Mathematicians Fallacy (Baccarat)

Quote: Gamblor

That is the definition of mathematicians fallacy.

You think math is not real, but we're supposed to trust what you say about quantum physics? c'mon man. I just did 100 situps. It hurts to laugh that hard.

deleted

What's your betting style, Gamblor? Flat bet? Increase your bets when in the zone?

Quote: Gamblor

+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.

I'm glad you liked it.

In all seriousness, in this case, mathematics describes reality. You should take the time to understand it -- none of the math described discussed here is really all that difficult. Your probability of going broke over any finite amount of time less than 1, but as that length of time increases it gets larger (because you keep adding more numbers to it) and some simple calculus will show you that it converges to 1 as the number of bets goes to infinity. It's just a simple limit; this is literally intro to calculus.

That's it, that's all. There is more difficult math around Markov processes, but you don't need any of it.

Quote: rdw4potus

You think math is not real, but we're supposed to trust what you say about quantum physics? c'mon man. I just did 100 situps. It hurts to laugh that hard.

Your arguments and misquotes get weaker by the minute.

Of course math is "real". But math does not equal reality. If it did, it wouldn't be called probability or likely, it would be an absolute.

Quote: Lemieux66

What's your betting style, Gamblor? Flat bet? Increase your bets when in the zone?

You know it bro

Think about it in terms of universes. Say there are 100 of them initially and after you join another one there are a hundred more. You have a thousand dollars. You flat bet table minimum in some game where you have a 48% chance of winning. Eventually you will go to the universe where you have nothing because it's a bit more likely you go to the universes that you lost in. Think of it like that.

I hated writing that but I think I had to.

Quote: Lemieux66

Think about it in terms of universes. Say there are 100 of them initially and after you join another one there are a hundred more. You have a thousand dollars. You flat bet table minimum in some game where you have a 48% chance of winning. Eventually you will go to the universe where you have nothing because it's a bit more likely you go to the universes that you lost in. Think of it like that.

I hated writing that but I think I had to.

I understand the concept you are trying to convey, I'm just saying it's false. Just as likely as to be the reality as someone following gamblers fallacy.
The game I'm talking about is where you bet on 2 spots. Player or banker. Giving you a %50 chance success rate. So factor in the zone, it is more likely I will travel to a universe where I'm in the zone, takin home some cash.

The "zone" is almost like a conscious force. You can't "bankrupt" the casino, because if you try to get to greedy, the zone will leave you hanging. You have to find the sweet spot. Realize there is no spoon...

Quote: Gamblor

Your arguments and misquotes get weaker by the minute.

Of course math is "real". But math does not equal reality. If it did, it wouldn't be called probability or likely, it would be an absolute.

ok. real=reality by definition. math=real by your admission above. therefore, math=reality by simple substitution.

Quote: Gamblor

I understand the concept you are trying to convey, I'm just saying it's false. Just as likely as to be the reality as someone following gamblers fallacy.
The game I'm talking about is where you bet on 2 spots. Player or banker. Giving you a %50 chance success rate. So factor in the zone, it is more likely I will travel to a universe where I'm in the zone, takin home some cash.

The "zone" is almost like a conscious force. You can't "bankrupt" the casino, because if you try to get to greedy, the zone will leave you hanging. You have to find the sweet spot. Realize there is no spoon...

Do you promise to give us honest casino updates? I would love to see them. I'm curious how you do.

Quote: rdw4potus

ok. real=reality by definition. math=real by your admission above. therefore, math=reality by simple substitution.

Hey, you can't math my quotes into suiting your argument...

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I'm glad you liked it.

In all seriousness, in this case, mathematics describes reality. You should take the time to understand it -- none of the math described discussed here is really all that difficult. Your probability of going broke over any finite amount of time less than 1, but as that length of time increases it gets larger (because you keep adding more numbers to it) and some simple calculus will show you that it converges to 1 as the number of bets goes to infinity. It's just a simple limit; this is literally intro to calculus.

That's it, that's all. There is more difficult math around Markov processes, but you don't need any of it.

I get what you are trying to say. I don't agree.

But that makes me curious...
This is a gambling site, with many people clearly passionate about math..
What is the best game to play "mathematically" if not baccarat banker or player 50/50?.
I see a lot about black jack, is that the best? Against the casino.
What do you play, oh wise one?

Quote: Gamblor

I get what you are trying to say. I don't agree.

But that makes me curious...
This is a gambling site, with many people clearly passionate about math..
What is the best game to play "mathematically" if not baccarat banker or player 50/50?.
I see a lot about black jack, is that the best? Against the casino.
What do you play, oh wise one?

Blackjack counting. Second best thing in the casino behind being a good poker player.

gpac: Im not a conspiracy theorist, believe me when I tell you I think all those people are looney. I just think its funny that you guys supposedly know it all, when in reality, you DON'T. the only person that deserves any sort of credit on here is mike, and all you guys do is hang off his balls and go along with anything he says. I wish he would comment on the one and only thread that ive started and get his input on whether playing 1 hand at $30 is the same as playing 6 hands at $5, LOLZ.

go on and tell me how playing 1 lottery ticket is the same as playing 100, your EV doesn't change. go on and tell me that putting 1 raffle in a drum is the same as putting 100 raffles in a drum, I mean your EV doesnt change at all! LOLZ

now go back to doing what you do best, and telling by your posts on here, it would be playing slot machines at coast casinos and creeping out semidecent looking british girls on tv game shows

you're a MUCH better person than I am, wayyy higher on the totem pole than I! lololololololz


toodles!

Quote: paigow1986

I wish he would comment on the one and only thread that ive started and get his input on whether playing 1 hand at $30 is the same as playing 6 hands at $5, LOLZ.

You really need Mike to tell you that 30 times 1 is equal to 6 times 5? Really?

Quote: paigow1986

now go back to doing what you do best, and telling by your posts on here, it would be playing slot machines at coast casinos and creeping out semidecent looking british girls on tv game shows

Do you have any friends who know Vicky Coren? I know she's married, but I'm not looking for a commitment.

Mathematician's fallacy = nonsensical circular argument using intangibles and flawed logic. The fact that one person may be experiencing positive variance does not disprove the mathematical certainty of the gambler's fallacy statement.

Nobody is convincing anybody of anything; it's a classic trees vs. forest argument. I still consider it over-moderation to kill this thread, but I would suggest it can die a natural death if folks simply stopped arguing. Gamblor is a lost cause at best; why waste your breath?

Quote: beachbumbabs

Mathematician's fallacy = nonsensical circular argument using intangibles and flawed logic. The fact that one person may be experiencing positive variance does not disprove the mathematical certainty of the gambler's fallacy statement.

Nobody is convincing anybody of anything; it's a classic trees vs. forest argument. I still consider it over-moderation to kill this thread, but I would suggest it can die a natural death if folks simply stopped arguing. Gamblor is a lost cause at best; why waste your breath?

False.

Gamblor already won the argument of mathematicians fallacy back at #Reality>Math. Who's wasting breath? Heavy breathers maybe getting worked up.

To kill the thread confirms mathematicians fallacy

And I must conclude that you were asked to close the thread, or you wouldn't have mentioned it. So, this confirms mathematics fallacy and how they refuse to see it. They very possibility must be shut down. Nuke him! His ideas are differen than ours! Burn him, he's a witch! He says the world is round!

Quote: Gamblor

To kill the thread confirms mathematicians fallacy

Off-topic, but I'd like to show Vicky Coren my mathematicians fallacy.

Quote: Gamblor

False.

Gamblor already won the argument of mathematicians fallacy back at #Reality>Math. Who's wasting breath? Heavy breathers maybe getting worked up.

To kill the thread confirms mathematicians fallacy

Gamblor's sanity was questioned even before Gamblor began referring to himself in the third person as the authority for Gamblor's contention. Killing the thread would be a mercy, but so far hasn't quite fit the Wizard's definition of trolling. Please do continue, then, if you would like to find that line.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Gamblor's sanity was questioned even before Gamblor began referring to himself in the third person as the authority for Gamblor's contention. Killing the thread would be a mercy, but so far hasn't quite fit the Wizard's definition of trolling. Please do continue, then, if you would like to find that line.

