Thread Rating:

Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 4:04:07 PM permalink
I'm a firm believer in "The Zone". That it is possible to beat baccarat if you become one in said "Zone". Without going to much into the definition of "the zone", we all know the zone I'm referring to. I bring up mathematicians fallacy because they will always say you are bound to go broke at a negative EV game. It's what "the math" says. They say mathematically what goes up must come down.

Taken from a definition of gamblers fallacy from this site...

"The biggest gambling myth is that an event that has not happened recently becomes overdue and more likely to occur. This is known as the “gambler’s fallacy.” "

If we change one word,

"The biggest mathematics myth is that an event that has not happened recently becomes overdue and more likely to occur. This is known as the “mathmaticians fallacy.” (Going broke)

To say if you're up you must come down takes the previous wins into consideration. To be able to track "up" is fallacy as one has zero correlation with the next (mathematically). You would technically be at your starting point of your first bet (statistically), so you can continue the up words trend with no regard for EV, variance, or any other bull. All you need is the zone.
Mathematicians fallacy - you will eventually go broke at a negative ev game. As one event has no relation to the other no matter what you calculate. I could win every hand of baccarat for the rest of my life. Unlikely , unless I make a deal with satan. As one outcome has no effect of the other negative EV in baccarat means F A.

When you realize there is no spoon....

Apply quantum physics and "the ZONE" to baccarat and you cover math, as paper covers rock.
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
March 16th, 2014 at 4:15:25 PM permalink
Come back to me when you understand the mathematics of what you are railing against better.

It's much more definite than the 'zone', and as a clue, the 'you will go broke eventually' claim is not dependent on prior events.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
March 16th, 2014 at 4:27:56 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

"The biggest mathematics myth is that an event that has not happened recently becomes overdue and more likely to occur. This is known as the “mathmaticians fallacy.” (Going broke)



That statement is false. Absolutely no one is saying that. The problem is, you don't understand the statement that you are trying to disprove.

Suppose you have $100 and you flip coins for $1 per flip. You will eventually go broke with probability 1. That has nothing to do with anything being "overdue" or "more likely to occur". If you flip the coin twice and win 1 and lose 1, you will be back to $100. Nothing is "overdue"; nothing is "more likely to occur". You are just as likely to go broke as you were when you started. You are in exactly the same state that you were when you started.

Go read about Markov processes; come back when you understand them.
Lemieux66
Lemieux66
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 1226
Joined: Feb 16, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 4:28:21 PM permalink
As I said, other people are better than me at math but it's mathematically insignificant the chance that you will not go broke playing -EV games. So, yes there is a chance, but you probably aren't the one in a billion.
10 eyes for an eye. 10 teeth for a tooth. 10 bucks for a buck?! Hit the bad guys where it hurts the most: the face and the wallet.
thecesspit
thecesspit
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
March 16th, 2014 at 4:48:19 PM permalink
Quote: Lemieux66

As I said, other people are better than me at math but it's mathematically insignificant the chance that you will not go broke playing -EV games. So, yes there is a chance, but you probably aren't the one in a billion.



What time line? Whats your starting bankroll? If you don't say 'eventually' the time and bank roll matter for these statements. Otherwise it is a certainty if you give no end point.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 4:51:47 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

Come back to me when you understand the mathematics of what you are railing against better.

It's much more definite than the 'zone', and as a clue, the 'you will go broke eventually' claim is not dependent on prior events.




But it is dependent on future events, and future events having more losses than wins. You cannot mathematically predict future wins or losses. Mathematicians Fallacy at its finest. It's the same as gamblers fallacy but instead it's future events you think are due. Saying something is going to happen means it's eventually due.

"The biggest mathematics myth is that an event that has not happened recently becomes overdue and more likely to occur. This is known as the “mathematicians fallacy.” "
gpac1377
gpac1377
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 676
Joined: Apr 7, 2013
March 16th, 2014 at 4:56:35 PM permalink
Gamblor, have you tested your theories in casino play?
"Scientists tell us that the fastest animal on earth, with a top speed of 120 feet per second, is a cow that has been dropped out of a helicopter."
Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 5:07:47 PM permalink
Quote: thecesspit

What time line? Whats your starting bankroll? If you don't say 'eventually' the time and bank roll matter for these statements. Otherwise it is a certainty if you give no end point.




For you guys to say "with certainty" mathematically you will go broke is laughable. Others accused me of quantum woo, which I thought was hilarious and a great term to this around. But! Quantum physics tells us that a photon travels as a wave form. But when scientists tried to observe this, it collapsed the wave form and becomes a particle form. (See : The 2 slits experiment). Simply by observing the observer is able to change the physical reality of the photon. So just because you may think one thing is for certain (going broke) the observer (player) has the ability to collapse the wave form.
Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 5:12:41 PM permalink
Quote: gpac1377

Gamblor, have you tested your theories in casino play?



Yes. When I realized I had an uncanny, almost super hero ability to predict heads or tails, I transferred that to baccarat. Reading some posts on baccarat on this site led me to the conclusion of mathematicians fallacy. The thing I should make a bit more clear, I'm referring to mathematicians fallacy as it pertains to a 50 50 split like baccarat. Not slots, where there for certain you will go broke. Lol. Jk, sorta.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
March 16th, 2014 at 5:17:45 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

But it is dependent on future events, and future events having more losses than wins. You cannot mathematically predict future wins or losses. Mathematicians Fallacy at its finest. It's the same as gamblers fallacy but instead it's future events you think are due. Saying something is going to happen means it's eventually due.

"The biggest mathematics myth is that an event that has not happened recently becomes overdue and more likely to occur. This is known as the “mathematicians fallacy.” "



Imagine that someone who knew absolutely nothing about how cars worked went into a mechanic's shop and tried to tell the mechanic that he is wrong, the cars does not need oil or fluids to run, and that coolant is just a waste of money because the car would work fine no matter how hot it got.

That is basically what you are doing right now. You are taking something that you have absolutely no understanding of, and trying to tell experts how it really works. Are you really arrogant enough to think that you have just disproven the mathematics that the smartest people in the world have done for the last few centuries, despite the fact that you clearly have no education in mathematics, and don't even understand very, very basic principles? Did you even pass your high school math classes? What would possess you now think that now, all of a sudden, you understand mathematics better than world-famous mathematicians? You need to walk before you can run, and you haven't even learned how to crawl yet.
endermike
endermike
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 584
Joined: Dec 10, 2013
March 16th, 2014 at 5:20:40 PM permalink
Gamblor, would you like to prove your abilities publicly?
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
March 16th, 2014 at 5:21:42 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

You cannot mathematically predict future wins or losses.



You can't? well, darn. And here I thought that's what the study of probability was all about.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
March 16th, 2014 at 5:23:54 PM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
endermike
endermike
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 584
Joined: Dec 10, 2013
March 16th, 2014 at 5:44:58 PM permalink
[reposted due to request from Gamblor]
Quote: Gamblor

Please respond on my thread if you please



Quote: Gamblor

to think you can predict the future with math... Then why don't you calculate some big wins with said math if it has the ability to predict the future.

We do. It's called insurance, the stock market, and damn near everything useful today.

Quote: Gamblor

On a 50/50 game like baccarat

Sadly, baccarat is not quite 50/50.

Quote: Gamblor

Math cannot account for tilt, hot streaks, the zone, or anything.

Math covers streaks quite well. As to the tilt and the zone, psychology is a good reference for those.

Quote: Gamblor

Math can Not predict the future, and those who think it can are stuck in the tight grip of MATHEMATICIANS FALLACY.

Among virtually everything, Math predicts physics quite well.
endermike
endermike
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 584
Joined: Dec 10, 2013
March 16th, 2014 at 5:53:04 PM permalink
Also, quantum mechanics only apply at nano scale. This is a fundamental tenant of them. They play no useful role in brick and mortar casino gambling.
gpac1377
gpac1377
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 676
Joined: Apr 7, 2013
March 16th, 2014 at 6:00:15 PM permalink
Quote: endermike

Also, quantum mechanics only apply at nano scale. This is a fundamental tenant of them. They play no useful role in brick and mortar casino gambling.


What if it's an extremely small brick and mortar casino?
"Scientists tell us that the fastest animal on earth, with a top speed of 120 feet per second, is a cow that has been dropped out of a helicopter."
Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 6:02:11 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Imagine that someone who knew absolutely nothing about how cars worked went into a mechanic's shop and tried to tell the mechanic that he is wrong, the cars does not need oil or fluids to run, and that coolant is just a waste of money because the car would work fine no matter how hot it got.

