Should mrjjj be banned?
Poll
 | 30 votes (40%) | ||
| | 39 votes (52%) | ||
| | 6 votes (8%) |
75 members have voted
Is he a troll? Sure. He posts just to get a rise from others. He claims to have a winning system (sorry, method), but has no interest in discussing it. He just enjoys tweaking those who claim there is no such thing as a winning method. I'd hate to see the site require signing off on a Gamblers' Fallacy pledge in order to join.
He's been pretty clear that he'll respond to all posts about him -- the solution to that is pretty simple. Maybe he's up, maybe he's down, I don't care. But many here seem to, or these threads wouldn't stretch on for pages.
Quote: Wizard
However, I think the comparison I made in my original post is appropriate. If you started a Jewish social site and somebody posted a 100 messages a day denying the Holocaust, although somewhat politely, setting of the expected firestorm, would you kick him off? Maybe that is an extreme example, but I'm trying to foster a community where math is respected and John Patrick/Rob Singer type nonsense is not worthy of discussion.
I think it isn't, because the scale of atrocity is completely out of whack. The RATIO may be accurate, but the magnitude is not. Yeah, it's still just the internet in both cases, but there's a difference in the consequences of permitting the perpetuating of racial hatred vs the tweaking of a bunch of APs.
Like I said, for one to even ask the question "do you think mrjjj is ahead for roulette on the scale of a lifetime of playing" is to doubt the reality that you say you know is true. You nod, say, "How nice for you," and change the subject.
As a 85%+ vote will be unlikely I'd say just keep your "martingale policy" on offenders. Maybe a PM to him reminding him that WOV Membership is not "protected under the US Constitution" and you make the rules. IOW, a reminder that while the cops can't do something when a guy says, "how's the family? Be a shame if something happened to one of them," you can and will.
An observation of trolls is that they generally have few interests or friends outside the BBS they are on and will "let you count to three" when you warn them.
Quote: thecesspitYou seemed to need a couple of goes around for the Trolls to see if they change their ways, or at least are polite about it.
I guarantee on return you'll get a wave of PMs from him complaining about other "attacks" and "gang tactics" by the crowd. And we'll get a wave of posts on this thread and others about "he won't back down" "rookies" "not apologizing for doing well" "aren't you all pro's (cough)" and "same rule for all of us, yes?". With a few "problem solved for you, yes" ' s in there.
It seems clear that he's intent on achieving a 1:1 ratio of posts about or to him and his replies, even when he refuses to actually have a conversation. His last three replies to my straightforward questions have included only one on-point answer. I'm not getting the "coolbreeze" treatment because I'm not directly disparaging his beliefs or his methods. I've merely determined that he holds the mutually-incompatible views that (a) each roulette number on each spin should appear with 1/38 probability AND (b) it's worth tracking past numbers because they can be useful in guiding one's future betting selections. That's enough for me; I have nothing further to ask him. I don't care at all whether he's gotten lucky playing roulette -- lots of people get lucky playing roulette -- or even if he's lying through his teeth about it. So what?
Quote: MathExtremistI've merely determined that he holds the mutually-incompatible views that (a) each roulette number on each spin should appear with 1/38 probability AND (b) it's worth tracking past numbers because they can be useful in guiding one's future betting selections.
No he doesn't. He holds the singular view that saying so tweaks people, and he gets off on that.
Simple answer, don't get tweaked. Not directed at you directly, ME, but to all who want to debate mrjjj: trust what you know but don't see over what you're told. If you entertain mrjjj's claims you might as well also entertain the myths that are often debated here (with much more civility).
Quote: MoscaNo he doesn't. He holds the singular view that saying so tweaks people, and he gets off on that.
Simple answer, don't get tweaked. Not directed at you directly, ME, but to all who want to debate mrjjj: trust what you know but don't see over what you're told. If you entertain mrjjj's claims you might as well also entertain the myths that are often debated here (with much more civility).
Well, that's a different story. I was assuming Ken was generally truthful, if a bit abstruse. You seem to think he is intentionally lying simply to get a rise out of people. I believe that's the very definition of a troll.
Many boards prohibit outright trolling. Should this one?
Quote: Kelly
2. He hates all advantage players, especially roulette advantage players.
Legitimate question: What is an advantage roulette player? I'm confused.
Quote: YoDiceRoll11Legitimate question: What is an advantage roulette player? I'm confused.
Somebody who uses bias wheel play or visual ballistics to win.
Quote: YoDiceRoll11Legitimate question: What is an advantage roulette player? I'm confused.
Someone who uses a wheel bias, if you are Ken. Otherwise, anyone who uses a (legal) technique to get an advantage at Roulette, which could include wheel bias, clocking the wheel, spotting a dealer spin pattern. I'm not sure any of them actually are possible any more.
(EDIT : Bob got there first..., but to add, me not being sure if they are possible is more a case of looking at secondary evidence rather than being an expert in the field).
Quote: YoDiceRoll11Legitimate question: What is an advantage roulette player? I'm confused.
I'm not sure. But, a disadvantaged player is obviously someone with a bad cough.
Quote: MathExtremistWell, that's a different story. I was assuming Ken was generally truthful, if a bit abstruse. You seem to think he is intentionally lying simply to get a rise out of people. I believe that's the very definition of a troll.
Many boards prohibit outright trolling. Should this one?
I can't get inside his mind, but that's what I think he is doing, yes. I believe there is enough truth in what he writes to make it all sound like he believes it, but that he knows the real score.
Regarding your second question, that is the subject of the thread. Myself, I blocked mrjjj a long time ago, he was my first block, and I don't read and participate in threads about him and roulette. This is a thread about banning a member, so I read it. I would prefer that The Wizard act one way or the other without asking the community, but I understand his reason for doing so.
Then that was NOT you I saw at John Patrick's last seminar held at Temple B'nai Brith Seniors' Nite.
Quote: WizardI hate to ban somebody for having an unpopular opinion. Certainly Dan's opinion that card counting and hole carding is cheating is not popular around here, but he is a gentlemen both on the board and in real life, and is welcome to stay.
I think it's unfair to Dan to make such a comparison. Sure, Dan is a gentleman, but that's irrelevant. Dan's viewpoints, unpopular as they are, are understandable, as well as rational. If the views he represents are unpopular yet tolerated, it's at least partially because, although we hate to admit it, we know he's right.
None of those statements can be said of mr jjj
Quote: WizardIt looks like it the matter is concluded anyway, as I said I was looking to get at least 80% in favor and it stands now at 44%, not counting the maybes.
I'd like to remind you that WoV is not a democracy.
Quote: DJTeddyBearIf the views he represents are unpopular yet tolerated, it's at least partially because, although we hate to admit it, we know he's right.
I hate to open that can of worms, but I disagree with Dan 100% on the card counting/hole carding issue. So I admit nothing there.
Quote: DJTeddyBearI'd like to remind you that WoV is not a democracy.
Neither do I want it to be a ruthless dictatorship. Think of me as a benevolent dictator, who listens to his minions.
And, yeah, I see your point about not being ruthless.
Quote: WizardNeither do I want it to be a ruthless dictatorship. Think of me as a benevolent dictator, who listens to his minions.
Think of yourself as a benovelant king, there is no such thing as a benovelant dictator.
Just my thought.
Quote: DJTeddyBearIf the views he represents are unpopular yet tolerated, it's at least partially because, although we hate to admit it, we know he's right.
Speak for yourself, he's not right at all. Casinos pull bs crap
every day that the public stands still for. I just read a
story from a player who said somebody had a $25 bet on 17
in roulette and 17 hit but the dealer claimed part of the chip
was touching the line of #18, so he got paid for a split. 5min
later a lady lost on #35 but pointed out her chip was touching
the line of #36 (which had hit) and they refused to pay her.
Casinos are real good at this kind of baloney, they pull it all
day every day. So no, I don't agree with Dan's stance and
neither do most of the people here.
Quote: Wizard
However, I think the comparison I made in my original post is appropriate. If you started a Jewish social site and somebody posted a 100 messages a day denying the Holocaust, although somewhat politely, setting off the expected firestorm, would you kick him off? Maybe that is an extreme example, but I'm trying to foster a community where math is respected and John Patrick/Rob Singer type nonsense is not worthy of discussion.
I think, your example would be more appropriate if the Jewish forum you mention, had a special sub-forum with a description, saying something like "Holocaust did happen, but for the historically challenged, here is a forum of your own" ;)
BTW, I would not go so far as to compare Dan's manners to Ken's, but on several occasions his remarks in some of those "all APs are cheaters" threads were hardly seemly of a gentleman. I understand that you know him personally as a good man, and that obviously colours your opinion of him (and rightfully so), but, someone, who is only familiar with his internet personality, I would think, is bound do hold an a lot less favourable opinion of him.
Let's keep this thread focused on mr jjj
Quote: KellyAnd if peole gets tired of responding to him, he will just try to convince himself what a swell guy he is:
http://www.gamblersglen.com/cgi-bin/teemz/teemz.cgi?board=_master&action=opentopic&topic=2094&forum=General_Discussion
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe Ken could write a guest column in the Rancocas Valley Journal of Applied Mathematics...
Quote: DJTeddyBearOK. Fine. Whatever.
Let's keep this thread focused on mr jjj
Actually, let's slightly shift the focus away from mr jjj specifically and more toward the policy question of whether intentional trolling should be grounds for suspension or banning. It's not an explicit forum rule right now. Should it be?
I believe Wiz prefers to be policy-driven in situations like this. Right now there's no policy in place for handling intentional disruption via trolling. I'll leave it to Wiz to make another poll if he so chooses. Or to simply lay down the law -- this is his site.
Quote: rdw4potusLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe Ken could write a guest column in the Rancocas Valley Journal of Applied Mathematics...
Ha. I miss arguments with statman.
Mr JJJ's rant on GG lasted 47 posts over 8 hours with no responses. And he clearly doesn't think much of the Wizard or this forum or its members. Another thread has some feedback from another banned member (Garnabby).
Mrjjj's entitled to his opinion. We all are. And people were attacking him, and he defended himself in his own way. He got banned, and he will be back.
Certainly there's a mystery to his system, which now, finally to my understanding, as of late, is taking some kind of trend of the last 60 numbers and playing 1, 2 or 3 numbers at a time with the hope that these numbers will hit more frequently. He claims to be winning with this "system". There is no mathematical basis to winning based on any system of roulette unless there is a known bias with the wheel or you are cheating. Betting single numbers will come up with such a variance that it's still quite possible to come out ahead after thousands of spins and perhaps that's what he is experiencing - luck.
I did actually get some value out of some of the older Gambler's Glen posts on roulette though, so it wasn't a wasted trip, though my eyes were bleeding afterwards.
Quote: boymimboCertainly there's a mystery to his system, which now, finally to my understanding, as of late, is taking some kind of trend of the last 60 numbers and playing 1, 2 or 3 numbers at a time with the hope that these numbers will hit more frequently. He claims to be winning with this "system". There is no mathematical basis to winning based on any system of roulette unless there is a known bias with the wheel or you are cheating. Betting single numbers will come up with such a variance that it's still quite possible to come out ahead after thousands of spins and perhaps that's what he is experiencing - luck.
Leaving aside cheating for the moment (on either the part of the player or the casino), it seems to me that betting on "hot" numbers is no worse than any other system on an unbiased wheel, but could potentially do better than average on a biased wheel. I can't imagine how a mechanical bias could meaningfully change over time -- other than to become more pronounced -- so it seems that *if* there were a bias, that bias would persist and the same outcome frequencies would be altered in the same directions. Some would be up, some down, but I don't see how they could flip-flop without human intervention like a repair tech fixing things. Given that, I'd submit that betting on recently-hit ("hot") numbers can't do worse than betting on numbers randomly -- but that betting on recently-unhit ("cold") numbers might.
I do not mean to imply that these effects are sufficient to overcome the edge in roulette if they ever present themselves at all. But given the mechanical nature of the roulette game, and my knowledge of how certain roulette wheels are constructed, I can believe that a poorly-maintained wheel could develop a bias. Conditional upon that happening, I would suppose that betting on hot numbers couldn't hurt.
None of these comments apply to RNG-driven games, of course.
Anyways, biased wheels are rare here in Europe. They still do occur but the management might not act on it as long as its not a problem. The problem gets very visible if someone starts playing the numbers with 50 - 100 Euro. Its not easy to disguise playing biased numbers.
Quote: MathextremistI can't imagine how a mechanical bias could meaningfully change over time -- other than to become more pronounced -- so it seems that *if* there were a bias, that bias would persist and the same outcome frequencies would be altered in the same directions. Some would be up, some down, but I don't see how they could flip-flop without human intervention like a repair tech fixing things. Given that, I'd submit that betting on recently-hit ("hot") numbers can't do worse than betting on numbers randomly -- but that betting on recently-unhit ("cold") numbers might.