Wow. Sending in the big guns to make threats against the mathematicians fallacy. Even name dropping.
The inability to see that math does not equal reality, and threats to shut down any suggestion it be true,
Are signs of a severe case of mathematicians fallacy.

Past events have no affect on bankroll, but future events have a 100% affect.

So, the mathematicians fallacy is pretty high on the list of silly things that have happened on this site. Others include:

Varmenti
Ahigh
Logan/singer
Mrjjj
Statman
98steps

I think this is more silly than 98steps and the ahigh threads, but maybe currently is less silly than the Statman, logan/singer, Varmenti, and Mrjjj threads. That said, we're pretty closely approaching the logan level, and the Mrjjj threshold isn't far beyond that.

Quote: FinsRule

Past events have no affect on bankroll, but future events have a 100% affect.

False. Past events have made my bankroll grow. Mathmaticians fallacy. If past events have no effect on bankroll I wouldn't have even been gambling.
Even if that were true, in a "memoryless" system, I would continually be at zero, no past no future, because the next hand my past is erased and I'm back at zero.

Quote: Gamblor

Even if that were true, in a "memoryless" system, I would continually be at zero, no past no future.

Why no future? What do you think memory has to do with the future? Are you capable of remembering the future before it happens? Your definition of "memoryless" must be quite strange and only tangentially related to the definition of memory.

Quote: Gamblor

False. Past events have made my bankroll grow. Mathmaticians fallacy. If past events have no effect on bankroll I wouldn't have even been gambling.
Even if that were true, in a "memoryless" system, I would continually be at zero, no past no future.

No at each new bet you start at point zero. So past events very well may have increased your bankroll increasing the amount of bets you would need to have probability P of being broke. That does not mean there is no future. We can make predictions about the future and while they are only probabilistic that does not mean they are not valid.

Again think of the case of coin flips. The odds of flipping 10 heads in a row are 1/1024 but the odds of hitting 10 heads given you've already hit 9 is 1/2 similarly the odds of hitting heads on your 10th flip is 1/2. That means I can make a prediction about a future even saying you will probably not get 10 heads in a row on your next attempt now it is entirely possible you will but the prediction I made is valid.

OP must be playing at Fallsview every day. Right, OP?

If Mathematicians Fallacy actually exists, why do casinos make money each and every day? Shouldn't they win half the time and lose half the time?

Math is for nerds, disregard everything that has been mentioned on this site regarding "house edge". Only nerds succumb to "house edge", you're probably better than that. Now go out and make millions!

Quote: gpac1377

Off-topic, but I'd like to show Vicky Coren my mathematicians fallacy.

The only one who gets to see Vicky Coren's mathematicians fallacy is an angry man with a beard.

Quote: Gamblor

I get what you are trying to say. I don't agree.

That's the great thing about math. It doesn't matter if you agree. It's provably true. If you disagree, you are wrong. Provably wrong, in fact. It's not like politics or philosophy where there is room for any ridiculous opinion. I can prove that you are wrong, and that's all that matters.

But it's a free country. You're allowed to be wrong. If I were you, I'd consider being right instead, but to each his own.

Quote:

But that makes me curious...
This is a gambling site, with many people clearly passionate about math..
What is the best game to play "mathematically" if not baccarat banker or player 50/50?.
I see a lot about black jack, is that the best? Against the casino.
What do you play, oh wise one?

First, as many people have said, baccarat is not 50/50. First of all, there are 3 choices. Second, even if you ignore ties, banker is significantly more likely than player. 50/50 means that they are equal probability. Again, it's like you jumping in front of a moving train. You might survive, or you might not, but it's not 50/50. I know which side I'm betting on, and I'm not cleaning it up either.

The great thing about baccarat is that any idiot can play it. Banker is a better bet than player, but player is not that bad either. There is absolutely no skill to the game -- you can pick however you want and the house will win a little more than 1% of your action in the long run. That's enough to keep the lights on, and then some. Still, it's a lot better than roulette or slots.

Craps is only slightly worse than baccarat, as long as you stay away from the sucker bets. Most people don't stay away from the sucker bets, and those lights, they stay on.

The reason that blackjack is popular is that it's really, really easy to learn basic strategy, and, if you do, the house will win a lot less from you than baccarat or craps (as long as you find a game with good rules). Most people don't bother to look for good rules OR learn to play properly, so those lights just keep staying on. If you learn to count a little it's easy to move the house edge all the way to 0, and if you learn to count a bit more you can even make a few bucks. There are also other possible (legal) ways to get an advantage at blackjack, but I won't get into them here.

Quote: Lemieux66

Blackjack counting. Second best thing in the casino behind being a good poker player.

Seriously, Lemieux, not even close. Open your eyes.

Quote: paigow1986

go on and tell me how playing 1 lottery ticket is the same as playing 100, your EV doesn't change. go on and tell me that putting 1 raffle in a drum is the same as putting 100 raffles in a drum, I mean your EV doesnt change at all! LOLZ

Yes, if you play twice as many hands, you will win twice as many. You will also lose twice as many. Your EV will double (from negative to more negative). If you lose $1 per hand and you play 100 hands instead of 1, your EV goes from -$1 to -$100.

Cue Buzzard telling us about his uncle who sold everything at a loss but made it up in volume...

Quote: beachbumbabs

Gamblor's sanity was questioned

I think that question has been answered.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Seriously, Lemieux, not even close. Open your eyes.

+1 ........I was on my way

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.

You will go broke at some point playing a 50/50 bet if you do it over enough trials.Because at some point your variance will overcome your bankroll.
Even if that were not true you must prove you have a game that's a true 50/50 without taking commission. 49/51 or a commission may not matter much in the short term but over many bets its significant. You may be right when you say its not a 100% fact that a individual must always lose in the long run given extraordinary amount of money they may be able to get LUCKY. You or no one else has figured out a way to predict who will get lucky and when.

I'm 99.99 % certain if you play under normal conditions without a mathematical advantage on Baccarat or any like game at the casino, you will lose given enough bets.(I would exclude anything like betting 10k 1 time then dropping down to $1 a hand)

If you think you can overcome the HE, then prove it. Not by talking about it by doing it. Ill accept a video of you making it rain with 100's at strip club in Vegas.

* ***********Trolling System "bettors" **************+ EV contest offer for known members***********

I quote bettors because I doubt any of them even play. That's why I was upset when Varmenti got nuked, I think he really did play his system. I just don't think he was betting as much or making as much as he claimed But who knows for sure if he really was real.
I think he said he wanted to get a team together or something like that.

I keep thinking that these guys just want to con people into putting up money for them.

CG just wants guys to tip him, if they win. That's why he will never make any bets, he knows he can't win, he just needs to convince someone he can, Then just run good and hold out his hand. Possibly their is just group of guys in Falls View trying to run scams like this. Once someone meets one of them someone other takes over.

I'm not sure why all of us wast out time on this stuff. Do people enjoy wasting their time because nothing better to do? You just want to prove someone wrong?
This OP is not even entertaining.

Especially some of the more talented mathies. I understand if someone has a legitimate question and wants to learn and get a real answer. But Obvious trolling, whats the point? If no one responds they go away, who will they argue with?

Idea: Any Known forum members who often debate the trolls can join they start off with x amount of drawing tickets each. At the end of each month or 2 we have a drawing. Anytime you post anything in that thread you lose a drawing ticket and owe $2 to the pot. We can come up with more details on the best way for this to work. (I will start off the drawing with a few bucks so that makes it +EV and gives people an incentive to NOT POST)

I cant imagine why everyone wouldn't want to join. unless you just like being trolled and trying to win arguments that cant be won.

If its a guy who is really playing his system and he can prove he/she is a real person, playing in casinos, I would think that he wouldn't be considered a troll. Bash him...... I mean his system, all you want.

Someone posting an initial non argumentative informative post of why the system dose not work. I think would be fine.

Who wants to join? The more people that join the more I will add.

Quote: AxelWolf

* ***********Trolling System "bettors" **************

This guy joined 4 or 5 days ago and has 90+ posts but it was evident from the start what the game was, and you're right Wolf: sucked in lots of replies to a lot of nothing. Seems he is a reincarnate but can't put my finger on it. At least a long-time lurker given how he engaged certain members immediately.

Another thing for the mods: isn't there a limit on the number of posts a newby can submit initially?

Quote: chickenman

This guy joined 4 or 5 days ago and has 90+ posts but it was evident from the start what the game was, and you're right Wolf: sucked in lots of replies to a lot of nothing. Seems he is a reincarnate but can't put my finger on it. At least a long-time lurker given how he engaged certain members immediately.

Another thing for the mods: isn't there a limit on the number of posts a newby can submit initially?

You guys are a joke (axel wolf and chicken man)
You think you know everything.
You think you are so wise.

I already explained how I came across this site.

"A new member is using the site and making posts"! Oh my god, he must be a troll.
Limit his speech, he speaks the devils tongue, he says the world revolves around the sun!!
We the great thinkers I this earth know that to be false! Surely the earth is the centre of the universe!!
Ban him! Limit his speech, BuRn HIm at the stake to purify him.

Give me a break. You're a joke.

I'm not "trolling" you saying math is fictional.

I'm saying given my understanding of the universe, nothing is ever "certain". Especially when you're in the ZONE.
The are things math cannot explain, such as consciousness.
So there is a grey area.
I don't know who you think you are, that you think you know everything about the universes and multiple dimensions. Who is right and who is wrong. If I thought I knew everything, I would surely wonder if I was just an ass who thought he knew I all.
In order to have a future (eventually you will lose) you need a past.
If there is no past, you cannot go into "eventually", because you will be at a constant state of zero.
With no past, you can't have a future, the future is based on having previous events, or it's the present.
And in that moment of the present, all that truly exists, I'll take 50/50.
Mathematicians fallacy.

And, thinking banker lands "significantly" more than player has me questioning your "math" skills.
I said I play around 10-20 hands in my visits. If I play my "max" of 20, banker will hit .2 times more than player?? Oh my god! It will take me 5-10 trips before banker comes up 1 extra time? Give me a break, that's a joke. That is such a non-event.

Please Stop calling me a troll, as that seems to be where your argument goes when you run out of ideas. For shame.
I'm trying to have a valid conversation, if you don't like it, go away and don't read it. You know what this thread is about, stop reading it.
Just because something is "probable" (banker), has no real value on where the cars land.
That is the basis of mathematicians fallacy.

Another thing, why would I be on a gambling website listening to your childish insults and name calling if I didn't gamble? You think I want to listen to a bunch of guys tell me how stupid and wrong I am? Yeah, I couldn't wait to hear that again today... Makes me feel awesome!
So yes, I do gamble, no I'm not a "troll" and yes, the ZONE is real.

I believe we may have gotten rid of the limit, the cost/benefit really wasn't there in terms of legit new Members being able to have an unrestricted number of posts and then having to contact JB in order to effectuate same.

Quote: chickenman

This guy joined 4 or 5 days ago and has 90+ posts but it was evident from the start what the game was, and you're right Wolf: sucked in lots of replies to a lot of nothing. Seems he is a reincarnate but can't put my finger on it. At least a long-time lurker given how he engaged certain members immediately.

Another thing for the mods: isn't there a limit on the number of posts a newby can submit initially?

Hey, If he math says it's true it must be right? (3dAys @ 90 posts + engaging members =troll)

There's no other possibilities except the one you have calculated.

Another example of mathematicians fallacy, thinking the numbers are reality.

Quote: Gamblor

You guys are a joke (axel wolf and chicken man)

But, who's laughing? Personal Insult, Seven Days.

Quote:

Give me a break. You're a joke.

Yeah, okay, Personal Insult, fourteen days.

Quote:

Yeah, I couldn't wait to hear that again today... Makes me feel awesome!

Hmmm.....okay, screw it.

You are the weakest link, goodbye.

NUKED, Personal Insult, Trolling.

Quote: rdw4potus

So, the mathematicians fallacy is pretty high on the list of silly things that have happened on this site. Others include:

Varmenti
Ahigh
Logan/singer
Mrjjj
Statman
98steps

I think this is more silly than 98steps and the ahigh threads, but maybe currently is less silly than the Statman, logan/singer, Varmenti, and Mrjjj threads. That said, we're pretty closely approaching the logan level, and the Mrjjj threshold isn't far beyond that.

No. This whole topic has its most accurate parallel in tuttigym and the "1.41% is a hoax". It is almost exactly the same in its absurd assertions and defenses.

Quote: AxelWolf

+1 ........I was on my way

Really? What do you guys say?

Quote: AxelWolf

You will go broke at some point playing a 50/50 bet if you do it over enough trials.Because at some point your variance will overcome your bankroll.

That's true, but not because of the bankroll variance. Playing a 50/50 game with a fixed unit bet, an even-money payout, and a finite bankroll is a 1-dimensional random walk.

Quote: Wikipedia

A gambler with a finite amount of money will eventually lose when playing a fair game against a bank with an infinite amount of money. The gambler's money will perform a random walk, and it will reach zero at some point, and the game will be over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk

Quote: Lemieux66

Quote: Gamblor

What is the best game to play "mathematically" if not baccarat banker or player 50/50?.
I see a lot about black jack, is that the best? Against the casino.
What do you play, oh wise one?

Quote: Lemieux66

Blackjack counting. Second best thing in the casino behind being a good poker player.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Seriously, Lemieux, not even close. Open your eyes.

Quote: AxelWolf

+1 ........I was on my way

Really? What do you guys say?

A skilled poker player who "has it together" is indeed "sittin' good"; s/he has only to defeat the other players while minimizing the effects of the house rake. (With the exception of the rake, there is no house edge to overcome.)
Individuals fairly new to the concept of advantage play tend to gravitate towards card counting in Blackjack. This is a natural tendency, as the concept of Blackjack card counting has been around for a very long time. The concept has been augmented with the proliferation of books on the subject (in addition to further promotion via Hollywood).

While cc'ing BJ can be profitable, it is considered to be a "grind".
The bankrolls required to handle the swings, in addition to making the situation worthwhile, can be huge.
The player advantage can be small, all the while still dealing with variance.
The most effective means of dealing with variance is to "get more hands in". When discussing team play, many often believe that the purpose is to find ways to avoid heat. While the avoidance of heat is indeed one of the objectives, there exist other reasons for team play. Joint bankrolls are a powerful concept for purposes of establishing higher betting levels while keeping risk under control, and something often overlooked is the fact that teams get in far more hands of play in a given amount of time, thus reducing the "ulcer factor" of variance.

Please don't mistake me, as I am not stating that cc'ing BJ is a futile effort.
It can still be (and is) profitable for the dedicated individual, and we do have successful individual members here.
I love counting cards, but it not an income-making opportunity for me; I simply enjoy the challenge of it, and employ it whenever I play BJ. But rest assured, I am not one of these individuals with a $100K bankroll dedicated specifically to cc'ing BJ.

I do not wish to speak for AxiomOfChoice and AxelWolf, but I would like to provide some ideas that may perhaps stimulate further thought for you.
What if you could find opportunities that provide equal or better profitability with less effort and/or risk than cc'ing BJ? Nearly all the games have a vulnerability upon which the enterprising individual may capitalize; the question is always whether the situation is worthwhile. IOW, is your time/money invested worth the potential return?
Rather than state specific instances at the risk of exposing plays potentially employed by others here, please allow me to state that, upon further analysis, there do indeed exist opportunities that yield greater value to the player than merely card counting Blackjack. Such opportunities exist both within and outside of the table games arena.

Quote: Buzzard

Quote: Face
I recall that one rugby player who incorrectly called the coin flip 36 times in a row.

See what happens to the memory cells of hockey players. He thinks that actually happened !

I can't verify it myself, but it was stated as actually happening in an "Ask the Wizard" column from like 2 years ago. It was cricket, not rugby, but my memory has to be somewhat functional to remember a column from years ago =p

I just look at it as a pure house edge scenario. Besides the rake, there is no house edge in poker so that has to be the best. In blackjack you can count and can turn the tables in your favor. Every other game, except for a specific bet in craps, the house is always ahead.

A belief I have is the more brainpower you need to win in a casino game the more worthwhile it is.

Thread summary.

All the quotes are from Gamblor because he wasn't listening to anyone else.

I've tried to capture the key insights, while also celebrating the tedious repetition. Quotes are listed chronologically, although you may have different standards of time in your universe.

Quote: Gamblor

Mathematicians fallacy - you will eventually go broke at a negative ev game.

For you guys to say "with certainty" mathematically you will go broke is laughable.

Just because something may be probable mathematically , does not make it reality.

Probability does not equal reality.

I'm not Vermenti.

Why would I be "nuked"? Just because I point out mathmaticans fallacy? Thinking something is going to happen cuz it should is the same as gamblers fallacy.

Your math can't say a darn thing about what WILL ACTUALLY happen, therefore fallacy.

You are claiming to know the future when you say %100 certainty you will go broke in baccarat.

When there are 2 choices, you have a %50 chance you will be right. Not 51/49.8939-3. One of two is %50.

Spoken like a man who can't see past his boxed in world of Mathmaticians fallacy.

This examples just shows me the depth of the Mathematicians fallacy.

You guys think I'm saying I have a system to beat baccarat? I'm not saying that.

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.”

That is not a proper example. Why do you have to use metaphors? It's banker or player. One or the other.

If one plays long enough? To infinite correct? Well we both know that's not happening.

I'm not saying math is useless, it's just as useful as trend spotting, in reality.

We will see, since you are so sure I will be suspended, if in reality I'm not, your sure thing is as good as fecal matter.

If you really look at the evidence as a mathematician is supposed to, the only conclusion is 9/11 was an inside job, minimum they had knowledge of it.

Math also says it's not possible to travel faster than the speed of light. But yet, we have quantum entanglement.

The reason I wanted to bring up Mathematicians Fallacy is because the majority of people in the baccarat threads were saying it's guaranteed to hit zero, if you play long enough. (To infinity, come on, that's not possible).

I rest my case your honor. Mathematicians Fallacy will hereby be know as a "real thing".

Of course math is "real". But math does not equal reality.

The game I'm talking about is where you bet on 2 spots. Player or banker. Giving you a %50 chance success rate. So factor in the zone, it is more likely I will travel to a universe where I'm in the zone, takin home some cash.

The "zone" is almost like a conscious force. You can't "bankrupt" the casino, because if you try to get to greedy, the zone will leave you hanging. You have to find the sweet spot. Realize there is no spoon...

To kill the thread confirms mathematicians fallacy

"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."

Quote: Lemieux66

I just look at it as a pure house edge scenario. Besides the rake, there is no house edge in poker so that has to be the best. In blackjack you can count and can turn the tables in your favor. Every other game, except for a specific bet in craps, the house is always ahead.

A belief I have is the more brainpower you need to win in a casino game the more worthwhile it is.

What do you mean, "besides the rake there is no house edge"? That's like saying "besides the fact that they don't increase your payoffs to account for the zeros, there is no house edge in roulette". Many lower-limit poker games are realistically unbeatable due to the rake. Many above-average players are lifetime long-term losers because of the rake.

But we are getting off-topic. I don't believe that poker is the best money-making opportunity in a casino, and I certainly don't believe that counting blackjack is the 2nd best opportunity. Now, don't get me wrong -- that is my bread and butter, because it's easy to do and it's not hard to find games with good enough rules that make card counting profitable. But there are better opportunities, if you can find them.

Next time you go to the casino, take the scenic route to the poker room. Look around the pit, and look at all the games. Keep your eyes open. Think about how these games could be beaten. Do you know the rules for all of them? If not, learn them. Learn what the house edge is. Do you know how to calculate the house edge in a game? If not, learn. Think about what assumptions are made when calculating the house edge for a particular game, and think about how the edge might change if some of those assumptions turn out to be false. Calculate the new edge when those assumptions are broken. You need to be able to do this yourself; by the time someone posts the math for you on some web site, it's a good sign that the opportunity is almost dead.

What if you can see other players' cards? What if you can see a hole card? What if you know what card you are going to get before you bet? Is there any other source of additional information that you could get? Every dealer occasionally makes errors; some dealers make them often. What errors are the dealer likely to make, and how much are those errors worth? Watch the game actually being played for a while, and ask yourself questions like these. Can you beat some of these games under the conditions that you see? Would you know a game with an edge if you saw it?

And that's just table games; it doesn't consider machines.