Thread Rating:

AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
March 17th, 2014 at 4:29:43 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

Thank you for the congrats.
So I'm right but I'm wrong? I've been saying the same thing the whole time. You tell me the longer I play the slimmer my odds to eventual zero. Now it's still 50/50 36 hands in? Get your story straight.



No, that is not what "you will eventually go broke" means. Your odds of winning are always 50% (in coin flips). But eventually you will hit a very long string of losses and it will wipe you out. This doesn't change the fact that each coin flip is 50% -- this is why you can't predict when it will happen, and why you have to be willing to play for "long enough".

It is perfectly possible that with a large enough bankroll, a small enough bet, and a short enough lifetime, that you won't go broke in your lifetime. You might even be ahead when you die. But that is only because you didn't play for long enough before you died.

If you are playing a game where you don't get paid enough given your probability of winning (eg, baccarat) then this is likely to happen a lot sooner, since your bankroll is always lower than it would be if you were getting paid fairly.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 151
  • Posts: 20040
March 17th, 2014 at 5:12:44 PM permalink
Edit.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
Gamblor
Gamblor
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
March 17th, 2014 at 5:37:29 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

No, that is not what "you will eventually go broke" means. Your odds of winning are always 50% (in coin flips). But eventually you will hit a very long string of losses and it will wipe you out. This doesn't change the fact that each coin flip is 50% -- this is why you can't predict when it will happen, and why you have to be willing to play for "long enough".



Mathematicians Fallacy. I'm just as likely hit a very long streak of wins.
Mathematicians Fallacy - length o time. "Playing for log enough"
A long time to you may be completely different than a long time to me. So while you think you are playing in the long term, you are really playing short term. Time is subjective. Time isn't even a constant. Time is related to your speed in space.
Time doesn't even really exist. The only thing that exists is now. 50/50
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
March 17th, 2014 at 6:02:24 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

Mathematicians Fallacy.



No fallacy

Quote:

I'm just as likely hit a very long streak of wins.



Of course you are. But the system is memoryless. Hitting a long string of wins is just the same as having started with a larger bankroll. Even if you hit a long string of wins, you will eventually also hit a long string of losses. It can take you a very, very long time to bust out.

Essentially, your probability of eventually busting out is an infinite sum that converges to 1. Your probability of not busting out over n bets is a limit that converges to 0 as n goes to infinity. But it only converges at infinity. Over any finite-length sequence of bets, there is some non-zero probability that you will not bust out. Since your life is finite, it's possible that you won't bust out within your lifetime. But, again, that is not because you would not have busted out if you kept playing for longer -- it's just that you didn't live long enough to bust out.

Infinity is strange that way. It does not conform to peoples' intuition.

Quote:

Mathematicians Fallacy - length o time. "Playing for log enough"
A long time to you may be completely different than a long time to me. So while you think you are playing in the long term, you are really playing short term. Time is subjective. Time isn't even a constant. Time is related to your speed in space.
Time doesn't even really exist. The only thing that exists is now. 50/50



I didn't say a long time. I said "long enough". You have to be willing to pay forever to be guaranteed of gong broke. If you start with 100 bets and play a billion hands, there is a tiny chance that you will not go broke.

The problem is that once you go broke you can't play any more. If you kept playing you would eventually win the money back, but you don't get to do that since you can't bet any more once your bankroll is 0.

Also, you have to understand that baccarat is not a 50/50 game. If it was, the casinos would not make any money. Surely you understand that they make money from the game -- otherwise they would not be able to pay for all the nice stuff that's in casinos. They can pay for the nice big room, and pay everyone's salaries, and pay for all your comps, and still have lots of money left over to show huge profits.
paigow1986
paigow1986
Joined: Sep 24, 2013
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 83
March 17th, 2014 at 6:14:00 PM permalink
gamblor: while I do not agree with everything you're saying, I absolutely see where you're coming from. im only commenting on this board because it irritates me to see the people on this forum berate anyone who has something to say contrary to what they believe. if it wasn't for people like me and gamblor, what would come of this website? it would be dull, boring, and you guys would have no one to insult and be condescending towards.

if you want, go and read my thread started under the "gambling" section called "BIG QUESTION REGARDING INCREASING ODDS/NEED MATHEMATICIANS". I basically asked them all if my EV would increase in the slightest bit if I was able to play more than 1 hand of pai gow/uth (bonus' only). example: rather than playing 1 hand at $30, I want to play 6 hands at $5.. I was expecting to get some educated answers, and was hoping to see mike "the wizard" give his input, but all I got were these unemployed "mathematicians" spewing trash. they are all telling me that it does not change your EV or your chances of making more money in the long run, and EVERYTHING stays the same. I started with $50 2 years ago, and im up more than $10,000 after playing more than 100,000 hands, im not saying I have an edge, im saying my odds of winning of winning money/EV goes up A FRACTION OF A PERCENT, and all the sheep would gather together and let me know how much of an idiot I was for thinking such a thing. and that the reason the casino doesn't let you play more than one hand is ONLY because you can use "information from other hands", an utter joke.

what im trying to tell you is, take everything they say with a grain of salt. they believe the world they live in is not flawed, that the big bang theory is not a theory, but surely a fact. that we evolved from a common ape, no questions asked. that there are no such thing as a paradox, because according to them, they have math degrees, and spend most of their lives on this website, so automatically they are better/smarter/above you.

btw guys, just for gigs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%27s_paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox

but what do those guys know? you guys are WAY smarter!
Gamblor
Gamblor
Joined: Mar 13, 2014
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 93
March 17th, 2014 at 6:17:04 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

No fallacy



Of course you are. But the system is memoryless. Hitting a long string of wins is just the same as having started with a larger bankroll. Even if you hit a long string of wins, you will eventually also hit a long string of losses. It can take you a very, very long time to bust...
Infinity is strange that way



Thank you again for confirming mathematicians fallacy.
To say in one breath "they system is memoryless" and "eventually" in the next is absurd!
If the system is memoryless eventually doesn't exist.
Mathematicians fallacy.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
March 17th, 2014 at 6:18:35 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

To say in one breath "they system is memoryless" and "eventually" in the next is absurd!



It really isn't.

Quote:

If the system is memoryless eventually doesn't exist.



Of course it does! It doesn't matter what happened in the past, that is the point.

Again, you cannot predict how long it will take. If it were not memoryless, then you could.
gpac1377
gpac1377
Joined: Apr 7, 2013
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 676
March 17th, 2014 at 6:29:16 PM permalink
Quote: paigow1986

that we evolved from a common ape, no questions asked.


I know, right?

Please tell us a little about your theory of 9/11.
"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 17th, 2014 at 6:36:13 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

It really isn't.



Of course it does! It doesn't matter what happened in the past, that is the point.

Again, you cannot predict how long it will take. If it were not memoryless, then you could.



If it's memoryless the past doesn't exist. If it's memoryless the future doesn't exist. If it's memoryless, the only hand is the hand you're on.
Mathematicians fallacy.
You can't go into the future if there is no memory. Every hand is hand number one, blank slate, no memory. Your math may be top, but your use of language that contradicts itself is sub par.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
March 17th, 2014 at 6:37:01 PM permalink
Quote: Gamblor

If it's memoryless the past doesn't exist. If it's memoryless the future doesn't exist. If it's memoryless, the only hand is the hand you're on.
Mathematicians fallacy.
You can't go into the future if there is no memory. Every hand is hand number one, blank slate, no memory. Your math may be top, but your use of language that contradicts itself is sub par.



You have no idea what "memoryless" means.

  • Jump to: