Mathematicians Fallacy (Baccarat)
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhat 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.
Oh I try to see other players cards in poker if they are showing me. I would be a fool not to.
I just think it's better to look for bad poker players to play against than to hunt down dealer errors. There's a finite amount of time I'm in the casino(about two days a week) and I need to maximize my opportunities. Bad players keep playing poorly, while a dealer can be replaced, told what's happening by pit boss etc
reasons why i hate this website is because someone will come on saying they have a new "system" or talk about "fallacies" and whatnot, and you guys will completely condescending to them(most times rightfully so, but still). you guys will say the OP's claims are so ridiculous he cannot possibly be serious and is nothing more than a "troll", but then you guys feed the troll...you feed em, and feed em, until you decided you've had enough, THEN....you "nuke" em....
am i the only one that thinks that's ludicrous?
Quote: paigow1986reasons why I love this website is because im always learning of new ways to bet, new games to play, and watching educated people talk odds in the casino industry.
reasons why i hate this website is because someone will come on saying they have a new "system" or talk about "fallacies" and whatnot, and you guys will completely condescending to them(most times rightfully so, but still). you guys will say the OP's claims are so ridiculous he cannot possibly be serious and is nothing more than a "troll", but then you guys feed the troll...you feed em, and feed em, until you decided you've had enough, THEN....you "nuke" em....
am i the only one that thinks that's ludicrous?
Not really.
There are occasions (rare, but they've happened) when a "crackpot" is shown the light and learns. There are further cases (a majority) where the "ridiculing" provides a ton of useful information.
I don't exactly like the way threads like this go down. But the other options are to nuke it immediately (harsh police state, no information is gained) or to let them go on ad infinitum (causes unnecessary drama, ruins the quality of the forum).
This is the best way I know how to handle things. Do you have a suggestion to make it better?
I don't think OP was a troll though. but whats so funny to me, is that lets assume he was a troll. you guys bring yourselves down to his level. you guys who are SO smart and educated and mathematicians and know SOOOO much about math, you aren't smart enough to just ignore the idiot, making YOU guys, the idiots. so the next time someone puts up "NEW BACCARAT SYSTEM! GAURANTEED WAY OF WINNING!" and it gets 10k responses, and 50k views, just know that the OP is not the idiot, but you guys are, for feeding the troll. looking at some of these threads are like looking at youtube comments.
am I right or what? you gonna nuke me too?
Quote: paigow1986I don't think OP was a troll though.
This, from a guy who asks whether 5 x 6 = 1 x 30 and then argues when people tell him "yes".
Quote: paigow1986
am I right or what? you gonna nuke me too?
I suppose the blanket statement that basically calls many an "idiot", a response directed at me, is well within Wiz's insult policy. But I asked for your response, and I'll hear you out.
In all fairness, I feel much the same as you. I've been watching the troll parade here for years and have often wondered why anyone bothers and why we all don't just leave him to his nonsense. The simple fact is there are people here who love to argue (myself included) and those who are passionate about information. To ignore a falsity posed as truth is no easier to ignore than a sliver in your eyeball. It must be addressed, must be refuted.
And really, as far as being an admin is concerned, I have no control over it. I cannot force members to not respond by will. The only forcing I could manage is to lock the thread, which ceases the exchange of information.
Quote: FaceI don't exactly like the way threads like this go down. But the other options are to nuke it immediately (harsh police state, no information is gained) or to let them go on ad infinitum (causes unnecessary drama, ruins the quality of the forum).
The thread seemed fine to me, but I understand it's not the Wizard's vision for the site.
(Just my opinion, but ...) I thought the decision to nuke the OP was harsh. He wasn't abusing anyone, and he wasn't crapping up the entire forum.
Let's compare to a different site. This is from Roulette Forum (posting as "scepticus"):
http://www.rouletteforum.com/viewthread/9477/P75/#41272
He got one reply of agreement, and then no one else commented on it.
Here on this site, misinformation is reliably challenged.
Personally, I think the decision is tough. What ultimately is being wasted? Member time? Server Storage? I think based on the current make up of the membership and moderation letting a thread run its natural course is best. If we see a problematic change if the site (too much trolling or over use of the ban hammer) I think there is an effective, enlightened majority which would speak up.
Quote: paigow1986reasons why I love this website is because im always learning of new ways to bet, new games to play, and watching educated people talk odds in the casino industry.
reasons why i hate this website is because someone will come on saying they have a new "system" or talk about "fallacies" and whatnot, and you guys will completely condescending to them(most times rightfully so, but still). you guys will say the OP's claims are so ridiculous he cannot possibly be serious and is nothing more than a "troll", but then you guys feed the troll...you feed em, and feed em, until you decided you've had enough, THEN....you "nuke" em....
am i the only one that thinks that's ludicrous?
I used to think that. But if you step back and think about why people respond, the reason becomes clear.
People respond because they like to. Plain and simple. The forum thrives because people like it, and because it is fun. Sometimes it is fun to respond in a clear and concise manner, to organize your facts and lay them out. You know that the target will not understand, but so what? It was fun to do something well, something that you are good at.
In this particular topic, you'll look back and see that I posted twice: once to say it is silly, and once to respond to Gamblor saying I asserted something I did not. I stayed away from the argument otherwise, for the reason you wrote, that it isn't interesting. But if the topic is still alive there might be something else going on, and this rehash, I do find it interesting. Because while the math behind gambling is pretty dry, people and their motivations are fascinating. So, because I like this subject, here I am, writing the reason why people play with trolls.
Myself, I think he was a troll, right from the beginning. Otherwise why post at all? His entire argument was that he was good at guessing.
Quote: Lemieux66I don't think he was a troll either(or at least, he doesn't believe himself to be so). He believed everything he said and he posted long and detailed responses to everything. That's far too much work to knowingly be dishing nonsense. He just ran good the few times he went to casino.
Except trolls LIKE trolling. That is the motivation. To get into an argument.
Quote: FrankScobleteI suggest a subscription to "Skeptic" magazine or "Skeptical Inquirer" would help.
Notice the choice of user name ("scepticus") from the other site. (The same user name has posted here.)
I guess the idea is to co-opt the terminology of the opposition.
Quote: MoscaBecause while the math behind gambling is pretty dry, people and their motivations are fascinating.
It's funny because it's true.
Quote: MoscaI used to think that. But if you step back and think about why people respond, the reason becomes clear.
People respond because they like to. Plain and simple. The forum thrives because people like it, and because it is fun. Sometimes it is fun to respond in a clear and concise manner, to organize your facts and lay them out. You know that the target will not understand, but so what? It was fun to do something well, something that you are good at.
Beautiful post. Admittedly, that's why I'm here. I could give a rip about gambling, it just happens to be my career at the moment. It's my interest in psychology that keeps me here. Watching people, how they react with others. Not "what" they think, but "how" they think. I find it fascinating.
If you were to look back, there are many "troll" threads that are rife with value. 98steps at one time had the Top Thread, a thread which was built off a faulty premise and one which might have received a nuke under a more strict policy. But in it, there's a wealth of proper information, all of which would have been lost had we just "nuked the troll".
I even recall a poster whose first posts were about another bunk system, who also immediately went about creating a second account to get around the post limit for new members, an offense which usually receives an instant nuke. Should he have been bounced, too? Or are we better off giving him a chance, allowing him to eventually be found with a name in green, having him supplying a ton of math work, and making calls about casino conditions to provide the forum, and setting up WoVCon East, etc?
I'm big on giving chances, hence my participation with the bell curve example. Let's see what the kook has to offer before outright dismissing him. If he's a true troll, he'll reveal himself and we'll handle it. If he's just misguided, we'll set him straight and gain a useful member. If he's just eccentric... well, that's not against the policies of this forum.
Quote: GamblorYes. When I realized I had an uncanny, almost super hero ability to predict heads or tails, I transferred that to baccarat. Reading some posts on baccarat on this site led me to the conclusion of mathematicians fallacy. The thing I should make a bit more clear, I'm referring to mathematicians fallacy as it pertains to a 50 50 split like baccarat. Not slots, where there for certain you will go broke. Lol. Jk, sorta.
it's not 50/50!!! you are forgetting the Tie, again.. does that make it 33.3%? You are already banned and people have tried explaining things to you, but you people with your uncanny almost super hero like gambling practices are just silly to challenge AP's. Do what you do, we do what we do and that's that.