That is basically what you are doing right now. You are taking something that you have absolutely no understanding of, and trying to tell experts how it really works. Are you really arrogant enough to think that you have just disproven the mathematics that the smartest people in the world have done for the last few centuries, despite the fact that you clearly have no education in mathematics, and don't even understand very, very basic principles? Did you even pass your high school math classes? What would possess you now think that now, all of a sudden, you understand mathematics better than world-famous mathematicians? You need to walk before you can run, and you haven't even learned how to crawl yet.




Your calculations may be correct but the reasoning is not. Just because something may be probable mathematically , does not make it reality. If you are so smart and math proves everything, how can bees fly? Math cant answer that. When I have one of 2 options to pick, there is a %50 chance I will win. Your bull math %51 / %49 is bull too. If that were the case, by the same logic as going broke, you could bet on banker Everytime and come out ahead. All your calculations and odds don't mean sugar when you're in the zone and you pick player or banker. At that moment in time math ceases to exist. There is only up and down, one or the other, 50/50, you and the creator. You guys sound like the people that told the weight brothers they would never fly. "math says we can't fly!" They said, well look at us now. Stick that in your files and calculate it
gpac1377
gpac1377
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 676
Joined: Apr 7, 2013
March 16th, 2014 at 6:04:29 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

If you are so smart and math proves everything, how can bees fly? Math cant answer that.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bumblebee_argument

(edit:)

Quote:

The "bumblebee argument", in pseudoscience, states that the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee can't fly, as it does not have the required capacity (in terms of wing area or flapping speed). Consequently, therefore, science can be shown to be in error, providing a loophole for pseudoscientific "explanations". Arguments like these are occasionally used by creationists to claim that it's impossible for bees to be a product of evolution, though they're quite common in more general anti-science circles that like to cry "look at science, it knows nothing!"

"Scientists tell us that the fastest animal on earth, with a top speed of 120 feet per second, is a cow that has been dropped out of a helicopter."
Pabo
Pabo
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 152
Joined: Apr 29, 2011
March 16th, 2014 at 6:04:36 PM permalink
I'm beginning to suspect that varmenti has returned, spewing more illogical bs. Maybe has another bet with someone that he can get another 25,000+ hits again. Much like varmenti, OP clearly has no grounding in either mathematics or science. Otherwise, he wouldn't postulate such nonsense.
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
March 16th, 2014 at 6:04:52 PM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
March 16th, 2014 at 6:05:41 PM permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
Pabo
Pabo
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 152
Joined: Apr 29, 2011
March 16th, 2014 at 6:09:20 PM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Weight brothers?



Well, for once, OP is correct. The weight brothers never did fly.
Lemieux66
Lemieux66
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 1226
Joined: Feb 16, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 6:11:59 PM permalink
Quote: Pabo

Well, for once, OP is correct. The weight brothers never did fly.



Too fat.
10 eyes for an eye. 10 teeth for a tooth. 10 bucks for a buck?! Hit the bad guys where it hurts the most: the face and the wallet.
Pabo
Pabo
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 152
Joined: Apr 29, 2011
March 16th, 2014 at 6:13:17 PM permalink
Quote: Lemieux66

Too fat.



+1. :-)
endermike
endermike
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 584
Joined: Dec 10, 2013
March 16th, 2014 at 6:15:19 PM permalink
Quote: gpac1377

What if it's an extremely small brick and mortar casino?



*chuckling*

MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
March 16th, 2014 at 6:22:09 PM permalink
Quote: endermike

Also, quantum mechanics only apply at nano scale. This is a fundamental tenant of them. They play no useful role in brick and mortar casino gambling.


Okay, I'll grant that I use the phrase all the time too, but when was the last time a casino was actually built from bricks and mortar?

(Fontainbleau going up.)
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 6:27:09 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

You can't? well, darn. And here I thought that's what the study of probability was all about.



Probability does not equal reality. That is the same basis as gamblers fallacy. Thinking something will happen because it should. Mathematicians fallacy works the same way.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
March 16th, 2014 at 6:28:05 PM permalink
Quote: gpac1377

The "bumblebee argument", in pseudoscience,



Lol. I love how they treat pseudoscience as a "field".

I have a PhD in pseudoscience, with a Masters in pseudomathematics and a minor in advanced betting systems. My name? gr8BlackjackGenious!
Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 6:30:14 PM permalink
Quote: endermike

Also, quantum mechanics only apply at nano scale. This is a fundamental tenant of them. They play no useful role in brick and mortar casino gambling.



Quantum physics tells us there are multiple universes, and dimensions. That seems a lot bigger than mere nano scale.
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
March 16th, 2014 at 6:31:51 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

Probability does not equal reality. That is the same basis as gamblers fallacy. Thinking something will happen because it should. Mathematicians fallacy works the same way.



Only, in the "mathematicians fallacy," it actually should happen. The probability of the future event is known.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 6:44:16 PM permalink
Quote: Pabo

I'm beginning to suspect that varmenti has returned, spewing more illogical bs. Maybe has another bet with someone that he can get another 25,000+ hits again. Much like varmenti, OP clearly has no grounding in either mathematics or science. Otherwise, he wouldn't postulate such nonsense.



I'm not Vermenti. I'm new to this site. I was doing some reading on baccarat and came across this site and that vermenti thread actually. I couldn't stop reading once I started. It was like reading a strange but good novel. The part when he was talkig about his 25k view bets was disgusting. I was rooting for him up until that point. But it was an utter disappointment by the end but ended ok. I choose to believe that bethoven9 guy made a new alias as novicegambler. Made it his mission to take him down and did so. That is a lot more satisfying that how it ended. But no, I'm not him.
Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 6:47:09 PM permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Yeah, the nuking is inevitable. I'm getting my radiation suit on :-)



Why would I be "nuked"? Just because I point out mathmaticans fallacy? Thinking something is going to happen cuz it should is the same as gamblers fallacy.
Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 6:48:16 PM permalink
Quote: endermike

*chuckling*




Hahaha, awesome
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
March 16th, 2014 at 6:49:24 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

Why would I be "nuked"?



Insults aren't allowed, trolling isn't allowed...
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 6:54:52 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

Only, in the "mathematicians fallacy," it actually should happen. The probability of the future event is known.




All you did was repeat mathematicians fallacy twice there. Again, probability does not equal reality. Nothing is probable when you have one of 2 options. One winner and one loser. Your math can't say a darn thing about what WILL ACTUALLY happen, therefore fallacy.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
March 16th, 2014 at 6:56:04 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

Quantum physics tells us there are multiple universes, and dimensions. That seems a lot bigger than mere nano scale.



What does any of this have to do with you losing all your money at baccarat?
Pabo
Pabo
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 152
Joined: Apr 29, 2011
March 16th, 2014 at 6:59:56 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

I'm not Vermenti. I'm new to this site. I was doing some reading on baccarat and came across this site and that vermenti thread actually. I couldn't stop reading once I started. It was like reading a strange but good novel. The part when he was talkig about his 25k view bets was disgusting. I was rooting for him up until that point. But it was an utter disappointment by the end but ended ok. I choose to believe that bethoven9 guy made a new alias as novicegambler. Made it his mission to take him down and did so. That is a lot more satisfying that how it ended. But no, I'm not him.



So, what do you think of varmenti's baccarat strategy, particularly when it comes to betting both banker and player at the same time (i.e. his so-called "backbone bet")? If your strategy differs from varmenti's, then would you please enlighten us on how you go about beating baccarat? I play baccarat and try to keep an open mind when it comes to learning new strategies to beat the game. I'd really like to read what you have to say about baccarat rather than mathematics.
Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 7:02:13 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

Insults aren't allowed, trolling isn't allowed...




If insults weren't allowed and resulted in nukes, there wouldn't be anymore of you left on this site. I'm not insulting anyone. I may have said nerd, but that's no differnt from saying I'm stupid? You are insulting yourself by defending the mathematicians fallacy. I'm certainly not trolling. You think some calculations can predict the future with certainty in baccarat 50/50. (One winner one loser, no need to complicate it with your "math".). If you have one of two options that is a %50 chance you will win.
Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 7:04:06 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

What does any of this have to do with you losing all your money at baccarat?




Because there is no spoon!!!
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
March 16th, 2014 at 7:08:53 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

If insults weren't allowed and resulted in nukes, there wouldn't be anymore of you left on this site. I'm not insulting anyone. I may have said nerd, but that's no differnt from saying I'm stupid? You are insulting yourself by defending the mathematicians fallacy. I'm certainly not trolling. You think some calculations can predict the future with certainty in baccarat 50/50. (One winner one loser, no need to complicate it with your "math".). If you have one of two options that is a %50 chance you will win.



You're saying that people are nerds. We're saying your ideas are stupid. There's a difference, and that's sort of the whole point.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
March 16th, 2014 at 7:11:18 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

If insults weren't allowed and resulted in nukes, there wouldn't be anymore of you left on this site. I'm not insulting anyone. I may have said nerd, but that's no differnt from saying I'm stupid? You are insulting yourself by defending the mathematicians fallacy. I'm certainly not trolling. You think some calculations can predict the future with certainty in baccarat 50/50. (One winner one loser, no need to complicate it with your "math".). If you have one of two options that is a %50 chance you will win.



Gamblor,

Please consider this a warning. In just 3 days, you called someone a nerd. You called a second person arrogant. Since you self-identified as a "noob" who wants to learn the site etiquette, I will tell you what the others are referring to rather than nuking you, this time. You're confusing arguing your theory with being rude to people; no one has insulted you personally, though they have argued vigorously against your theory. You're also borderline trolling this site, arguing intangibles against facts. Please confine your responses to arguing your point, not insulting those who join your discussion. Thank you.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
March 16th, 2014 at 7:13:43 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

All you did was repeat mathematicians fallacy twice there. Again, probability does not equal reality. Nothing is probable when you have one of 2 options. One winner and one loser. Your math can't say a darn thing about what WILL ACTUALLY happen, therefore fallacy.



Why fallacy? The probability isn't claiming to say anything about what actually will happen. So no false claim is being made. You're just whacking away at a straw-man that you've constructed in order to suit your ill-framed argument.

Also, how is nothing probable when you have 1 of two options? If I bet on 23 in Roulette, there are two options. 23 and not-23. But not-23 is 36 times more likely than 23. Doesn't that make not-23 more probable? Or, in Baccarat, banker wins about 1% more often than player. Doesn't that make one of those outcomes more probable than the other? Isn't that why the commission on banker is in place?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
March 16th, 2014 at 7:21:12 PM permalink
Quote: Pabo

betting both banker and player at the same time



This is brilliant. The bets where you can't win are my favorite.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
March 16th, 2014 at 7:23:59 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

Why fallacy? The probability isn't claiming to say anything about what actually will happen.



He is extremely confused by the statement that he will eventually go broke with probability 1. He doesn't understand the difference predicting that something will eventually happen, given enough time, and predicting that something will happen at a specific time.
Pabo
Pabo
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 152
Joined: Apr 29, 2011
March 16th, 2014 at 7:32:03 PM permalink
Gamblor, is this your website? http://www.sunshine-pub.com/math.html Are you Benjamin?
Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 7:32:58 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

You're saying that people are nerds. We're saying your ideas are stupid. There's a difference, and that's sort of the whole point.



The guy writes 2 paragraphs about how stupid I am and I said nerd. Give me a break. If I get nuked its because mathmaticans fallacy is so real and prevelent you can't handle the truth and ban me.
Mosca
Mosca
  • Threads: 191
  • Posts: 4140
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
March 16th, 2014 at 7:35:11 PM permalink
These aren't even fun any more. It's easier to say "Yeah, you're right, thanks for thinking of that," and move on, ignore it, like if someone is trying to talk to you about Jesus on a cross country bus ride. There's no point.
A falling knife has no handle.
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
March 16th, 2014 at 7:35:57 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

The guy writes 2 paragraphs about how stupid I am and I said nerd. Give me a break. If I get nuked its because mathmaticans fallacy is so real and prevelent you can't handle the truth and ban me.



No, "the guy" gave you a strong argument against your theory. YOU chose to be insulted personally. I read it most carefully. AoC is harsh in his arguments, but he did not demean or insult YOU in doing so. You need to learn the difference or yes, you will be nuked, and no, it won't be because we can't stand the heat of your righteous insights.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 7:38:07 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

Why fallacy? The probability isn't claiming to say anything about what actually will happen. So no false claim is being made. You're just whacking away at a straw-man that you've constructed in order to suit your ill-framed ...




For once my friend, we agree. The probability isn't claiming to say what will actually happen. So when you say you will go broke at baccarat %100, that is mathematicians fallacy.
Gamblor
Gamblor
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
March 16th, 2014 at 7:39:26 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

No, "the guy" gave you a strong argument against your theory. YOU chose to be insulted personally. I read it most carefully. AoC is harsh in his arguments, but he did not demean or insult YOU in doing so. You need to learn the difference or yes, you will be nuked, and no, it won't be because we can't stand the heat of your righteous insights.



Lol, ok, I will try to remain professional at all times. Thanks for the heads up.
  • Jump to: