Thread Rating:

Gamblor
Gamblor
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
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
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
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
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
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
Joined: Feb 16, 2014
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 1226
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
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
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
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
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
Joined: Apr 7, 2013
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 676
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
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
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
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
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
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
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.

  • Jump to: