Mathematicians Fallacy (Baccarat)
Quote: paigow1986ITS GOOD TO BE BACK
first order of business...funny you guys think that me and gamblor were the same person. I wish there was some way you guys could look up our ip addresses and track what cities we are from, we are NOT the same person, so to any of you mathematical genius's that thought that, stick to math, because being a detective doesn't suit you guys all too well
second....the fact that BEACHBUMBABS....of ALL people was the one to give me the banhammer is BEYOND ironic, mainly because while there were some people who came to my defense on that thread I started under the gambling section...ONE of those people that DID NOT bash me, and borderline agreed with me was.....YOU GUESSED IT....BEACHBUMBABS.....and I quote her:
"p1986,
I read this initially several weeks ago, and I'm going to stick my neck out as an experienced paigow player but non-mathematician and say I agree with the premise that 6-$5 bonus bets are better value than 1 $30 bet. I'm not going back to read what exactly has been said one way or the other, just that the following is true (and I'm explaining in greater detail than you likely need, but I expect to get this argument picked apart, and so I'm explaining my reasons for agreeing);
1. One player @30, assuming no other players, will not generate an envy bonus. 6@5 will receive an envy bonus, at a 5x value, for 4OAK above, and that bonus will be collected by the same person who collects the large odds bet. This is maximized at the 5 level, and the second reason to only play 5, not more or less: envy bonuses are a flat rate, not an odds pay based on the size of the bonus bet above 5.
2. One player is benefiting from all 6 bets that has a Hit Frequency of 19.1944% (source: WoO most-used Paytable for Fortune PaiGow), which is larger than the 16.66% share per bet of 6 bonus bets; in other words, you will virtually always have a hedge on, with bonus pays on a 2 to 1 or higher basis. You will never lose more than 50% of the value of your bonus bets under this scenario (bet 6, retain 3 with the lowest payoff of 2 to 1 on a straight) in the long run, where as a single spot player, you will lose this bet 4 out of 5 times. This increases, as a single player covering 6 bets, your Hit Frequency on this bet to over 100%, but decreases your return inversely (you're not receiving 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 or whatever on the full amount, but only 1/6 of it per bonus hand).
3. The joker will appear in 6 hands controlled by you, only 1 by the dealer, not 6 separate players, on any given deal. Your chances are slightly less than 6 out of 7 of holding the joker, because 4 cards are burned, and it may be in the discards. The joker's pay effect is already calculated in 2 above, so this may be redundant to the calculation, but joker-bearing hands are significantly more likely to result in a bonus pay, and you have it slightly more than 80% of the time, where a single player has it only 13.5% of the time. With a single player receiving the value of 6 bets instead of one, even though larger, having that much use of the joker has GOT to improve your value on splitting up the bets. (BTW, these are all reasons why I insist on playing 2 hands wherever I go; except for extreme negative variance days, one hand tends to pay for the other and allows me all of these advantages on a lesser scale; I don't care if they make me play 2x minimums; this is how I want to play, and I tend to lose slowly while waiting for the big score.)
It would be my OPINION, without the math skills to back it up, that you take a significant carve of the Fortune bet @7.77% HE - which does NOT include the Envy Bonus - that's the main HE improvement point - with each hand you are allowed to play in addition to the first. Whether at its extreme (which you have here) it crosses into +EV territory, I doubt (though it could), but a team of 3 playing 2 with pre-agreed strategy and bet sizes and pooling afterwards would have the same effective edge you describe for a single player, and that's "allowed" in most casinos (3 people playing together on 2 hands each, I mean; no idea if a casino would back a team off for being obvious about this). The reason I doubt the +EV value is because it's so evident that it must've been tested and/or tried in the 20-odd years that bet's been offered.
In my experience, there are many people, especially Asian consortiums in Biloxi, who arrive and depart as groups, playing similar strategy to each other with multiple hands; though at other times a similar group will have one player making big bets on a positive progression system, with all of them standing behind. Having watched them play both ways, I make some assumptions about the level of their expertise, which is often extremely high, and have learned a lot about game strategy from them. If your underlying plan were +EV, they would be all over it. Instead, many of them bet black, even purple, and don't even try the sidebet for 5 bucks. I ALWAYS bet it, but that's my happy place at PGP; always looking for the 7SFnoJ hand, even at -EV. Almost had it once in clubs - the infamous "one-away". "
funny what happens when you give females power. they abuse it. another reason why we will (hopefully) never see a woman president in the USA..
TOODLES!!
Would it be a suspensionable insult if I called this guy a troll?
Quote: paigow1986ITS GOOD TO BE BACK
first order of business...funny you guys think that me and gamblor were the same person. I wish there was some way you guys could look up our ip addresses and track what cities we are from, we are NOT the same person, so to any of you mathematical genius's that thought that, stick to math, because being a detective doesn't suit you guys all too well
second....the fact that BEACHBUMBABS....of ALL people was the one to give me the banhammer is BEYOND ironic, mainly because while there were some people who came to my defense on that thread I started under the gambling section...ONE of those people that DID NOT bash me, and borderline agreed with me was.....YOU GUESSED IT....BEACHBUMBABS.....and I quote her:
...(my post-BBB)....
funny what happens when you give females power. they abuse it. another reason why we will (hopefully) never see a woman president in the USA..
TOODLES!!
1. You got the hammer because you were insulting and rude. It doesn't take ovaries to see that. It's also not ironic; it's my job here. The irony lies in your words towards me today when I was one of the few to attempt to clarify and understand your side of the discussion.
2. I stand behind what I said before; didn't need quoting. You're arguing for the trees against people who compute the forest. You'll apparently never see that. I see what you're saying, but you don't see what they're saying to you in that thread.
3. Your gratuitous shots on women are ridiculous and not worth refutation.
Have a nice day.
Quote: paigow1986
funny what happens when you give females power. they abuse it. another reason why we will (hopefully) never see a woman president in the USA..
TOODLES!!
Personal Insult, Trolling.
You are the weakest link, goodbye.
NUKED.
Ummm...... I don't even like that guy, he probably should be nuked just because I don't like him. However, I don't think he should be nuked for that comment.Quote: Mission146Personal Insult, Trolling.
You are the weakest link, goodbye.
NUKED.
Quote: AxelWolfUmmm...... I don't even like that guy, he probably should be nuked just because I don't like him. However, I don't think he should be nuked for that comment.
You don't think that he should be nuked for insulting a moderator, not to mention half the population of the world?
It's hard to say if he was a troll or an idiot. It would be nice to believe that no one could be that stupid, but unfortunately I don't have that much faith in humanity. I'm going to guess that he believed the nonsense he was spewing. So, idiot, not troll.
Quote: AxelWolfUmmm...... I don't even like that guy, he probably should be nuked just because I don't like him. However, I don't think he should be nuked for that comment.
Fortunately, I nuked him only because you don't like him, but it's not like I could put that on the Suspension list as the official reason, is it?
j/k
quote the insult please. I'm not seeing it, I'm seeing a male male chauvinist pig i dont think BBB was really insulted.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYou don't think that he should be nuked for insulting a moderator, not to mention half the population of the world?
It's hard to say if he was a troll or an idiot. It would be nice to believe that no one could be that stupid, but unfortunately I don't have that much faith in humanity. I'm going to guess that he believed the nonsense he was spewing. So, idiot, not troll.
I would be happy with that in his case. I think you should start using that reason every time you nuke someone.Quote: Mission146Fortunately, I nuked him only because you don't like him
Quote: AxelWolfquote the insult please. I'm not seeing it, I'm seeing a male male chauvinist pig i dont think BBB was really insulted.
It should be rather clear he was referring to BBB's power as moderator. Hence he was saying BBB abused her power as a mod because she was a woman and therefore unfit to serve due to her gender.Quote: paigow1986, edited for brevitysecond....the fact that BEACHBUMBABS....of ALL people was the one to give me the banhammer is BEYOND ironic, mainly because while there were some people who came to my defense on that thread I started under the gambling section...ONE of those people that DID NOT bash me, and borderline agreed with me was.....YOU GUESSED IT....BEACHBUMBABS.....and I quote her:
[Long quote, cut for for brevity]
funny what happens when you give females power. they abuse it. another reason why we will (hopefully) never see a woman president in the USA..
TOODLES!!
Misogynistic: To the extreme
Insulting: Yes, but probably due to poor framing and phrasing. If he had said something like "I disagree with my suspension and here is why (for reasons that have factual basis and are not misogynistic)," he probably would have been fine. However, from the tone he took in the posts BBB cited in his suspension and the post which he was nuked for (by Mission146), I think it was clear he was looking to shown the door. In fact I would say his sign off "TOODLES!!" and his final post could be read to mean, "I know this is the end of the road for me, bye."
Trolling: I think so. There was no factual content and it was an insult without basis.
Edit: I really should have posted this on the suspension discussion, oh well.
Quote: Mission146Personal Insult, Trolling.
You are the weakest link, goodbye.
NUKED.
A member was suspended for 30 days because he posted "hallelujah" when another member got suspended. You said there was a "dancing on the grave" quality to it.
Would you agree that the weakest link comment could have that same "dancing on the grave" quality? Yes, I know about the game show. Technically you insulted paigow1986 while he was still a member. Three days for that?
An image of Homer Simpson choking brat comes to mind "Why you little" It's like when you're a kid and your right, with lets say, your Dad, your now considered a smart ass, and lucky if you don't get smacked.Quote: 1BBA member was suspended for 30 days because he posted "hallelujah" when another member got suspended. You said there was a "dancing on the grave" quality to it.
Would you agree that the weakest link comment could have that same "dancing on the grave" quality? Yes, I know about the game show. Technically you insulted paigow1986 while he was still a member. Three days for that?
Did I forget the smiley face or did I deliberately omit it? Hmmm.Quote: AxelWolfAn image of Homer Simpson choking brat comes to mind "Why you little" It's like when you're a kid and your right, with lets say, your Dad, your now considered a smart ass, and lucky if you don't get smacked.
Lets have it on record that anything I say implies a smiley face, in case I forget it.Quote: 1BBDid I forget the smiley face or did I deliberately omit it? Hmmm.
Quote: 1BB
Would you agree that the weakest link comment could have that same "dancing on the grave" quality? Yes, I know about the game show. Technically you insulted paigow1986 while he was still a member. Three days for that?
Not happening, banned him before I posted about the ban, so he was no longer a Member at the time.
Quote: DreI agree with gamblor 100 % .. You are having mathematician fallacy when you claim that if you play long enough you will be broke.. First what is long enough because in comparison to infinite my life span is close to nothing.. So there is a chance for one to come out as a winner.. Now do most people that play baccarat for a long run come out as winners? The answer is no. Why? You have to add other fractures that manipilulate and play an effect on the outcome.. Per say tilt or making no mistakes and as a player it is very difficult if not impossible for one to stay by your own rules or system rules .. This applies to compulsive gamblers.. Which if you are trying to control chance to improve your well being you are considered a compulsive gambler.. I personally believe there is a way to control chance we just haven't mastered the way yet.. We let the lowest vibration "fear" collapse with another vibration "intent".. I believe in order to beat the game one must acquire what I call to be fearless certainty theory.. In order for one to control chance one must be absolutely certain and have no fear.
Thats amazing. We should talk since I believe by tapping into the unicorn fairy realm I can accurately predict the next 20 spins of the roulette wheel. Do you think the two might be linked. Perhaps the only way to tap into the unicorn fairy realm is to collapse the lowest vibration fear with intent? Or maybe it is the other way around maybe by tapping into the unicorn fairy realm I will be able collapse those vibrations?
Quote: DreI agree with gamblor 100 % .. You are having mathematician fallacy when you claim that if you play long enough you will be broke.. First what is long enough because in comparison to infinite my life span is close to nothing.. So there is a chance for one to come out as a winner.. Now do most people that play baccarat for a long run come out as winners? The answer is no. Why? You have to add other fractures that manipilulate and play an effect on the outcome.. Per say tilt or making no mistakes and as a player it is very difficult if not impossible for one to stay by your own rules or system rules .. This applies to compulsive gamblers.. Which if you are trying to control chance to improve your well being you are considered a compulsive gambler.. I personally believe there is a way to control chance we just haven't mastered the way yet.. We let the lowest vibration "fear" collapse with another vibration "intent".. I believe in order to beat the game one must acquire what I call to be fearless certainty theory.. In order for one to control chance one must be absolutely certain and have no fear.
Will you lay me 2 to 1 flipping coins?
Quote: DreIs it really that far fetch to you? Why? Clearly if you study science you can see miraculous things all the time.. Perhaps if u use 1% more of your brain you can tap into that fairy realm of yours and understand. But I doubt you will be able to use one more 1% more of your brain because you give me the impression you believe the universe came from nothing.. How can something come out of nothing ? Perhaps you can explain how birds know where to go when they migrate? Or how come bees are able to fly if there propositional mass is not supposed to allow them 2? How did the universe begging ? Explain a black whole? Do you have any idea how we are communicating right now? Perhaps if you tap into that unicorn fairy realm of urs you are able to do so.. Should not be that far fetch if you believe in the universe. Because if you believe in the universe you believe in it's wonders and capabilities of the extraordinary.. Imagine if u use 50% more of your brain hmm perhaps the unicorn realm lets you disappear but only if you tap into the unicorn..
You agree with Gamblor about "mathematician fallacy". There is such a thing as a "black whole", which probably formed at some point when the universe was "beggin". Youre talking about fairies and unicorns, at length (I choose bees as the creature that does not fit if it is a puzzle). And someone else should use, but probably is incapable of using, 1% more of their brain? Pretty bold claim based on your 2 posts so far. Seriously, is this Gamblor reincarnate? Are you British or Canadian?
Quote: DreIs it really that far fetch to you? Why? Clearly if you study science you can see miraculous things all the time.. Perhaps if u use 1% more of your brain you can tap into that fairy realm of yours and understand. But I doubt you will be able to use one more 1% more of your brain because you give me the impression you believe the universe came from nothing.. How can something come out of nothing ? Perhaps you can explain how birds know where to go when they migrate? Or how come bees are able to fly if there propositional mass is not supposed to allow them 2? How did the universe begging ? Explain a black whole? Do you have any idea how we are communicating right now? Perhaps if you tap into that unicorn fairy realm of urs you are able to do so.. Should not be that far fetch if you believe in the universe. Because if you believe in the universe you believe in it's wonders and capabilities of the extraordinary.. Imagine if u use 50% more of your brain hmm perhaps the unicorn realm lets you disappear but only if you tap into the unicorn..
What do you mean by use 1 more percent of my brain. You know that the whole using 10% of your brain is an absolute myth right. The human uses all 100% of his brain. I mean you can argue that not all neurons fire simultaneously but there are severe health risk associated with that specifically epilepsy is caused by too many neurons firing at once so in that sense using more of your brain seems dangerous and pointless.
Also most of the things you posted about are also debunked. We know exactly how bumblebees fly it is well understood when you understand that they flap their wings hard than other insects and also use a more rotational motion in flapping. Black holes are simply super dense parts of the universe caused by the collapsing of a supermassive star.
Quote: TwirdmanWhat do you mean by use 1 more percent of my brain. You know that the whole using 10% of your brain is an absolute myth right. The human uses all 100% of his brain.
Apparently, not all humans.
Quote: SonuvabishYou agree with Gamblor about "mathematician fallacy". There is such a thing as a "black whole", which probably formed at some point when the universe was "beggin". Youre talking about fairies and unicorns, at length (I choose bees as the creature that does not fit if it is a puzzle). And someone else should use, but probably is incapable of using, 1% more of their brain? Pretty bold claim based on your 2 posts so far. Seriously, is this Gamblor reincarnate? Are you British or Canadian?
I'm rolling:D
