Thread Rating:

gpac1377
gpac1377
Joined: Apr 7, 2013
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 676
March 19th, 2014 at 10:19:05 AM permalink
Quote: tilt247

it's not 50/50!!!


I'll try to fill in for Gamblor, since he's indisposed :(

Quote: gpac1377's explanation of Gamblor's "50/50" theorem

If the odds are approximately 50/50, then the odds are EXACTLY 50/50.

But if you choose a more extreme example, such as a 75/25 situation, then you're just being ridiculous. Try to be serious. This is a serious thread.


:)

EDIT: I misspelled "theorem" ... that's embarrassing.
"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."
Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
March 19th, 2014 at 10:29:09 AM permalink
"I see it all perfectly.
There are two choices; to do it or to not do it.
My honest opinion and friendly advice is this;
Do it or do not do it. You will regret both"

-Kierkegaard
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 19th, 2014 at 10:38:53 AM permalink
Quote: Twirdman

This has been explained to you many times. Your probability of winning is not the same as your expected value. If you want to maximize probability of winning play as many hands as you can. Buy every lottery ticket combination and you are guaranteed to win the lotto. No one cares about that though because maximizing probability of win is not nearly as important as maximizing the expected value.


It's not a hard concept, the idea that probability and expectation are distinct. There can't be a clearer explanation than this:
a) If I make a single inside number bet in roulette, I have a 2.63% probability of hitting my number and an expectation of -5.26% on my wagers.
b) If I make all 38 inside number bets in roulette, I have a 100% probability of hitting my number and an expectation of -5.26% on my wagers.
Maximizing your chance of having a winning outcome, in a negative-expectation game, also maximizes your chance of losing money. If I bet $1 on all 38 numbers in roulette, there is a 100% chance one of them will hit but also a 100% chance that I will lose $2. -$2/$38 = -5.26%.

But this has been said before -- as you say, many times, probably several by me. At what point does hearing the same thing over and over again, and vociferously denying it, cross the line between willful ignorance and trolling? Someone else mentioned that simple mathematics isn't really a debatable topic with nuance and multiple tenable positions where reasonably people may reasonably disagree: it's not like politics or software architecture or fashion design or literary criticism. In mathematics like this, there actually is a right answer. I won't often be baited by such sparkling depth of wit as "lolz. you're too cute" but others on this forum will. This is really a question for the moderators: how much nonsense will you abide? Is it, like pornography, that you'll know it when you see it? The OP's titular "mathematician's fallacy" was a ludicrous position that no actual mathematician would ever adopt. Yet he (or she) knew full well that making the attribution would raise the hackles of many of the more well-studied forum members. I'm not suggesting that the administration necessarily need have an immediate answer, but I do recommend considering it.
"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
24Bingo
24Bingo
Joined: Jul 4, 2012
  • Threads: 23
  • Posts: 1348
March 19th, 2014 at 10:40:33 AM permalink
Quote: gpac1377

He got one reply of agreement, and then no one else commented on it.

Here on this site, misinformation is reliably challenged.



Are you sure that's the same guy? Because honestly, that definition of the "Mathematician's Fallacy" seems almost sensible - certainly more sensible than the drivel he was posting here.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
March 19th, 2014 at 10:45:41 AM permalink
Quote: 24Bingo

Are you sure that's the same guy? Because honestly, that definition of the "Mathematician's Fallacy" seems almost sensible - certainly more sensible than the drivel he was posting here.


If you're referring to the idea that expectation = certainty, that's something that might be mistakenly believed by someone who is beginning to learn about probability and statistics, not by someone who actually understands it. No mathematician believes that expectation = certainty. That's like saying the "Physicist's Fallacy" is that physics proves bumblebees can't fly. No physicist actually believes that. Only people who fall for pseudoscience believe that.
"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
gpac1377
gpac1377
Joined: Apr 7, 2013
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 676
March 19th, 2014 at 10:50:31 AM permalink
Quote: 24Bingo

Are you sure that's the same guy?


No, scepticus and Gamblor may be two different people. I don't have a strong opinion. In fact, Gamblor specifically said he doesn't play roulette.
"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."
Lemieux66
Lemieux66
Joined: Feb 16, 2014
  • Threads: 24
  • Posts: 1226
March 19th, 2014 at 11:08:08 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

If you're referring to the idea that expectation = certainty, that's something that might be mistakenly believed by someone who is beginning to learn about probability and statistics, not by someone who actually understands it. No mathematician believes that expectation = certainty. That's like saying the "Physicist's Fallacy" is that physics proves bumblebees can't fly. No physicist actually believes that. Only people who fall for pseudoscience believe that.



If something like this is probable, then just in your mind believe it's a certainty. It's not correct but it'll save your ass in the long run.
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.
Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
March 19th, 2014 at 11:21:30 AM permalink
Let me preface my response by saying I have not been a part of any group discussion with the mods about "troll threads", and am speaking only for myself.

Quote: MathExtremist


But this has been said before -- as you say, many times, probably several by me. At what point does hearing the same thing over and over again, and vociferously denying it, cross the line between willful ignorance and trolling?



For me, it depends. I recall many mrjjj threads that I'd nuke immediately now. Repetitive and lacking substance, they had no value. On the other hand, there was a certain thread with RobSinger that you were very active in. You and he went back and forth over secret programming and German equipment and every other thing imaginable. This was also repetition of false information, but I learned a TON of stuff about slots, about randomness, about a lot of things.

I don't want to be so hasty in banning perceived nonsense that I risk a valuable opportunity to learn. So I guess it's safe to say I have a "wait and see" attitude. See next...

Quote: MathExtremist

I won't often be baited by such sparkling depth of wit as "lolz. you're too cute" but others on this forum will. This is really a question for the moderators: how much nonsense will you abide? Is it, like pornography, that you'll know it when you see it? The OP's titular "mathematician's fallacy" was a ludicrous position that no actual mathematician would ever adopt. Yet he (or she) knew full well that making the attribution would raise the hackles of many of the more well-studied forum members. I'm not suggesting that the administration necessarily need have an immediate answer, but I do recommend considering it.



Wiz oftens talks about a poster's history when making decisions, and I did the same thing here. Certainly, the cute comment was snide and done to elicit a response. However, based on your posting history, I know you as someone who wouldn't be shaken by such a feeble attempt and one who would have a valuable reply. Is that fair? Probably not. But there is some risk of creating a problem had I banned paigow1986 (riling people over an assumed overreaction), versus knowing you are more than capable of defending yourself had I done nothing. Risk vs no risk, it seemed an easy choice. Maybe not fair, but it seemed right. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. I am open to criticism.

Certainly, the title and contents of this thread were offered in much the same way. Someone wanted to stir the pot. But I chose to wait and see. If the biggest violation found was the posting of nonsense, I'll likely wait and see if it results in wise reposes that add value, and address the issue of nothing but nonsense if it comes to that. It's the best way I know of to handle things. Again, I am open the critique of this decision.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
Buzzard
Buzzard
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 6814
March 19th, 2014 at 11:25:25 AM permalink
" Again, I am open the critique of this decision. "

Can you close this thread ? PLEASE !
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
tilt247
tilt247
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 37
March 19th, 2014 at 12:01:24 PM permalink
Quote: gpac1377

I'll try to fill in for Gamblor, since he's indisposed :(


:)

EDIT: I misspelled "theorem" ... that's embarrassing.



Fantastic, thanks!!! lol
Wait, it's a long term advantage?

  • Jump to: