Mathematicians Fallacy (Baccarat)
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI am currently going for the record for most video poker played without a royal flush. I have no idea what the record is, nor do I know exactly how many hands I've played, but I know that I passed 40,000 hands a long time ago.
I'm right there with you. Never had a natural royal. Though, 90% of what I play is DW so that's not helping me.
Quote: rdw4potusI'm right there with you. Never had a natural royal. Though, 90% of what I play is DW so that's not helping me.
I have had one in my life. It was dealt and it was a couple of years ago. I'm 0-for-a-lot on royal draws.
Quote: GamblorI'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.
Apply quantum physics and "the ZONE" to baccarat and you cover math, as paper covers rock.
Gamblor, I want to get in "the Zone" .....
How do I do it.
Does it involve me becoming a subatomic particle or is there an easier way!!
First off, you unlock a door with the key of imagination. Beyond it, there's a door to another dimension. The dimension of sight, sound, and mind. You move into a land of shadow, substance, things AND ideas. You've just crossed into THE ZONE!
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceOhhhh, I see. The problem is that you don't understand conditional probability.
Anyway, the math says no such thing. The math says that he is 50/50 to get the next coin flip right. You are misstating the math, and then (surprisingly, correctly) saying that your misstatement is wrong.
Clearly, you know nothing about math. You should stop saying "the math say this" or "the math says that". You have no clue what the math says.
You just confirmed my whole point. Thank you. Mathematicians Fallacy.
Quote: GamblorYou just confirmed my whole point. Thank you. Mathematicians Fallacy.
Your whole point is that you know nothing about math? That makes so much more sense than what you were saying before! Thanks for clearing that up.
Quote: AceTwoGamblor, I want to get in "the Zone" .....
How do I do it.
Does it involve me becoming a subatomic particle or is there an easier way!!
My friend it's hard to explain. How do you explain to a bird to fly south for the winter?
He just knows.
I will try to think of a more verbal and detailed definition of the zone.
Thinking at the sub atomic level is the beginning.
Allow this video to open the door if you haven't seen it or heard of it.
Double slit experiment.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YqgPAtzho
Quote: GamblorYou just confirmed my whole point. Thank you. Mathematicians Fallacy.
The fact that you don't understand high school math is the mathematician's fallacy?
That can't be right...
Quote: rdw4potusYour whole point is that you know nothing about math? That makes so much more sense than what you were saying before! Thanks for clearing that up.
In fairness, he made that point very clear from the very beginning of the thread.
Quote: rdw4potusYour whole point is that you know nothing about math? That makes so much more sense than what you were saying before! Thanks for clearing that up.
No. You saying he has 50 50 confirms everything I've been saying. Hence, confirms mathematicians fallacy.
Quote: GamblorNo. You saying he has 50 50 confirms everything I've been saying. Hence, confirms mathematicians fallacy.
That fact that a coin flip is 50/50 is the fallacy? No, that's true.
What does this have to do with you losing all your money at baccarat again?
Quote: GamblorNo. You saying he has 50 50 confirms everything I've been saying. Hence, confirms mathematicians fallacy.
How? The odds of a future coin flip ARE 50/50.
Quote: GamblorHence, confirms mathematicians fallacy.
You can confirm a fallacy?
Now I want to submit a Chuck Norris Fact: "Chuck Norris can disprove a tautology."
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThat fact that a coin flip is 50/50 is the fallacy? No, that's true.
What does this have to do with you losing all your money at baccarat again?
The fact that you guys calculate it to be anything other than 50 50 is the fallacy.
If I'm on my 36th hand or he's on his 36th flip, it's still 50/50.
I haven't lost any money at baccarat? There you go making assumptions again. You sure are one hell of an "Assumer"!
Okay, that seals the deal for me. What nonsense: apply math and come to the inevitable conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job? God, I hate stupidity such as this that 9/11 truthers spew.
Gamblor, maybe if you had paid more attention to your high school math, you'd recognize how foolish your "mathematician's fallacy" really is. Then again, maybe someone should nominate you for a Nobel Prize in mathematics for your theory. No wait, that wouldn't work. That would require some rather extensive and recognized expertise in math, something which you clearly don't have.
Peddle your foolishness elsewhere.
Quote: GamblorThinking at the sub atomic level is the beginning.
Allow this video to open the door if you haven't seen it or heard of it.
Double slit experiment.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1YqgPAtzho
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. If you believe you can get in tune with subatomic fluctuations, more power to you. Just know who your company is: "The Biggest Douche in the Universe" -South Park
South Park Video for quote above
On the other hand maybe you can. In that case I would imagine you should go talk to some physicists and help out with their research.
Quote: GamblorThe fact that you guys calculate it to be anything other than 50 50 is the fallacy.
No one is calculating it to be anything other than 50/50
Quote:If I'm on my 36th hand or he's on his 36th flip, it's still 50/50.
Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut. In related news, congratulations! You've made your first correct statement of the thread. And it only took 17 pages.
Here is the thing. I am a mathematician. As a mathematician, I do not believe that the result of a flip of a fair coin is anything other than 50/50. No one believes that it is. The only fallacy here is that you think that mathematicians believe this.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNo one is calculating it to be anything other than 50/50
Even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut. In related news, congratulations! You've made your first correct statement of the thread. And it only took 17 pages.
Here is the thing. I am a mathematician. As a mathematician, I do not believe that the result of a flip of a fair coin is anything other than 50/50. No one believes that it is. The only fallacy here is that you think that mathematicians believe this.
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.
Quote: GamblorThank 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.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNo, 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
Quote: GamblorMathematicians 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.
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!
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceNo 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.
Quote: GamblorTo 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.
Quote: paigow1986that we evolved from a common ape, no questions asked.
I know, right?
Please tell us a little about your theory of 9/11.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIt 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.
Quote: GamblorIf 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.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYou have no idea what "memoryless" means.
Seriously. There must be a Delorean involved here somewhere, right? How could anyone/anything have a memory of the future?
Thanks for your valuable input. I will check out your thread for sure. While they may be very smart with numbers, using the percentage sign on the correct side of the number, math does not equal reality. That is the basis of mathematicians fallacy. The world is flawed. No one answered why on paper we can't travel faster than light, but on the other hand we have quantum entanglement. I'm going to go read those paradox articles. Thanks again for your post.
Quote: paigow1986btw 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!
Um... what?
Quote: paigow1986gamblor: 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.
No, it would be a great place where we could discuss gambling topics without having to explain high school math to people.
Quote: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).
Yes. You asked, got an answer, and then insisted that the answer was wrong.
Quote: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 you are wrong. You don't even understand the words that you are using.
You may very well have an edge, BTW. It does not take many dealer errors to make UTH a +EV game. I have played this game with an edge before. I know someone who played with a very big edge and made a lot of money this way.
Quote: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.
Casinos generally let you play more than one hand in games where they can easily protect against you swapping cards between the hands. In UTH, the information from other hands is not worth much, and people share it anyway. If they don't let you play more than 1 it is probably mostly for game protection reasons. You can touch the cards with both hands, and a skilled sleight-of-hand artist could easily swap cards between hands and probably not get caught.
Quote: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!
Do you understand either of these? In what way do you think that they are relevant?
Quote: GamblorNo one answered why on paper we can't travel faster than light, but on the other hand we have quantum entanglement.
Again from the Rational Wiki:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Quote:<Quantum entanglement> has some use in quantum computing and teleportation, although it cannot be used to violate the law that information and energy cannot exceed the speed of light.
Quote:In order to send information, you'd first have to encode some information into the system first, which would destroy the entanglement. Without the entanglement, there is no mechanism to send the info faster than light! Thus, you can't send information vast distances faster than light, no matter how much quantum woo merchants and science fiction authors may say otherwise.
Quote: gpac1377Again from the Rational Wiki:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Try again.
For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise. Because of the nature of quantum measurement, however, this behavior gives rise to effects that can appear paradoxical: any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as acting on that particle (e.g. by collapsing a number of superimposed states); and in the case of entangled particles, such action must be on the entangled system as a whole. It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair "knows" what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.
Experiments have been performed involving measuring the polarization or spin of entangled particles in different directions, which – by producing violations of Bell's inequality – demonstrate statistically that the local realist view cannot be correct. This has been shown to occur even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement:
THIS IS IMPORTANT--
Recent experiments have measured entangled particles within less than one part in 10,000 of the light travel time between them.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
Quote:This has been shown to occur even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement: there is no lightspeed or slower influence that can pass between the entangled particles.[6] Recent experiments have measured entangled particles within less than one part in 10,000 of the light travel time between them.[7] According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly.[8][9] It is not possible, however, to use this effect to transmit classical information at faster-than-light speeds[10] (see Faster-than-light → Quantum mechanics).
Here's the link for "Faster than light":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Quantum_mechanics
Quote: gpac1377Why don't we quote all the way to the end of the paragraph?
Hmm...if that's not getting owned, I don't know what is...:-)
Quote: rdw4potusHmm...if that's not getting owned, I don't know what is...:-)
I actually have no idea what I'm talking about :(
But of course neither does the OP.
Quote: gpac1377I actually have no idea what I'm talking about :(
But of course neither does the OP.
It's clear you have no idea. And I didn't get owned. It's not possible to transmit "classical" information. The spin of the electron still "knows" at faster than light speeds and adjusts it's spin accordingly. Double owned. Mathematicians fallacy check mate.
Quote: GamblorIf that's not getting owned I don't know what is. I rest my case your honor. Mathematicians Fallacy will hereby be know as a "real thing".
I can say with all confidence that neither one of us knows what the hell you are talking about.
Quote: GamblorMathematicians fallacy check mate.
OK, what happens next? Do we lock up the thread now?
Quote: gpac1377OK, what happens next? Do we lock up the thread now?
One more #mathematiciansfallacyisarealthing
Quote: gpac1377OK, what happens next? Do we lock up the thread now?
#Reality>math
Quote: Gamblor#Reality>math
Reality=math
Quote: Gamblor#Reality>math
Reality is perhaps the one thing that you are less familiar with than math.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceReality is perhaps the one thing that you are less familiar with than math.
+1 lol.
I don't want to plus one myself but that was good. You can't even give me credit for reality is greater than math, come on.
