The hoax that is the 1.41% house advantage on pass line bets

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Quote: tuttigym

That would be a fair deal if you threw the dice to determine which side showed up, i.e., if a 7 is thrown you lose and if a 6 is thrown you win but only on the head/tail called. If the 6 is tossed and you called heads but the coin is a tail, you also lose. I think that would be fair.

Use dice to determine the results of a coin flip? My head hurts.

Quote: DJTB

But, on the plus side, Tutti has figured out how to use the quote feature! Woo hoo?

Thanks for the Woo hoo. I needed that positive re-enforcement.

Quote: DJTB

Does that mean he might be on the very of accepting the 1.41% house advantage? Sigh. I wouldn't bet on it....

Nor should you; it would be a definite loser on both accounts. You are seeing the light.

tuttigym

Quote: goatcabin

Quote: tuttigym

I UNDERSTAND the math associated with the 1.41% HA on PL bets resolves itself only 3.5% of the time. I UNDERSTAND that it takes 146 SETS of 495 PL outcomes to actually produce the 1.41% HA.

Quote: goat

Of course, it only takes one set of 495 to produce a 244-251 outcome, just as it only takes one set to produce 243-252, or 242-253. 244-251 is more likely than any other specific outcome. You UNDERSTAND nothing, unfortunately.

Making a positive out of an incredible negative shows your optimistic side. It also shows that you will reach for anything to win a debate no matter how outrageous. If the PL/FO bet is so really good, why not play a simple Martingale starting with a $10 FO bet and doubling until it hits then start again. Perhaps you can calculate the odds of not converting eight straight points. If those odds are favorable, you need to try it. Being the positive person that you are, you absolutely could not lose. How is it that you cannot make a positive out of a positive. What is really interesting is that creating a losing edge is absolutely okay with you while you seem to refuse to believe that short term positive results just are not suppose to happen, and when they do, it is an anomaly that can never be fully exploited or enjoyed.

tuttigym

Quote: goat

Of course, it only takes one set of 495 to produce a 244-251 outcome, just as it only takes one set to produce 243-252, or 242-253. 244-251 is more likely than any other specific outcome. You UNDERSTAND nothing, unfortunately.

Quote: tuttigym

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Quote: tuttigym

That would be a fair deal if you threw the dice to determine which side showed up, i.e., if a 7 is thrown you lose and if a 6 is thrown you win but only on the head/tail called. If the 6 is tossed and you called heads but the coin is a tail, you also lose. I think that would be fair.

Use dice to determine the results of a coin flip? My head hurts.

Quote: DJTB

But, on the plus side, Tutti has figured out how to use the quote feature! Woo hoo?

Thanks for the Woo hoo. I needed that positive re-enforcement.

Quote: DJTB

Does that mean he might be on the very of accepting the 1.41% house advantage? Sigh. I wouldn't bet on it....

Nor should you; it would be a definite loser on both accounts. You are seeing the light.

tuttigym

Quote: DJTB

Well, it's apparent that you DIDN'T fully understand the quote system. And, no, I'm not going to bet on the possibility that you'll eventually get the 1.41%. That's a sucker bet for sure.

Quote: DorothyGale

Negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.

Quote: tuttigym

Quote: DJTB

Well, it's apparent that you DIDN'T fully understand the quote system. And, no, I'm not going to bet on the possibility that you'll eventually get the 1.41%. That's a sucker bet for sure.

I knew you would get it, that is that the PL/FO 1.41% HA IS A SUCKER BET. Congratulations!!

tuttigym

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Quote: tuttigym

Quote: DJTB

Well, it's apparent that you DIDN'T fully understand the quote system. And, no, I'm not going to bet on the possibility that you'll eventually get the 1.41%. That's a sucker bet for sure.

I knew you would get it, that is that the PL/FO 1.41% HA IS A SUCKER BET. Congratulations!!

Quote: DJTB

Apparently, your understanding of simple math concepts is as bad as your understanding of simple english.

I was saying that placing a bet on "YOU understanding the math of CRAPS" is a bad bet, not that betting on craps is bad.

DJ you need to lighten up and learn what sarcasm and satire are. Taking your words above and twisting your intent was the goal of my "SUCKER BET" comment. Get a grip.

tuttigym

Quote: boymimbo

No! Not a sucker bet! It's a HOAX!!! After all, if 244/251 only happens 3.5% of the time, then the HA is not 1.414%

The HA of a six or eight is (5-6)/6 = 16.67%
The HA of a five or nine is (4-6)/6 = 33.33%
The HA of a four or ten is wait for it, 50%!!!!

I don't care that I don't count the total number of combinations. I don't care either about the come out roll either. All I know is that I am right and everyone else is wrong.

If I bet on all of the numbers, then I have 30 ways to win and 6 ways to lose with a (30-6)/6 = 400% Player Advantage!

Sometimes I don't want so much of an advantage so I'll bet on fewer numbers depending on my betting system. Before I go to the casino, I'll mentally prepare for the session by thinking about how I'll bet and how much I'll win. And most of the time, I do win, because I've got it all figured out, without really understand how math, odds, or probabilities work.

Those of you who bet the pass line with odds, it's a sucker bet. Those of you who think that the casino is an entertainment venue where the casino has an advantage over you are wrong. There is a way to win at craps. My way. Probabilities be damned.

The thread was just about dead... it lives.

Quote: tuttigym

boymimbo: Very very good; you got it!! Now the next step is to put it all into practice for real. But first you really need to prepare and train and become creative with your betting practices so you are comfortable, loose, disciplined, and patient. Oh but wait, that might be too difficult; too much hard work; too much time. Best for you to go back to your entertaining way of playing and the same level of successes currently enjoyed. As you know the casinos are in trouble because they too have made some really bad choices and gambles, but you can help rescue them, and that is a good thing.

tuttigym

Quote: boymimbo

Quote: tuttigym

boymimbo: Very very good; you got it!! Now the next step is to put it all into practice for real. But first you really need to prepare and train and become creative with your betting practices so you are comfortable, loose, disciplined, and patient. Oh but wait, that might be too difficult; too much hard work; too much time. Best for you to go back to your entertaining way of playing and the same level of successes currently enjoyed. As you know the casinos are in trouble because they too have made some really bad choices and gambles, but you can help rescue them, and that is a good thing.

tuttigym

Yeah! I'm glad that I got it all figured out.

Quote: boymimbo

But I bet my old way last weekend in Vegas and played about eight sessions (16 hours of craps) at the tables playing pass and come with odds at the Wynn, Paris, Bills (RapidCraps), and Mandalay Bay and ended up ahead. I felt comfortable, loose, disciplined and patient but I didn't prepare (well, I did put on deodorant). How could that happen? Guess I was lucky. I'm scratching my head to figure out how I won playing such lousy bets. I am trying to ignore the years of post-graduate studies in math and physics that I took but man, it's hard. Maybe I'll write a book about it.

Now that I know that there's a way to win at Craps, I think I'll quit my day job and buy a place out in Vegas. Housing is cheap out there after all, and I have a bit of money saved. With thirty ways to win and six to lose, I figure with an investment of $10K with a 400% Player Advantage, I can earn a million over the weekend.

See I knew you could do it. Confortable, loose, disciplined and patient. Does that give you one in a row? Physics and craps? How does that work? And the math, does that post grad program include random play? If you can really master that part of the math program, you should quit your day job, but the taxes on that $ million will tick you off. Besides, winning like that will cease to be entertainment.

Getting back to the physics, dice influencing comes to mind, perhaps you can use the post grad studies in physics to perfect that toss and reel in even more.

Believe it or not, I am glad you won and had a good time, and I hope the string continues.

tuttigym

Quote: boymimbo

No! Not a sucker bet! It's a HOAX!!! After all, if 244/251 only happens 3.5% of the time, then the HA is not 1.414%

The HA of a six or eight is (5-6)/6 = 16.67%
The HA of a five or nine is (4-6)/6 = 33.33%
The HA of a four or ten is wait for it, 50%!!!!

I don't care that I don't count the total number of combinations. I don't care either about the come out roll either. All I know is that I am right and everyone else is wrong.

If I bet on all of the numbers, then I have 30 ways to win and 6 ways to lose with a (30-6)/6 = 400% Player Advantage!

Sometimes I don't want so much of an advantage so I'll bet on fewer numbers depending on my betting system. Before I go to the casino, I'll mentally prepare for the session by thinking about how I'll bet and how much I'll win. And most of the time, I do win, because I've got it all figured out, without really understand how math, odds, or probabilities work.

Those of you who bet the pass line with odds, it's a sucker bet. Those of you who think that the casino is an entertainment venue where the casino has an advantage over you are wrong. There is a way to win at craps. My way. Probabilities be damned.

The thread was just about dead... it lives.

Quote: boymimbo

Yeah! I'm glad that I got it all figured out.

But I bet my old way last weekend in Vegas and played about eight sessions (16 hours of craps) at the tables playing pass and come with odds at the Wynn, Paris, Bills (RapidCraps), and Mandalay Bay and ended up ahead. I felt comfortable, loose, disciplined and patient but I didn't prepare (well, I did put on deodorant). How could that happen? Guess I was lucky. I'm scratching my head to figure out how I won playing such lousy bets. I am trying to ignore the years of post-graduate studies in math and physics that I took but man, it's hard. Maybe I'll write a book about it.

Now that I know that there's a way to win at Craps, I think I'll quit my day job and buy a place out in Vegas. Housing is cheap out there after all, and I have a bit of money saved. With thirty ways to win and six to lose, I figure with an investment of $10K with a 400% Player Advantage, I can earn a million over the weekend.

Quote: DeMango

This troll asked for "intellectually and mathematically accrurate feedback." His spelling not mine. It has been given and still he posts. And still you answer his nonsense. Who will put him out of his misery?? When will this crap end??? When will you stop feeding the troll???

Quote: boymimbo

I was out playing craps the other day, and I was looking at the layout.

It's alot easier to self-service the Big 6 and Big 8 than to ask the dealer to place it for me, so that's what I do now. I think it pays less but I don't think it changes the odds. It's only a dollar difference. In fact, I don't play at tables where the big 6 and 8 aren't featured. And I can put as little or as much money as I want there, no need to divide by 6. That's too hard.

My favorite bet of all are the field bets. It's decided on one roll, and with 7 out of 11 numbers a winner, I'm going to win. Plus, you get paid double on the 2 and 12. At some places you get paid triple on the 12 but the 12 comes out so many few times that I guess it doesn't matter.

As well, I like to place the 4 and 10 instead of buying the bet when I have to pay the dealer $1 only when I win. I know that when I place the 4 and 10 for $25 I'll get $45. Now, I could buy the bet for $25 instead and get paid $49, but it's such a pain to have to throw down $1 chips for two green chips. What's $4 anyway for the same bet? I get confused when there's a yellow or black "Buy" thing on my bet.

Sometimes when I am bored I like to play the horn bets, exclusively. With 4 ways to win on the 2,3,11 and 12, I only lose on 7 other numbers. That gives me like a 33% probability to win 15 times my bet! I can't go wrong there. When the table is really, really bad, I like to play the big red after the come out roll if I think the 7 ss going to hit. It pays really well at 4:1.

Sometimes I'll combine the horn and the big red for something they call a World Bet. With the place bets on 4,5,9,10 and the Big 6 and 8 bets I can't lose. What is 36 divided by zero anyway? Infinite player advantage!!!

Quote: darnits

Quote: boymimbo

No! Not a sucker bet! It's a HOAX!!! After all, if 244/251 only happens 3.5% of the time, then the HA is not 1.414%

The HA of a six or eight is (5-6)/6 = 16.67%
The HA of a five or nine is (4-6)/6 = 33.33%
The HA of a four or ten is wait for it, 50%!!!!

I don't care that I don't count the total number of combinations. I don't care either about the come out roll either. All I know is that I am right and everyone else is wrong.

If I bet on all of the numbers, then I have 30 ways to win and 6 ways to lose with a (30-6)/6 = 400% Player Advantage!

Sometimes I don't want so much of an advantage so I'll bet on fewer numbers depending on my betting system. Before I go to the casino, I'll mentally prepare for the session by thinking about how I'll bet and how much I'll win. And most of the time, I do win, because I've got it all figured out, without really understand how math, odds, or probabilities work.

Those of you who bet the pass line with odds, it's a sucker bet. Those of you who think that the casino is an entertainment venue where the casino has an advantage over you are wrong. There is a way to win at craps. My way. Probabilities be damned.

The thread was just about dead... it lives.

Quote: boymimbo

Yeah! I'm glad that I got it all figured out.

But I bet my old way last weekend in Vegas and played about eight sessions (16 hours of craps) at the tables playing pass and come with odds at the Wynn, Paris, Bills (RapidCraps), and Mandalay Bay and ended up ahead. I felt comfortable, loose, disciplined and patient but I didn't prepare (well, I did put on deodorant). How could that happen? Guess I was lucky. I'm scratching my head to figure out how I won playing such lousy bets. I am trying to ignore the years of post-graduate studies in math and physics that I took but man, it's hard. Maybe I'll write a book about it.

Now that I know that there's a way to win at Craps, I think I'll quit my day job and buy a place out in Vegas. Housing is cheap out there after all, and I have a bit of money saved. With thirty ways to win and six to lose, I figure with an investment of $10K with a 400% Player Advantage, I can earn a million over the weekend.

Quote: darnits

Holy Sarcasm, Batman! ;-)

Are you sure it is sarcasm or is it satire?? You may be the only poster to recognize such.

tuttigym

Quote: dlevinelaw

This troll does not know where to stop:

he's done this before

Quote:

Mosca - sheer genius. That website has just become my latest bookmark.

Quote: Mosca

Let's start this post with a little quiz:

Quote: Mosca

1. What does tuttigym hope to achieve by repeatedly applying his lips to the posteriors of unbalanced heretics?

Mosca do you have a video, and who are the heretics? Be specific inquiring minds want to know.

Quote: Mosca

2. Why can't tuttigym value a diversity of approaches without needing to rank them as better and worse?

The only diverse "approach" is my own. Every other poster here has tried to rebutt the thesis presented. Also can you specifically show who has been "ranked" and the pecking order you seem to believe exists throughout this thread so that all can know their respective "ranking" positions?

Quote: Mosca

3. Essay: Compare and contrast tuttigym's catch-phrases to those of muzzy-headed drug addicts, focusing especially on who is more likely to keep us perennially behind the eight ball.

There is nothing that follows #3 that compares and/or contrasts anything. Are there "drug addicts" posting here? What "drugs" are they addicted to? Are you suggesting that all who have posted here on this thread in their descent have been placed behind the "eight ball" w/o their considerable knowledge? I mean "us" is everybody but me. Right? Obviously you believe all the others are so weak as to be placed in a position of weakness. Right?

Quote: Mosca

Don't worry; I'll give you all the answers throughout the course of this post as well as a wealth of other information about tuttigym. If you disagree with my claim that tuttigym should shift for himself, then read no further. It may seem at first that I shall spare no effort to step up to the plate and take the lemons that he's handing us and make lemonade. When we descend to details, however, we see that no matter how bad you think tuttigym's accusations are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think.

How can one give answers w/o first stating the questions? So I suggest you revisit the questions and then set out the correct answers.

The "wealth of information" also seemed to be absent, and I was hoping you could list my accomplishments as well as my failures noting, of course, what the intended goals sought were to be achieved. You know, I still know how to drive a stick shift, and most young drivers today probably do not have those skills especially city dwellers.

I was hoping for a list of accusations and then the descriptions of the "far, far worse" so we all could be clear how deep the desent.

Quote: Mosca

Of course, in a discussion of this type, one should obviously mention that tuttigym has for a long time been arguing that his inveracities won't be used for political retribution.

I know you all must be breathing a sigh of relief knowing that the secret police, the IRS, the FBI, and the CIA are not going to be taking names and addresses.

Quote: Mosca

Had he instead been arguing that he would like to see all of our individual liberties digest in the bowels of an all-powerful State, I might cede him his point.

Well thank goodness for small favors. Aren't the liberal Democrats like Obama, Pelosi, and Reed trying to socialize stuff?

Quote: Mosca}As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in tuttigym's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate.[/q

Wow this is really spooky. I mean, a terrified Mosca is something that might lead some to drink or "drug addiction."

Quote: Mosca} What I do often contemplate, however, is how we are at a crossroads.[/q

Who is "we"?

Quote: Mosca

One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which polyloquent troublemakers like tuttigym are thoroughly absent. The other road leads into the darkness of onanism.

Do you suppose Mosca wants to ban debate or ideas that might be controversial and allow all majorities to rule regardless of the consequences??

Quote: Mosca

The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus?

So tell us, WHO?

Quote: Mosca}The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story.[/q

I, for one, am ready for that story with Kleenex in hand.

Quote: Mosca

I've answered parts of that question in several of my previous posts, and I'll answer other parts in future ones.

You mean there are going to be more posts that have nothing to do with the 1.41% HA on PL bets like this one? Man, you are feeding my ego to be such a center of attention.

Quote: Mosca

For now, I'll just say that tuttigym is more than exploitative. He's mega-exploitative. In fact, to understand just how exploitative tuttigym is, you first need to realize that I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are tuttigym's lawless views, which deprive people of dignity and autonomy.

Mosca you are a person for all seasons; I see philosophy, psychology, and politics in your future or maybe police work by which you could arrest those "lawless views" and free those who have been denied their dignity and autonomy and their place in the sun. You have set forth a calling and must therefore lead.

Quote: Mosca

The problem as I see it is not a question of who the cadgers of this society are but rather that tuttigym has been trying for quite some time to convince us that everyone and everything discriminates against him—including the writing on the bathroom stalls.

Have you been following me? Should I be looking over my shoulder? Am I not entitled to privacy?

Quote: Mosca

I suggest he take this rotting ordure and dump it where he and his fellow revolting, foul-mouthed lunatics congregate. At least then we could rouse people's indignation at tuttigym without having to worry that tuttigym will put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse. As stated earlier, he has a strategy. His strategy is to encourage a deadly acceptance of intolerance. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with tuttigym. As I have tried to show in this post, there are lessons to be learned from history. As long as you remember that, we may yet be able to get people to see through the hollowness, the sham, the silliness of tuttigym's splenetic, self-deceiving theories.

Am I the sole leader of the whole free world of "intolerance"? Wow Mosca, you elevate me to heights I would not have imagined or sought. Do you suppose the name "tuttigym" will be placed in history volumes or better yet become a synonym for "intolerance" and placed in dictionaries and the thesauris? My parents would be so proud!!!

Gosh that was fun. Do you suppose the above was a satire or dark humor or sarcasm?? I guess Mosca can answer that one.

tuttigym

Quote: Mosca

This post is neither an encomium of tuttigym nor a panegyric to his solutions. Instead, it is a fact-filled reportage intended to convince you that tuttigym is a sore loser. In the text that follows, when I quote from tuttigym, I will use the word "excrement" in place of another word which is now apparently permitted in general circulation publications and which I have edited out. His proposed programs are fatally fissiparous. Not that I've come to expect any better from him.

In many ways, tuttigym has never disproved anything I've ever written. He does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, once one begins thinking about free speech, about rude, rotten knuckle-draggers who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own pestiferous beliefs, one realizes that tuttigym's circulars are not witty satire, as he would have you believe. They're simply the shiftless, cranky ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking. tuttigym's false-flag operations are perpetuated by an ethos of continuous reform, the demand that one strive permanently and painfully for something that not only does not exist but is alien to the human condition. tuttigym has a strategy. His strategy is to bamboozle people into believing that intransigent idiots are easily housebroken. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with tuttigym.

tuttigym's analects share a number of characteristics. They draw unsuspecting pests into the orbit of the most chthonic polluters you'll ever see. They violate strongly held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains. And they rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. Put together, these characteristics imply that tuttigym seems to assume that he is omnipotent. This is an assumption of the worst kind because he recently stated that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. He said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. He said it as if he meant it. That's scary because he claims that the Universe belongs to him by right. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another temperamental attempt to poison the relationship between teacher and student.

There is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like tuttigym. We need to educate others about the plaints and calumnies of what I call execrable Machiavellians. Let's remember that. One might conclude that it must be pointed out that some rapacious freebooters are hopelessly mendacious. Alternatively, one might conclude that there is certainly reason to fear that the worst classes of disagreeable twaddlers there are will don the mantel of pharisaism and set the wolf to mind the sheep quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "antiprestidigitation". In either case, I have a message for tuttigym. My message is that, for the good of us all, he should never spoon-feed us his pabulum. He should never even try to do such a dictatorial thing. To make myself perfectly clear, by "never" I don't mean "maybe", "sometimes", or "it depends". I mean only that prudence is no vice. Cowardice—especially tuttigym's impractical form of it—is.

Quote: Mosca

What I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of a bleeding-heart wacko.

Okay, what were those "ramblings" and what were the "ramblings" that followed??

Quote: Mosca

It's a fact. Get this: tuttigym insists that he's a moral exemplar. [One minute break for laughter.] Whew! That's the funniest thing I've heard in weeks. Seriously, though, tuttigym spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is neocolonialism, which says to me that to believe that tuttigym's mistakes are always someone else's fault is to deceive ourselves.

The concepts underlying tuttigym's nettlesome fulminations are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea—that the heavens revolve around the Earth—was wrong, just as tuttigym's idea that everyone with a different set of beliefs from his is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell is wrong. tuttigym is a pretty good liar most of the time. However, he tells so many lies, he's bound to trip himself up someday.

Quote: Mosca

tuttigym seems to have recently added the word "anarchoindividualist"

Can someone show me where I used that word? Is that like someone who studies spiders - arachnidologists or something like that??

Quote: Mosca

to his otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose he intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that there's a time to keep silent and a time to speak. There's a time to love and a time to hate. There's a time for war and a time for peace. And, I allege, there's a time to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about pushy Luddites. Or, to put it less poetically, even if one is opposed to crafty radicalism (as I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am) then, surely, wherever deranged devotees of conspiracy theories are seen plaguing our minds, tuttigym is there. Wherever huffy degenerates are found preventing me from sleeping soundly at night, tuttigym is lurking nearby. Wherever obscene hatemongers are observed leading to the destruction of the human race, tuttigym will no doubt be in the vicinity. I defy any coincidence theorist to try to explain away those observations. Clearly, certain facts are clear. For instance, tuttigym is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his effusions.

Perhaps when all discoverable facts and experience fly in the face of tuttigym's bad-tempered world view, tuttigym stubbornly holds onto his ignorance as his birthright, but remember that with him so forcefully increasing society's cycle of hostility and violence, things are starting to come to a head. That's why we must free people from the spell of materialism that he has cast over them. As I've said before, he maintains that either he has mystical powers of divination and prophecy or that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. tuttigym denies any other possibility.

I do not wish to evaluate antagonism here, though I feel that tuttigym's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't) and therefore—not surprisingly—he always arrives at that very conclusion.

I have some of tuttigym's writings in front of me right now. In one of them, tuttigym maintains that the world can be happy only when his brownshirt brigade is given full rein. If you don't find that shocking then consider that if the only way to stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts is for me to sink into a miasma of doubt and alienation, then so be it. It would sincerely be worth it because one does not have to popularize a genre of music whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge unregenerate Utopians to censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype in order to fight the warped, distorted, misshapen, unwholesome monstrosity that his treatises have become. It is a snarky person who believes otherwise. If you will pardon me for mentioning it, tuttigym's secret passion is to scorn and abjure reason. For shame! Now that you've read this post, let me challenge you, the reader, not just to help me advocate change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence, but also to educate others about what I've written.

Did Mosca ever tell us WHO is driving the bus?? After reading the above, I know that my parents would be so proud!!

tuttigym

Quote: Mosca

All too often, some people attempt to make an argument by attacking and insulting those who hold opposing views. tuttigym's strictures are a perfect example. The key point of the following exposition is that tuttigym has never disproved anything I've ever written. He does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, tuttigym spouts a lot of numbers whenever he wants to make a point. He then subjectively interprets those numbers to support his sound bites while ignoring the fact that he deeply believes that he can succeed without trying. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that tuttigym just keeps on saying, "I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to initiate a reign of deceitful terror."

I predict that sooner than you think, people will generally agree that giving tuttigym the means to panic irrationally and overreact completely is like supplying the gun to your own robber. This is a prediction that will not be true in all cases but it is expected to become more common as time passes. What is happening between his agents provocateurs and us is not a debate. It is not a friendly disagreement between enlightened people. It is a dysfunctional attack on our most cherished institutions.

