote: OnceDear
Now, if only the other fools in this thread could get blocked too, we could have a nice dead thread, where maybe EB could shout at the wind.
link to original post
This fool has tried, he hasn't blocked me.
link to original post
"You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave"Hi Bob
link to original post
If you all would repeat after every post from EB with the possible exception of his food posts:
EB IS IRRELEVANT
EB IS WRONG
My guess EB might be gone.
tuttigym
