Mathematicians Fallacy (Baccarat)
Quote: GamblorLol, ok, I will try to remain professional at all times. Thanks for the heads up.
Thanks for the good grace shown in your answer. This is a provocative crowd, careful you don't get snared in a war of words. Enjoy!
Quote: MoscaThese 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.
You are claiming to know the future when you say %100 certainty you will go broke in baccarat. I'm saying that's a false claim and mathematicians fallacy. I'm not trying to reinvent bread.
Quote: GamblorFor 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.
Ah, yes. When you choose to ignore the parts of posts that clearly and specifically disprove your hypothesis, it does appear that we agree. Hey, didn't you just complain about when others did that to you?
So how about it. Banker wins 45.8% of the time. Player wins 44.6% of the time. Is that the same thing as a 50/50 chance? In roulette, 23 wins 1/37th of the time. not-23 wins 36/37ths of the time. Are those things equally likely to occur?
Quote: endermikeGamblor, allow me to pose a question. Would you be willing to attempt to prove your assertion that you can play baccarat over a long period of time and remain profitable at the end?
Are you willing to define what "long period of time" is, in terms of hands played, hey hey?
Quote: endermikeGamblor, allow me to pose a question. Would you be willing to attempt to prove your assertion that you can play baccarat over a long period of time and remain profitable at the end?
I have been doing so thus far. And plan to continue to prove my theory. If I never play again, I will have beaten baccarat, no? So the probability of going broke being 1 as you say, it's now ZERO. In an infinite sea of possibilities nothing is guaranteed , especially going broke. I'm not saying I'm the best player ever who will never lose, I'm saying you can't claim I will go broke with %100 certainty.
Let me respond with a question to you, have you ever had a dream about someone, or talk about someone you haven't seen in forever, and see them the next day? Ever think about someone and they phone you? Deja vu? These principals can apply to baccarat. I know for a fact there is more to reality than what we can see. Even your precious math proves that. More dimensions than we experience. Up to 8 now I believe. What could be going on in those upper dimensions? Who knows. There is more than the he can see, more than the mind can calculate. And if you are able to connect or tap into this , that is the ZONE.
You may not believe in the zone, and or think I'm nuts, but I think you're just as nuts thinking you know the future. I could shart at the table after a big win and change the course of events that were to take place by 10 seconds. In that 10 seconds I could here someone yell player. Change my bet from banker to player, and that changes the timeline I was on. Now maybe I'm on a negative 10k timeline that is due for a big run. In this world, you can't say anything is certain. And to think a future is certain is what I call Mathematicians fallacy.
Quote: GamblorYou are claiming to know the future when you say %100 certainty you will go broke in baccarat. I'm saying that's a false claim and mathematicians fallacy. I'm not trying to reinvent bread.
Using markov chains you can calculate the probability of going broke after n hands given a starting bankroll of m. Since assuming we bet banker we know P(m+.95)=.51 and P(m-1)=.49, these are rough numbers, given we start our bet with m units. This is a mathematical fact. When you allow n to approach infinity you get that the probability approaches 1. Now for any finite number of hands you could be ahead or behind but given an infinite number of hands your chance of going broke is 100%.
Now what exactly about what I said above is wrong you have to point out a specific flaw to say why you won't go broke in the long run.
Quote: rdw4potusAh, yes. When you choose to ignore the parts of posts that clearly and specifically disprove your hypothesis, it does appear that we agree. Hey, didn't you just complain about when others did that to you?
So how about it. Banker wins 45.8% of the time. Player wins 44.6% of the time. Is that the same thing as a 50/50 chance? In roulette, 23 wins 1/37th of the time. not-23 wins 36/37ths of the time. Are those things equally likely to occur?
I play poker and baccarat, not roulette. Not interested in those numbers. What I am interested in in a bet on player or banker. And yes, it's a 50/50 chance I'm right. I don't bet ties. So right off the hop we are going different directions. You see 44,45%... I see 50/50. I have a one in two chance of being right... 1/2=? If it's a tie it's a push and you don't lose money. So essentially, tie has no meaning. Unless it's been like 20 hands with no tie, then ones due for sure ;). I'm not saying I don't suffer from what we call gamblers fallacy, but at least I can admit it. You can't face MAtHmATICIANS Fallacy.
Quote: GamblorI have been doing so thus far. And plan to continue to prove my theory. If I never play again, I will have beaten baccarat, no? So the probability of going broke being 1 as you say, it's now ZERO. In an infinite sea of possibilities nothing is guaranteed , especially going broke. I'm not saying I'm the best player ever who will never lose, I'm saying you can't claim I will go broke with %100 certainty.
Let me respond with a question to you, have you ever had a dream about someone, or talk about someone you haven't seen in forever, and see them the next day? Ever think about someone and they phone you? Deja vu? These principals can apply to baccarat. I know for a fact there is more to reality than what we can see. Even your precious math proves that. More dimensions than we experience. Up to 8 now I believe. What could be going on in those upper dimensions? Who knows. There is more than the he can see, more than the mind can calculate. And if you are able to connect or tap into this , that is the ZONE.
You may not believe in the zone, and or think I'm nuts, but I think you're just as nuts thinking you know the future. I could shart at the table after a big win and change the course of events that were to take place by 10 seconds. In that 10 seconds I could here someone yell player. Change my bet from banker to player, and that changes the timeline I was on. Now maybe I'm on a negative 10k timeline that is due for a big run. In this world, you can't say anything is certain. And to think a future is certain is what I call Mathematicians fallacy.
Fine fine. Here is a fun game. Bet 1% of your bankroll on a coin flip for say a million flips. Let me know how that turns out. Each flip bet changes with your new bankroll.
Quote: GamblorI play poker and baccarat, not roulette. Not interested in those numbers. What I am interested in in a bet on player or banker. And yes, it's a 50/50 chance I'm right. I don't bet ties. So right off the hop we are going different directions. You see 44,45%... I see 50/50. I have a one in two chance of being right... 1/2=? If it's a tie it's a push and you don't lose money. So essentially, tie has no meaning. Unless it's been like 20 hands with no tie, then ones due for sure ;). I'm not saying I don't suffer from what we call gamblers fallacy, but at least I can admit it. You can't face MAtHmATICIANS Fallacy.
Again its not 50/50 it is roughly 50.6/49.4. That is a different number and it is the number you need to use when analysing the game. Also banker doesn't pay even money it pays .95 something you have to account for.
Quote: GamblorI play poker and baccarat, not roulette. Not interested in those numbers. What I am interested in in a bet on player or banker. And yes, it's a 50/50 chance I'm right.
NO. Even discounting ties, those outcomes are NOT equally likely. 44.6 is not the same thing as 45.8. This is pretty easy. 44.6+45.8=90.4. So, forgetting about ties, player wins 44.6/90.4=49.33% of the time. Banker wins 45.8/90.4=50.66% of the time. 50.66% and 49.33% are NOT the same thing, and they're certainly not both equal to 50. This is why there's a commission on banker wins. Why would there be a commission if banker wasn't more likely to win?
Quote: TwirdmanUsing markov chains you can calculate the probability of going broke after n hands given a starting bankroll of m. Since assuming we bet banker we know P(m+.95)=.51 and P(m-1)=.49, these are rough numbers, given we start our bet with m units. This is a mathematical fact. When you allow n to approach infinity you get that the probability approaches 1. Now for any finite number of hands you could be ahead or behind but given an infinite number of hands your chance of going broke is 100%.
Now what exactly about what I said above is wrong you have to point out a specific flaw to say why you won't go broke in the long run.
Because no one can play an infinite number of hands. " given a finite number I hands you could be ahead or behind." There we have it. Since a players hands are obviously finite, you will be ahead or behind. Not %100 certain broke. Therefore any claim that you will go broke %100 at baccarat is false. Mathematicians Fallacy
Quote: GamblorYou are claiming to know the future when you say %100 certainty you will go broke in baccarat. I'm saying that's a false claim and mathematicians fallacy. I'm not trying to reinvent bread.
No, I'm claiming that your argument doesn't make any sense and it is pointless to discuss it. I don't care what you think, if you want to believe you're right, then do so. I have no interest in changing your mind, go ahead and be wrong all you want.
Quote: soxfanAre you willing to define what "long period of time" is, in terms of hands played, hey hey?
Yes.
Depending on the claim, enough hands to establish likelihood with statistical significance. (Loosely, long period should mean 1% to 5% SS)
Quote: rdw4potusNO. Even discounting ties, those outcomes are NOT equally likely. 44.6 is not the same thing as 45.8. This is pretty easy. 44.6+45.8=90.4. So, forgetting about ties, player wins 44.6/90.4=49.33% of the time. Banker wins 45.8/90.4=50.66% of the time. 50.66% and 49.33% are NOT the same thing, and they're certainly not both equal to 50. This is why there's a commission on banker wins. Why would there be a commission if banker wasn't more likely to win?
You take that math and go bet banker 1 million times and make yourself a few bucks then. I don't know how I can make it any clearer. Maybe the word 50/50 is confusing. When there are 2 choices, you have a %50 chance you will be right. Not 51/49.8939-3. One of two is %50.
Quote: GamblorBecause no one can play an infinite number of hands. " given a finite number I hands you could be ahead or behind." There we have it. Since a players hands are obviously finite, you will be ahead or behind. Not %100 certain broke. Therefore any claim that you will go broke %100 at baccarat is false. Mathematicians Fallacy
Strawman. I figure you already did go broke playing, so it was clever to branch off into selling systems. How many people pay you $6500 for your lessons?
We are better off saying, wow you're right, and then just taking pleasure in knowing he's gonna go broke.
Quote: MoscaNo, I'm claiming that your argument doesn't make any sense and it is pointless to discuss it. I don't care what you think, if you want to believe you're right, then do so. I have no interest in changing your mind, go ahead and be wrong all you want.
My argument makes perfect sense. Mathmaticians fallacy is the belief that events that are "probable" to occur, will.
Quote: GamblorBecause no one can play an infinite number of hands. " given a finite number I hands you could be ahead or behind."
Yes. However, the expectation is that one will be behind since the game offered by the casino is one where they have an advantage. While ideas such as betting system can change the distribution of results, they are incapable of changing the overall edge present in baccarat.
If you can read the ripples in the multiverse, best of luck to you (but I doubt you would need it). However, using history as a guide I would gladly take that action if I were a casino.
Quote: GamblorYou take that math and go bet banker 1 million times and make yourself a few bucks then. I don't know how I can make it any clearer. Maybe the word 50/50 is confusing. When there are 2 choices, you have a %50 chance you will be right. Not 51/49.8939-3. One of two is %50.
What does 50/50 have to do with baccarat? There's no 50/50 bets in baccarat
Quote: michael99000Yet another guy whose made 2 or 3 trips to the casino, got lucky and wound up ahead, and thinks he's figured something out LOL
We are better off saying, wow you're right, and then just taking pleasure in knowing he's gonna go broke.
I'm not trying to be right about my playing in the ZONE. Thinking you know the future is a clear example of someone who suffers from Mathmaticians Fallacy.
Quote: GamblorWhen there are 2 choices, you have a %50 chance you will be right. Not 51/49.8939-3. One of two is %50.
Let's test your terrible theory. I have a mega millions ticket for Tuesday's drawing. There are two possible outcomes, either I'll win or I won't. I say the odds of me winning are 200,000,000:1. Do you actually think I have a 50/50 chance of success?
Quote: michael99000What does 50/50 have to do with baccarat? There's no 50/50 bets in baccarat
Spoken like a man who can't see past his boxed in world of Mathmaticians fallacy. If you pick one of 2 choices you have a %50 chance to be right. You want to dilute it with bogus math. One of Two =%50
Quote: soxfanAre you willing to define what "long period of time" is, in terms of hands played, hey hey?
I think I already covered that.
How sure do you want to be of going broke?
If you want to be 100% sure of going broke, you need to be willing to play indefinitely. If you want only a 99.99999% chance of going broke, it's in a finite amount of time. If you want a 75% chance of going broke it's in a lot shorter finite amount of time.
So, basically, to be more sure of going broke, you need to be willing to play for longer.
If you tell us your betting system, your bankroll, and how sure you want to be of going broke, we can tell you how long you how long is long enough.
Quote: GamblorSpoken like a man who can't see past his boxed in world of Mathmaticians fallacy. If you pick one of 2 choices you have a %50 chance to be right. You want to dilute it with bogus math. One of Two =%50
So, if you jump in front of a train, you have a 50% chance of surviving?
You should test this theory.
Quote: rdw4potusLet's test your terrible theory. I have a mega millions ticket for Tuesday's drawing. There are two possible outcomes, either I'll win or I won't. I say the odds of me winning are 200,000,000:1. Do you actually think I have a 50/50 chance of success?
You can't be serious. Do you actually think those examples are comparable? You are grasping at straws now. There multiple outcomes of lottery to say the least. If you had to pick between banker or player for the lottery, then yeah it would be the same. This examples just shows me the depth of the Mathematicians fallacy. You try to compare baccarat to lottery, and imply I'm uneducated.
comes along. He offers blanket statements
with no proof or logic, and when challenged,
offers more blanket statements to back them
up. He's doing this to get a rise out of you,
and look how well it's working. He has nothing
and knows nothing. If he did he would have
posted it by now. Vamenti must be running an
online school for these guys..
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceSo, if you jump in front of a train, you have a 50% chance of surviving?
You should test this theory.
How fast is the train going and am I wearing a jacket?
Quote: GamblorYou can't be serious. Do you actually think those examples are comparable? You are grasping at straws now. There multiple outcomes of lottery to say the least. If you had to pick between banker or player for the lottery, then yeah it would be the same. This examples just shows me the depth of the Mathematicians fallacy. You try to compare baccarat to lottery, and imply I'm uneducated.
OK, let's try another avenue. When banker wins, you pay a 5% commission. Why would that be if it wasn't more likely to happen than a player win is? And, if they were both equally likely to win (they aren't...), why would anyone ever bet banker if it pays less than player when it wins?
Quote: GamblorMy argument makes perfect sense. Mathmaticians fallacy is the belief that events that are "probable" to occur, will.
You know what, I just realized you're right. These idiotic casinos are getting crushed by people in the zone night after night, and they know it.
Quote: GamblorHow fast is the train going and am I wearing a jacket?
Fast enough to kill you with 99.999% probability.
Quote: IbeatyouracesSo THIS is why Caesars is in all that debt.
Damn! And here I thought it was the 6 card bonus on 3CP that had done them in.
Quote: GamblorYou can't be serious. Do you actually think those examples are comparable? You are grasping at straws now. There multiple outcomes of lottery to say the least. If you had to pick between banker or player for the lottery, then yeah it would be the same. This examples just shows me the depth of the Mathematicians fallacy. You try to compare baccarat to lottery, and imply I'm uneducated.
OK lets go with a gambling example with two distinct outcomes. The Harlem Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals. Would you be willing to bet even money on the Generals winning I mean according to you there are 2 choices and 2 outcomes so they must be 50/50 right. I mean screw everything saying Globetrotters are far more likely to win there are only 2 outcomes so they have to be 50/50 right.
Quote: EvenBobIf Gamblor isn't trolling, it'll do till real trolling
comes along. He offers blanket statements
with no proof or logic, and when challenged,
offers more blanket statements to back them
up. He's doing this to get a rise out of you,
and look how well it's working. He has nothing
and knows nothing. If he did he would have
posted it by now. Vamenti must be running an
online school for these guys..
Give him some credit. At least he doesn't claim that he can beat roulette.
Quote: EvenBobIf Gamblor isn't trolling, it'll do till real trolling
comes along. He offers blanket statements
with no proof or logic, and when challenged,
offers more blanket statements to back them
up. He's doing this to get a rise out of you,
and look how well it's working. He has nothing
and knows nothing. If he did he would have
posted it by now. Vamenti must be running an
online school for these guys..
You guys think I'm saying I have a system to beat baccarat? I'm not saying that. I have my methods as we all do. This thread was to address Mathematicians fallacy, in the gripe section. From seeing you guys all gang up on people saying they are certain to go broke. You are not certain to go broke. Anything is possible and exists at once. I'm not trying to troll or piss anyone off, it's just crystal clear there is "Mathematicians Fallacy. Saying if you play long enough you go broke implies something is due. "The biggest mathematics myth is that an event that has not happened becomes overdue and more likely to occur. This is known as the “mathmaticians fallacy.” (Going broke)
Quote: IbeatyouracesSo THIS is why Caesars is in all that debt.
No, Ceasars has attributed their increased debt to people sitting at 3rd base not taking the dealers bust card as often
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceFast enough to kill you with 99.999% probability.
Am I wearing a jacket?
Quote: michael99000You know what, I just realized you're right. These idiotic casinos are getting crushed by people in the zone night after night, and they know it.
I'm only talking baccarat and the certainty of going broke in what I call Mathematicians Fallacy.
Or state your disagreement with it?
Quote: TwirdmanOK lets go with a gambling example with two distinct outcomes. The Harlem Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals. Would you be willing to bet even money on the Generals winning I mean according to you there are 2 choices and 2 outcomes so they must be 50/50 right. I mean screw everything saying Globetrotters are far more likely to win there are only 2 outcomes so they have to be 50/50 right.
Not the same. That would be the same if the cards could battle it out and the strongest survive. Or if the player side had all the 9's. That is not a proper example. Why do you have to use metaphors? It's banker or player. One or the other. Based on rAndom draws.
Quote: GamblorYou are not certain to go broke.
You are certain to go broke if you play long enough. The 2nd part is the important part. It does not imply that anything is due, that is why you have to keep playing (if it was due, you could be guaranteed with some deadline. But it is not due -- it can take any amount of time)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh2E0z42RGA
Quote: GamblorWhy do you have to use metaphors?
Because you're wrong, and you don't see it. We're all trying to find a way to get you to realize that your argument is flawed.
Quote: rdw4potusBecause you're wrong, and you don't see it. We're all trying to find a way to get you to realize that your argument is flawed.
Your argument is flawed based on false beliefs of knowledge of the future
Quote: BuzzardHere is a tutorial that will explain everything :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh2E0z42RGA
Hahah, very nice.
Quote: GamblorYour argument is flawed based on false beliefs of knowledge of the future
Who is claiming to know the future? You are claiming that I am claiming that, but I'm not. Nobody is.
Also, can't help but notice that you skipped over my last post about the bacc bets. If banker and player are equally likely, why is there a 5% commission on banker? If they're equally likely and there's a 5% commission on banker, who would ever play that bet? Isn't the commission a very strong indication that banker is more likely than player?