In any case, there is no doubt that tuttigym will mock, ridicule, deprecate, and objurgate people for their religious beliefs in the near future. Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that I have observed that those who disagree with me on the next point tend to be unsophisticated and those who recognize the validity of the point to be more educated. The point is that tuttigym's pestilential, unprofessional biases have caused inerudite smart alecks to descend upon us like a swarm of locusts, giving rise to lamebrained, fastidious tuttigym clones. As I noted at the beginning of this post, when tuttigym hears anyone say that he is incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, his answer is to waste our time and money. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to substitute movement for stagnation, purposive behavior for drifting, and visions of a great future for collective pettiness and discouragement. In this land which has befriended distasteful cozeners, he has conspired, plotted, undermined, prostituted, and corrupted, and—hiding to this hour behind the braver screen of subversive, cynical chiselers—dares to contrive and scheme the death of every principle that has protected him. I will not quibble with him as to whether or not in my effort to uncover his hidden prejudices, I will need to change the world for the better. Instead, I'll simply state that this hasn't sat well with audacious stirrers and leave it at that.

If tuttigym can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. Only by taking risks and pushing boundaries with this post can I reveal the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of dialogized heteroglossia resulting from his mottos. (Note the heroic restraint stopping me from saying that some of the things tuttigym says and some of the things he stands for are so addlepated, it hurts to think about them.)

How can we expect to give tuttigym a rhadamanthine warning not to reap a harvest of death if we walk right into his trap? We can't, and that's why tuttigym contends that hanging out with lazy lunatics is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. Sounds rather inaniloquent, doesn't it? Well, that's tuttigym for you. If his attempts to judge people based solely on hearsay have spurred us to redefine in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning, then tuttigym may have accomplished a useful thing. Lastly, I can't end this post without mentioning that our long-corrupt legal system is parlously close to establishing a precedent that will enable tuttigym to conduct business in a squalid, headlong way.

Quote: boymimbo

Oh, can I be a spokesperson too for math and statistics and science and all of that staff based on fact?

Quote: boymimbo

Oh, can I be a spokesperson too for math and statistics and science and all of that staff based on fact?

I've been patient with Tuttigym, I've even avoided being drawn in by his provocative rhetoric. But I've finally had enough. Let me preface my discussion by quickly reasserting a familiar theme of my previous letters: Some reputed—as opposed to reputable—members of Tuttigym's cabal quite adamantly allege that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could maintain such a thing, but then again, by refusing to act, by refusing to take vengeance on Tuttigym as being the fomenter of what is a universal plague throughout the civilized world, we are giving Tuttigym the power to take control of a nation and suck it dry. The acquisition and consolidation of wealth and power are the motivating forces that drive all of his morally questionable decisions. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. Let's play a little game. Deduct one point from your I.Q. if you fell for Tuttigym's ridiculous claim that he acts in the public interest. Deduct another point if you failed to notice that Tuttigym has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. He can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches Tuttigym's nostrils, he'll start talking about the joy of Bulverism and how the future of the entire world rests in his hands. As you listen to Tuttigym's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice his hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that we need to provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything.

I alluded to this earlier, but Tuttigym's stroppy inclinations have caused slaphappy mountebanks to descend upon us like a swarm of locusts, turning loudmouths loose against us good citizens. I would fain comment on Tuttigym's editorials but I'm a bit worried that Tuttigym will retaliate by forcing me to jump in the lake. I'm worried because it's easy for him to declaim my proposals. But when is Tuttigym going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? Many people consider that question irrelevant on the grounds that I wish I didn't have to be the one to break the news that we need to lead each other towards the understanding that Tuttigym is guided by the ignis fatuus of Maoism. Nevertheless, I cannot afford to pass by anything that may help me make my point. So let me just state that Tuttigym plans to create a desolation and call it peace. The result will be an amalgam of deceitful heathenism and stuporous jingoism, if such a monster can be imagined.

In spite of the fact that Tuttigym doesn't realize just how tenuous his grasp of reality is, if I didn't think he would show a clear lack of respect not just for those brave souls who fought and died for what they believed in but also for you, the readers of this letter, I wouldn't say that the one thing that's central to all of his inane, prodigal undertakings is a desire to defile the present and destroy the future. I call this the New Anarchism. The old anarchism was concerned only with causing riots in the streets. Although that was bad enough, Tuttigym likes making my blood curdle. That's the most damnable thing about him. It's also why I have no sympathy for Tuttigym. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that without Tuttigym's superior guidance, we will go nowhere, then there is surely no hope for you. I would like to go on, but I do have to keep this letter short. So I'll wrap it up by saying that life is too short to have to put up with Tuttigym.

Quote: tuttigym

All of this "wisdom" and "philosophy" and "conceptual thought" from just a discussion of a sucker bet known as the PL bet with its associated FO bet. It is truly uplifting that such a simple concept which is contrary to the prevailing and sedentary vision of play could illicit the world views brought forth on this thread.

My parents would be so proud.

tuttigym

Quote: Mosca

Yes. And I'll add, here I am taking time out of my busy schedule to let you and maybe a few other people know that tuttigym should get off his high horse. His maudlin preoccupation with 1.41%, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as "unconstitutionality", would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to make it nearly impossible to disturb tuttigym's politically incorrect gravy train. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that he maintains that either "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel or that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. Tuttigym denies any other possibility. There is good reason to believe that there is still hope for our society, real hope—not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of the most disgusting slanderers I've ever seen but the hope that makes you eager to bring meaning, direction, and purpose into our lives. And there you have it. Tuttigym throws a tantrum every time he doesn't get what he wants.

Quote:

My parents would be so proud.

Quote: lajollagamer

I've cross-posted this reply into this thread from the thread "And sometimes the odds dont mean a thing" as the point is relevant.

There's something I'd like to call the Mathematician's Fallacy when it comes to casino games. It's the tendency for mathematicians to repeatedly tell people that, because of statistical laws, there is always a house edge and ergo, one shouldn't play the games.

In fact, those statistics are based on quite large sample sizes. These sample sizes that are so large, that they are applicable ONLY to the house, and NOT to the individual experience of any given gamer.

The mathematical truth is that in the short run, it is extremely unlikely for dice rolls or wheel spins to follow anything close to an even distribution. It is far more likely that trends happen in the short run. There is a theorem for this idea, and I wish I could remember the name of the person who came up with it. Someone in the 1900's who was doing work on error rates in manufacturing processes. The theorem says that when things are suppose to follow a known random distribution over the long term, in the short term certain events will occur more closely together. For an extreme but illustrative example, say a batch of light bulbs are supposed to have an average life span of 1,000 hours. I buy and install 5 light bulbs. It's really unlikely that my 5 light bulbs will burn out all at exactly 1,000 hours. What's COMPARATIVELY more likely is 1 will burn out in 5000 hours, 3 burning out within 800 - 825 hours, and 1 burning out in 1,100 hours.

In gaming, from the perspective of the casino, it's true that their results should approach the mathematician's printed odds. However, from the perspective of the individual gamer, this should never happen. There are just TOO SMALL samples. When dealing with SMALL SAMPLES, another set of thereoms kick in, which say some people WILL do better than others.

I wish mathematicians would present this individual gamers perspective more often. That is, large samples are only applicable to casino's, and not to individual players. In fact, almost half of the people playing will have a great time, because they'll come out ahead. The other half will come out behind. For those half that comes out ahead, they'll have a great time!! Which is the point of it all.

Maybe I'll be in the half that comes out ahead (someone will), and that's why I keep playing. It just depends on luck.

Quote: tuttigym

Thank you, thank you. That is a great and definitive post and one which all can learn from. WE all play in the short term. If there is a quibble, it is that I do not believe that 50% of casino players and patrons leave as winners. The rest of this post is spot on and terrific.

tuttigym

Quote: ruascott

If you are so convinced the PL + FO is a hoax,

Quote: DJTB

Not for nothing, Tutti, but that's kinda what we've been trying to say all along.

Over the long haul of 24/7/365, the casinos win.

Over the short haul of an hour or so every now and then, anything can happen.

Quote: FleaStiff

I'd prefer to fall for the hoax of 1.414 percent of PL and FO, than to fall for the hoax of a 12 percent house edge slot machine!