Quote:lilredrooster.

should have included him my earlier post

Axel is doing a great job in exposing the nonsense

.

link to original post

LOL!! Sure he is..

Quote:SOOPOOQuote:JoemanAxel brings up a good point. I don't know if the mods peruse the Misc Discussion Thread, but how can stating that someone is "usually wrong" (without substantiating proof) not be construed as a personal insult?Quote:AxelWolfPeople can can accuse you of anything at any time, but you having proof to the contrary would come in play. You can't legitimately be accused of cheating if you allow Mike the proper accuses to your logs.Quote:EvenBobQuote:AxelWolfYou realized you couldn't do it, I guess.

link to original post

You guessed wrong as usual. I could do it all day long, it's just pointless cuz all I'm doing is putting $1,000 in escrow and having it sent right back to me so I can bet with it. Dumb. And there's about 12 different ways I could cheat that I'm sure I would be accused of so that's why there's no point. Somebody on a roulette forum I'm on pointed out that there's only two ways to convince people that what you do is legit. One is for them to see it in person and even then most of the time they don't believe it. The absolute most convincing way is for them to learn how to do it and then they know that it works but that almost never happens. I've seen it but it's rare that there's somebody who will take the time to actually get into this and figure out thay it works.

link to original post

That's what you said you would do. It's hard to dispute the facts.

Wrong as usual, says who? You? LOL... There's an example of someone being able to accuse you of anything at any time.

Please back that statement up with facts. You claiming I'm wrong about something just because you say I'm wrong won't cut it, show the proof that I'm usually wrong.

I was right in asking what the point was in having someone put up the money in the first place if it was a totally free roll. That didn't make any sense, and you seem to now be saying the same thing. It was YOUR dumb Idea, not ours.

link to original post

link to original post

Of course it is! But really, all of our exposing of Bob’s delusions are of course a personal insult. And Bob repeatedly calling me ‘the smartest guy in the room’ is a personal insult. You just implied the mods are not doing their job; that they aren’t smart enough to recognize a personal insult! That’s a personal insult! I’ll make you a bet….. I can find 100 examples of Bob insulting Axel, and 100 examples of Axel insulting Bob? And all NOT worthy of a suspension! Bob thinks he has explained his method…. Axel says he hasn’t…. That’s insulting!!!! (To Bob). Etc…..

How about this…. is this a personal insult directed at the Mods….???

“If the mods had balls they would nuke EB for continuously trolling the forum”.

link to original post

Note: Bolding of text added by moderator

Suspension of Soopoo for 2 days - one day for each of my testicles. I will leave it up to Dieter and Wizard whether they wish to add on to the duration another 2 days each.

I do not find this at all amusing. In my opinion this is a personal insult and does not rise to the level of civility that our Rules statement calls for.

Quote:TigerWu

Extremely sad and disappointing that EB's fraudulent claims

link to original post

Fraudulent in your opinion, never been proven to be fraudulent because they are not fraudulent. And if you don't like it quit bringing it up all the time. Like in this thread, I didn't bring it up somebody else did.

it just goes on and on and on and on

EB claiming he can beat roulette and all others who post about it stating that he can't

it never ends - and nothing is being gained by continuing the discussion

but every time EB says he can do this - his words should be shot down

such nonsense should not be allowed to stand without rebuttal

.

Quote:lilredrooster.

it never ends - and nothing is being gained by continuing the discussion

but every time EB says he can do this - his words should be shot down

link to original post

When is that going to start, my words are being shot down. So far all you have is opinion, I've yet to see one shred of evidence that I can't be doing it. You keep talking about the math but you never present any that says I can't do it. Look at your sacrosanct law of large numbers. The casino is ruled by it, that's how they make their money. But even in the short term for them the law of large numbers is meaningless. They can easily lose money in a quarter because in the short term anything can happen. So if it doesn't apply to the casino in the short term how the heck would it ever apply to a single player. And that's all the math you have, everything else you have is opinion. And your opinion and $1.50 might get you a coffee at McDonald's.

Quote:lilredrooster.

it just goes on and on and on and on

EB claiming he can beat roulette and all others who post about it stating that he can't

it never ends - and nothing is being gained by continuing the discussion

but every time EB says he can do this - his words should be shot down

such nonsense should not be allowed to stand without rebuttal

.

link to original post

That's how I see it. If his nonsense is rebutted every time, eventually he'll either stop or prove the Chinese were right.

Quote:EvenBob

It's not thousands and there's that mysterious math again that everybody talks about but nobody will give any details of. It's not the law of large numbers, that of course has nothing to do with what happens in the short term.

Literally no one disputes this. I'm baffled why you keep bringing it up. The LLN applies to you because you have gambled hundreds of thousands of times over decades. Period. End of story.

Quote:EvenBob

I'm beginning to suspect that nobody knows what this mysterious math is that can't be beaten, everybody says it because everybody else says it.

link to original post

Fraudulent claims and EvenBob, name a more iconic duo.

I've posted the math at least twice already. It's the math that says it is impossible for you to have a house edge at Roulette, which is something, as we all remember, that you specifically claim.

You have never debunked it.

Here it is again, for at least the third time:

EV=(W*PW)-(L*PL)

EV=expected value

W=win

PW=chance of winning

L=loss

PL=chance of loss

So, for the single zero roulette that you play:

EV = (35*1/37)-(1*36/37)

EV = -2.703

You claim to have a positive house edge in roulette, so that EV is a positive number according to your claims. You have claimed your edge is higher than the +2% that a card counter can get in Blackjack. Please show the math that demonstrates your house edge of >2% using the above formula.

I want to stress to everyone that EB himself specifically claims he has a positive house edge in roulette of greater than 2%. This should be demonstrable using the above formula, according to EB's own claims.

EB can't do it, he knows he can't do it, and this is the math which he keeps asking for (which he keeps ignoring) that disproves his claims. Period. End of story. EB can not come back from this. He has been roundly debunked. I have just mathematically proven that his claims are fraudulent. Any further perpetuation of his claims should be considered trolling and dealt with accordingly.

Quote:lilredroosterQuote:EvenBobadmit it

I have a new personal policy re your posts

I will not respond to any of them -

of course, I am responding to this one - but this will be the last time

quote me, say anything you want about me or my posts

I don't care

no response

forever

.

link to original post

Quote:lilredrooster.

it just goes on and on and on and on

EB claiming he can beat roulette and all others who post about it stating that he can't

it never ends - and nothing is being gained by continuing the discussion

but every time EB says he can do this - his words should be shot down

such nonsense should not be allowed to stand without rebuttal

.

link to original post

I’d like to go back to reading more billryan anecdotes in here.

in deference to EB, you calculated the values of PW and PL incorrectly. You assumed that EBs educated guesses are worthless, where he claimed that PW ~ 80% and PL ~ 20%Quote:TigerWuQuote:EvenBob

It's not thousands and there's that mysterious math again that everybody talks about but nobody will give any details of. It's not the law of large numbers, that of course has nothing to do with what happens in the short term.

Literally no one disputes this. I'm baffled why you keep bringing it up. The LLN applies to you because you have gambled hundreds of thousands of times over decades. Period. End of story.

Quote:EvenBob

I'm beginning to suspect that nobody knows what this mysterious math is that can't be beaten, everybody says it because everybody else says it.

link to original post

Fraudulent claims and EvenBob, name a more iconic duo.

I've posted the math at least twice already. It's the math that says it is impossible for you to have a house edge at Roulette, which is something, as we all remember, that you specifically claim.

You have never debunked it.

Here it is again, for at least the third time:

EV=(W*PW)-(L*PL)

EV=expected value

W=win

PW=chance of winning

L=loss

PL=chance of loss

So, for the single zero roulette that you play:

EV = (35*1/37)-(1*36/37)

EV = -2.703

You claim to have a positive house edge in roulette, so that EV is a positive number according to your claims. You have claimed your edge is higher than the +2% that a card counter can get in Blackjack. Please show the math that demonstrates your house edge of >2% using the above formula.

I want to stress to everyone that EB himself specifically claims he has a positive house edge in roulette of greater than 2%. This should be demonstrable using the above formula, according to EB's own claims.

EB can't do it, he knows he can't do it, and this is the math which he keeps asking for (which he keeps ignoring) that disproves his claims. Period. End of story. EB can not come back from this. He has been roundly debunked. I have just mathematically proven that his claims are fraudulent. Any further perpetuation of his claims should be considered trolling and dealt with accordingly.

link to original post

He has no evidence to support and you have no evidence to disprove.

Quote:unJonI’d ask the mods to split the EB/roulette discussion off out of this thread.

I’d like to go back to reading more billryan anecdotes in here.

link to original post

I am in favor of doing this. A Miscellaneous Discussion thread is not for discussion of topics that are expressly covered by other threads. It takes me considerable time to split a thread when there are this many posts involved, so it will not happen immediately.

Quote:OnceDearin deference to EB, you calculated the values of PW and PL incorrectly. You assumed that EBs educated guesses are worthless, where he claimed that PW ~ 80% and PL ~ 20%

He has no evidence to support and you have no evidence to disprove.

link to original post

The math I just posted disproves he has that win rate in single zero roulette. The numbers are immutable unless he is playing roulette at a casino with non-standard payouts, and if he is, it would be extremely easy to supply those numbers to prove it.

EDIT: I will withhold any further discussion until this conversation is split or moved.

Quote:TigerWu

Here it is again, for at least the third time:

EV=(W*PW)-(L*PL)

EV=expected value

W=win

PW=chance of winning

L=loss

PL=chance of loss

link to original post

And here I go again for the third time. 'Chance of winning' is arrived at from making random bets against random outcomes. I do not make random bets, all my bets are the polar opposite of random. This is where we get into the discussion that the exact same thing happens in blackjack when the player starts making non-random bets because of the information he gets from counting cards. The information I get from roulette allows me to make non-random bets at the right time and this math of yours goes out the window because you have no math calculated for making non random bets. Here's an example. I see 14 Reds in a row and I make the calculated decision to make a non-random bet on red based on this information. When you figure out how to calculate the math for making non random bets get back to me.

Quote:gordonm888Quote:unJonI’d ask the mods to split the EB/roulette discussion off out of this thread.

I’d like to go back to reading more billryan anecdotes in here.

link to original post

I am in favor of doing this. A Miscellaneous Discussion thread is not for discussion of topics that are expressly covered by other threads. It takes me considerable time to split a thread when there are this many posts involved, so it will not happen immediately.

link to original post

I'd delete them and start fresh. You'll have 90% of the thread created in the first 72.

Bob completing a challenge that he himself proposes.Quote:EvenBob

And here I go again for the third time. 'Chance of

O/3 so far? I lost track.

I am doing the following:

1. Closing this thread -its overly long.

2. Starting a Miscellaneous Discussion Thread II.