Quote: paigow1986mathextremist: same guy who says getting 42 cards in pai gow is the same as getting 7.....you have just as much as chance hitting the progressive with 7 cards as you do with 42...right "mathextremist"? I know I will never be as cool as you and have 3,763 posts. that's like climbing mount Everest. but try telling your math buddies that you have the same chances of getting a bonus in pai gow with 7 cards as you do 42. I mean if I get 42 cards, and you get 7, you have just as good a chance of getting the joker too, right? lolz. you're too cute.
Again you are misunderstanding what is happening. The probability of you winning goes up but the expected value remains exactly the same. For instance say 100 tickets were sold at a raffle for a dollar each and you won 90 dollars if your ticket was called. EV for one ticket is 1/100*90-1=-.1 so I lose 10 cents per ticket on average. I could buy all 1 hundred tickets and guarantee I win and then my EV is 90-cost of tickets=90-100=-10 so I lost 10 dollars on 100 tickets meaning I've lost 10 cents per ticket the exact same EV from buying 1 ticket. Same if I bought 50 tickets I have a 1/2 chance of winning so 1/2*90-50=-5 so I lost 5 dollars over 50 tickets or 10 cents per ticket.
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.
Quote: FaceQuote: MoscaI used to think that. But if you step back and think about why people respond, the reason becomes clear.
People respond because they like to. Plain and simple. The forum thrives because people like it, and because it is fun. Sometimes it is fun to respond in a clear and concise manner, to organize your facts and lay them out. You know that the target will not understand, but so what? It was fun to do something well, something that you are good at.
Beautiful post. Admittedly, that's why I'm here. I could give a rip about gambling, it just happens to be my career at the moment. It's my interest in psychology that keeps me here. Watching people, how they react with others. Not "what" they think, but "how" they think. I find it fascinating.
For myself, the reason I post here is because this is an audience that I enjoy writing for: educated and street smart both. Most of what I write about is the people, because I'm obviously outclassed on the math side. But my livelihood is based on knowing people. I think that I can add something. Most of the time what I write gets read, but not responded to, and I'm fine with that. The fun was in writing it.
Quote: tilt247it'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" theoremIf 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.
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
Quote: TwirdmanThis 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.
Quote: gpac1377He 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.
Quote: 24BingoAre 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.
Quote: 24BingoAre 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.
Quote: MathExtremistIf 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.
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: MathExtremistI 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.
Can you close this thread ? PLEASE !
Quote: gpac1377I'll try to fill in for Gamblor, since he's indisposed :(
:)
EDIT: I misspelled "theorem" ... that's embarrassing.
Fantastic, thanks!!! lol
Quote: Buzzard" Again, I am open the critique of this decision. "
Can you close this thread ? PLEASE !
I agree
1. do I have a better chance of hitting the progressive(or any payout for that matter) playing 6 pai gow hands opposed to 1 if I am ONLY playing the bonus's and the min/max on the bonus is $5
2. does getting a joker in pai gow increase my chances of making a better hand?
3. if I am playing 6 hands, do I have a better chance of getting the joker as opposed to the guy playing 1 hand?
if you answered yes to any of these, you my friend, are no "mathextremist", and that's all ive been trying to say for YEARS now, not only on this forum, but to my friend who has lost over $10,000 to me because he decided to be the house and book my bets playing every single hand of pai gow..
toodles!
Quote: paigow1986mathextremist: for the last time, I was not talking about roulette, I was talking about paigow, hence the name paigow1986. answer these few questions for me will ya?
1. do I have a better chance of hitting the progressive(or any payout for that matter) playing 6 pai gow hands opposed to 1 if I am ONLY playing the bonus's and the min/max on the bonus is $5
2. does getting a joker in pai gow increase my chances of making a better hand?
3. if I am playing 6 hands, do I have a better chance of getting the joker as opposed to the guy playing 1 hand?
if you answered yes to any of these, you my friend, are no "mathextremist", and that's all ive been trying to say for YEARS now, not only on this forum, but to my friend who has lost over $10,000 to me because he decided to be the house and book my bets playing every single hand of pai gow..
toodles!
Are you serious?
Of course, if you play more hands, you will have more winning hands. You will also have more losing hands. And you will lose twice as much money.
Quote: endermikeOne consideration is that if a troll doesn't get the response they are looking for initially, will they start to jump into other threads? In some ways that might open them up to a banning more readily, which could be helpful. On the other hand, it might be best if we can keep them contained to one or two threads.
Personally, I think the decision is tough. What ultimately is being wasted? Member time? Server Storage? I think based on the current make up of the membership and moderation letting a thread run its natural course is best. If we see a problematic change if the site (too much trolling or over use of the ban hammer) I think there is an effective, enlightened majority which would speak up.
+1. Worth the troll to have the conversation we're having, at least to this point. (I reserve the right to change my mind as I read on...lol) And, as a non-math guy, it's extremely informative to read through the debunking and logical arguments. That's part of what makes this site unique and interesting, is the mythbusting and system debunking. And part of what keeps it credible is the restraint against personal insults. When you go there, you've lost the argument. But, short of that, have at it; make the strongest possible argument.
Quote: paigow1986you my friend, are no "mathextremist", and that's all ive been trying to say for YEARS now, not only on this forum, but to my friend
I'm flattered, but please don't mail me any dead roses.
Quote: TwirdmanAgain you are misunderstanding what is happening. The probability of you winning goes up but the expected value remains exactly the same. For instance say 100 tickets were sold at a raffle for a dollar each and you won 90 dollars if your ticket was called. EV for one ticket is 1/100*90-1=-.1 so I lose 10 cents per ticket on average. I could buy all 1 hundred tickets and guarantee I win and then my EV is 90-cost of tickets=90-100=-10 so I lost 10 dollars on 100 tickets meaning I've lost 10 cents per ticket the exact same EV from buying 1 ticket. Same if I bought 50 tickets I have a 1/2 chance of winning so 1/2*90-50=-5 so I lost 5 dollars over 50 tickets or 10 cents per ticket.
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.
Post of the Day. Very well said. Hear, hear. Simple, concise, allows both sides of the argument to be correct in their assertions while identifying the flawed verbiage.
The discussion is full of learning opportunities. The insistent poster with whom the others engage brings out more and more detail and examples. As someone else said, it allows the knowledgable expert to sharpen their arguments and examples. And, of course, Mosca put it all together very well, as usual.
There is value here. My guess is that Gamblor grabbed the title phrase from the other website or something similar and ran with it. Gamblor and Scepticus are not, as far as I can tell from member info, the same person. But each time someone comes here with some junk from another forum, another system salesman, another urban gambling legend, and the gang takes the time to point out the erroneous thinking, that's HUGE value.
I came here to learn how to play UTH better; it was a link on Google to a discussion from last year. For me, it's been Alice down the rabbit hole. I found amazing minds, eccentrics, huge amounts of information available (in the aggregate) nowhere else, experts willing to work with a nobody on a game now in casinos, and people who valued my skills enough to ask me to be a moderator, all in 9 months. How crazy is that? Not to mention the guy who INVENTED the damned game (among several other games, and several other inventors) that killed my bankroll, which is what sent me here in the first place. And the guys who PROGRAM the slots, and CREATE the sidebets, and PROTECT the games, and DECIDE which ones to offer, and BUILD online casinos, and last but not least, the MATH GUYS. And, mother of all amazements, it's free.
Find me anything like this forum, anywhere in the world, for any price. A few trolls are nothing.
1 person playing 6 hands (bonus's only) at $5 a piece vs. 1 person playing 1 hand at $30
flop comes out..... K K K...
now lets just forget the fact that I have 12 cards to see if I have that fourth king which OBVIOUSLY, increases my odds of having that fourth king, because I HAVE 12 CARDS!! but lets just assume neither people have the fourth K, lets see if im LOSING more by playing more shall we?
trips pays 3 to 1, meaning that every single one of my $5 will get me $15, and you multiply that by 6, and you end up with $90
other guy playing 1 hand at $30 gets the trips as well, he gets 3 to 1....WELL LOOK AT THAT!!......he gets $90 also!!! who woulda thought!??!
now I know what you're gonna say, "WELL NOT EVERY HAND THERE WILL BE TRIPS ON THE BOARD, YOU'RE GONNA MISS MORE THAN YOU'LL MAKE"..
well, lets see how that works when the board is nothing and both people don't hit, lets see who "loses more"
guy playing 6 hands at $5 a piece loses......$30
guy playing 1 hand at $30 a piece loses......................................
.............
...............$30.. LOLOLOLOL
so what did you make of this "axiomofchoice"? did you learn something new? do you see how im NOT losing more money, and all im doing by playing more hands is increasing my chances of hitting that BIG bonus....especially when I have stated over and over again that im playing 6 hands at $5 as opposed to 1 hand at $30, its IMPOSSIBLE for me to be "losing more". there is one thing that is gained from playing more hands, and that is increasing your chances of making payable hands, and if you are able to do that without RISKING MORE MONEY, it makes no sense to me how I will be "losing more" in the end.
btw, what does axiomofchoice even mean?
buhbyeeeeeeee
Quote: paigow1986axiom: how will I have "more losing hands"?
Let's say you win half your hands. If you play 10 hands you can expect to lose about 5. If you play 20... well look at that! You can expect to lose 10 of them! And 10 losing hands is more losing hands than 5 losing hands! You learn something new every day.
Quote:btw, what does axiomofchoice even mean?
I am not about to try to explain advanced set theory to someone who does not understand simple arithmetic. Feel free to look it up though -- Wikipedia does not discriminate.
Quote: paigow1986axiom: how will I have "more losing hands", that is an assumption, what you are saying is nothing different than what OP was trying to say about guessing the coin flip correctly everytime. when you say I will lose more hands you are assuming that only my 1 hand with the joker wins, and all my other hands lose because why? the dealer gets a bomb hand everytime? NO. if the dealer has pai gow, guess what, im not LOSING just as much money, im winning SIX TIMES the amount of money. let me give you an example when playing UTH:
1 person playing 6 hands (bonus's only) at $5 a piece vs. 1 person playing 1 hand at $30
flop comes out..... K K K...
now lets just forget the fact that I have 12 cards to see if I have that fourth king which OBVIOUSLY, increases my odds of having that fourth king, because I HAVE 12 CARDS!! but lets just assume neither people have the fourth K, lets see if im LOSING more by playing more shall we?
trips pays 3 to 1, meaning that every single one of my $5 will get me $15, and you multiply that by 6, and you end up with $90
other guy playing 1 hand at $30 gets the trips as well, he gets 3 to 1....WELL LOOK AT THAT!!......he gets $90 also!!! who woulda thought!??!
now I know what you're gonna say, "WELL NOT EVERY HAND THERE WILL BE TRIPS ON THE BOARD, YOU'RE GONNA MISS MORE THAN YOU'LL MAKE"..
well, lets see how that works when the board is nothing and both people don't hit, lets see who "loses more"
guy playing 6 hands at $5 a piece loses......$30
guy playing 1 hand at $30 a piece loses......................................
.............
...............$30.. LOLOLOLOL
so what did you make of this "axiomofchoice"? did you learn something new? do you see how im NOT losing more money, and all im doing by playing more hands is increasing my chances of hitting that BIG bonus....especially when I have stated over and over again that im playing 6 hands at $5 as opposed to 1 hand at $30, its IMPOSSIBLE for me to be "losing more". there is one thing that is gained from playing more hands, and that is increasing your chances of making payable hands, and if you are able to do that without RISKING MORE MONEY, it makes no sense to me how I will be "losing more" in the end.
btw, what does axiomofchoice even mean?
buhbyeeeeeeee
But when you hit the big bonus you win signifcantly less. For instance take the 3 of a kind example if you bet 30 and hit it you get paid 900 dollars whereas if you play 6 hands you can only hit it on 1 hand and hence if you hit you win 450+5*15=525. So in some cases you win less. Also in other cases you lose more. For instance say board is bupkis and you flub on 5 of your hands and manage a straight on 1 you've lost 5 dollars. If instead you had bet the 30 on the straight hand you would have won 120 dollars.
Basically what playing more hands does is decrease the variance. You are less likely to win super big, as a multiple of bet, and also less likely to lose the whole bet. The point though is EV doesn't change.
turdman: remember me? I think you made a typo or a mistake or something when you were explaining your uth situation. I think what you MEANT to say is lets assume you hit QUADS, because trips only pays 3 to 1, and on a $30 bet, that's only $90, not $900, but I know what you're saying. lets assume the guy playing $30 hits quads, he wins $900 (30 to 1). but if those quads are laid on on the board, the guy playing $5 on each spot ALSO gets $900 (30*5*6=900).
but let me "say" that the chances the guy with 2 cards having quads over the guy with 12 cards is beyond far fetched. call me crazy, but I would rather take my chances of 6 random hands, with 12 random cards, than be the guy with 2 cards even IF the guy has got A A everytime! because at the end of the day, you have more of a chance of making straights, flushes, trips, full houses, etc, with the OTHER hands....
and im not just "saying" these things, I have done this little test run for over 2 years now with over 100,000 hands to my name, and with the $50 I have started I have gotten it up to $10,000, and that's playing FIVE DOLLARS A HAND ON BONUS'S. try it at home, I promise you it will open your eyes, and you guys will realize the REAL reason casinos don't let ANYONE play an entire table of carnival games and it has NOTHING to do with swapping cards, or using information.
Quote: paigow1986axiomofchoice: lets say I grew wings and never needed to use a car or plane to get places ever again, or lets say I met up with halle berry tomorrow and she decided to let me impregnate her. hell lets say I ran for president in 2016 and won. you can SAY a lot of things, what you are doing now is no different than OP's saying he will guess coin flips correctly 50% of the time, if you are playing roulette and black has come 26 times in a row, you cant "say" that it will be red on the next spin, it could be black 26 more times in a row, so stop "saying" things. YOU learn something new everyday!
Right. As I suspected, you are trolling. You cannot honestly believe that if you play 100 hands you will lose the same number of hands as if you just play 10 hands.
Quote:turdman:
PLEASE let the mods consider this a personal insult and put you out of your misery.
paigow1986 is suspended for 7 days for this post, exhibiting extreme rudeness towards another member, AxiomOfChoice.
paigow 1986 is suspended for 14 days for this post, personal insult to Twirdman.
Sentence to be served consecutively. Next occurence, upon return, of any severity will be nuclear.
Quote: paigow1986mathextremist: for the last time, I was not talking about roulette, I was talking about paigow, hence the name paigow1986. answer these few questions for me will ya?
1. do I have a better chance of hitting the progressive(or any payout for that matter) playing 6 pai gow hands opposed to 1 if I am ONLY playing the bonus's and the min/max on the bonus is $5
2. does getting a joker in pai gow increase my chances of making a better hand?
3. if I am playing 6 hands, do I have a better chance of getting the joker as opposed to the guy playing 1 hand?
if you answered yes to any of these, you my friend, are no "mathextremist", and that's all ive been trying to say for YEARS now, not only on this forum, but to my friend who has lost over $10,000 to me because he decided to be the house and book my bets playing every single hand of pai gow..
toodles!
1. Each of your hands is as likely as the other guy's one hand to win the progressive (or any bet). It seems that the largest issues with your arguments concerning this method are that you aren't controlling for time or money at risk. What happens if you play 6 hands at once for 1 hour, while I play 1 hand for 8 hours. Don't I then have a higher likelihood than you of hitting the progressive?
2. Yes.
3. Each of your hands is as likely as the other guy's one hand to get the joker. But you both get the joker once every 7.5 hands on average, and the other guy is betting 6 times more per hand than you are. So you get the joker 6/7.5ths of the time. The other guy gets the joker 1/7.5th of the time, and when that happens, he wins 6 times more than you do. 6/7.5 joker frequency * $5 hand and 1/7.5 joker frequency * $30 hand have exactly the same expected value.
4. (my additon) Let's say you play 6 hands with $5 on the fortune bonus, and I play 1 hand with $30 on the fortune bonus. Let's say you hit a royal flush. You win $500. Let's say I get a royal flush. I win $3,000. You'll hit the royal 6 times more often than I do, I'll win 6 times as much as you when I hit it. What makes you think your method is better than mine?
Quote: SonuvabishGamblor pretends to be English in his spelling, and his obvious misspelling of Gamblor may even be a clue to his act. He also does not use any other common British grammatical mannerisms, such as using -ise instead of -ize, for words like realize.
He may be Canadian.
Quote: SonuvabishIt occurs to me that Gamblor is PaiGow. They both use excessive capitalization of full words, and argue against simple mathematical principles. Paigow shows up as soon as Gamblor is banned, attacks the wisdom of nuking Gamblor, then proceeds to insult everyone. Paigow does not post in many threads, and selects this thread to post. The only difference is that Gamblor pretends to be English in his spelling, and his obvious misspelling of Gamblor may even be a clue to his act. He also does not use any other common British grammatical mannerisms, such as using -ise instead of -ize, for words like realize. Paigow's writing indicates he is a fairly strong in language arts, if weak in math and science. Any good speller would know how to spell center and favorite in English rather than American. This evidence is strong enough for a harsher penalty in my opinion.
There are some similarities between them, but they are indicating different accounts with no crossover in origin. Unless there is some further proof or other transgression, I can't make the definitive case for multiple accounts at this time.
paigow, if you read his one thread, is much more profane and extremist than Gamblor, at least in attitude. But both personae were arguing the same/similar viewpoint; that of the player over the short term. So they made very similar statements and had similar misunderstandings about terms and probabilities. Under the current rules, paigow's thread from several months ago would have gotten him nuked long ago. But the rules and standards were different then, so if you are entertained by repetitive profane rants and rudeness and insults towards those trying to have a spirited debate on the issues while showing no comprehension of what distinction they are trying to make, I highly recommend it.
Quote: beachbumbabsUnder the current rules, paigow's thread from several months ago would have gotten him nuked long ago. But the rules and standards were different then, so if you are entertained by repetitive profane rants and rudeness and insults towards those trying to have a spirited debate on the issues while showing no comprehension of what distinction they are trying to make, I highly recommend it.
OMG, thank you for the suggestion. That is a remarkable thread.
Link: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/gambling/15197-big-question-regarding-increasing-odds-need-mathematicians/
Paigow asks about the EV of playing multiple versus single hands at a table. Over a period of two months, he receives the same answer from everyone, but ...
Along the way (generally without provocation), he either patronizes or blatantly insults nearly everyone who tries to help.
Fortunately, his career choice does not require interpersonal skills. (He's a dealer.)
Quote: gpac1377OMG, thank you for the suggestion. That is a remarkable thread.
Link: https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/questions-and-answers/gambling/15197-big-question-regarding-increasing-odds-need-mathematicians/
Paigow asks about the EV of playing multiple versus single hands at a table. Over a period of two months, he receives the same answer from everyone, but ...... concludes that everyone is wrong because he's been winning at a home game.
Along the way (generally without provocation), he either patronizes or blatantly insults nearly everyone who tries to help.
Fortunately, his career choice does not require interpersonal skills. (He's a dealer.)
Yeah, this was an encore performance. Most of the same cast, including me. I was being facetious in recommending it, if not sardonic. But glad you enjoyed it.
I must admit I enjoy seeing Mr. 1986 get suspended mainly because I just don't like him or believe any of his 10k nonsense. I would not consider any of what he said suspension worthy. More proof Woman exploit power ;)Quote: beachbumbabspaigow1986 is suspended for 3 days for this post, exhibiting extreme rudeness towards another member, MathExtremist.
paigow1986 is suspended for 7 days for this post, exhibiting extreme rudeness towards another member, AxiomOfChoice.
paigow 1986 is suspended for 14 days for this post, personal insult to Twirdman.
Sentence to be served consecutively. Next occurence, upon return, of any severity will be nuclear.