Bias on modern wheels could be static at times, however most biases shift with wheel speed changes, ball changes, shifts in air pressure, etc., appearing to come and go. While it's unlikely that his system will overcome the house edge, at times, it certainly isn't a bad way of reducing the house edge.
Remember though, Mr. Jjj., insists that his wheels are not biased and that biased wheels do not exist.
Quote: KeyserBias on modern wheels could be static at times, however most defects would cause bias that could shift with wheel speed changes, ball changes, shifts in air pressure, etc.
Remember though, Mr. Jjj., insists that his wheels are not biased and that biased wheels do not exist.
I'd be interested in the mechanism whereby a bias could meaningfully change based on those factors. I doubt anyone's ever going to study it though, because modern wheel systems track for biases and alert operators when they occur -- far sooner than anyone could detect them independently.
And if biased wheels do not exist (which they clearly do), then there is no plausible basis at all for betting on hot numbers.
Quote: MathExtremistAnd if biased wheels do not exist (which they clearly do), then there is no plausible basis at all for betting on hot numbers.
Why do most buildings seem not to have a 13th floor? Except of course for government buildings, which use their 13th floors to house MJ-12 truth suppression forces, intentionally confuse the public that would naturally expect them to be a floor below.
Only The Wisest Human to ever live on Earth understands why; the rest must Seek Awesome Lectures, where his wisdom debunks gods of all religions and academia.
Quote: EvenBobHere's what ken thinks about being suspended.
Note that he posts over and over again with no responses. This is the correct way to deal with him. If nobody engages him he will go elsewhere for attention.
Quote: jml24Note that he posts over and over again with no responses. This is the correct way to deal with him. If nobody engages him he will go elsewhere for attention.
Ken feasts on self-righteous indignation, when he should be eating the blame .
Do you see the awesome discussion you just had on wheel bias, etc? That would be impossible if Ken was here right now, as he would de-rail it by first saying, WRONG ANSWER. and than calling you three coolbreezes and rookies and that you needed to study up more than 9 hours. And than change the subject by completely not answering a valid question and say WAITING!!! (Kinda reminds me of Charlie Sheen #WINNING!)
My point being is that the "attacks" are self manifested. In the beginning of the thread, it was actually a legitimate question as to whether Ken could be ahead or behind and WHAT exactly his method is as he was acting the mystic. He took the skepticism as a personal attack and that is when it escalated. It's a shame we couldn't just talk about, the method, and wheel bias, and betting strategies. Because that is interesting.
Just a thought.
Quote: MathExtremistI'd be interested in the mechanism whereby a bias could meaningfully change based on those factors. I doubt anyone's ever going to study it though, because modern wheel systems track for biases and alert operators when they occur -- far sooner than anyone could detect them independently.
And if biased wheels do not exist (which they clearly do), then there is no plausible basis at all for betting on hot numbers.
Ken doesn't believe he's tracking a wheel bias. I think he believes there are patterns in random numbers that can be found. This is why it's pointless trying to examine his methods through the spy glass of a mathematical model... he rejects it. And once you are arguing definitions, as you've said before, what's the point? Unless you can have an intelligent discourse on a model built from a different axiomatic base, then it might be interesting.
Or if you read some other posters in GG, some advocate a more Zen like appreciation of random streaks.
Quote: thecesspit
Or if you read some other posters in GG, some advocate a more Zen like appreciation of random streaks.
I think streaks can have a Zen like feeling......after the fact. I mean they are cool to observe. In fact sometimes I will not do any gambling at all for 15-30 minutes and just people watch at casinos. Streaks happen, we all know that, and they are fun to be in, but that about ends our involvement in them. We can't "drive" them anywhere.
Quote: EvenBobHere's what ken thinks about being suspended.
Holy cows--if that is all him he is either getting paid per post or really needs to seek help. I've seen people post a few times but after a few with no reply they generally move on.
Quote: thecesspitKen doesn't believe he's tracking a wheel bias. I think he believes there are patterns in random numbers that can be found. This is why it's pointless trying to examine his methods through the spy glass of a mathematical model... he rejects it. And once you are arguing definitions, as you've said before, what's the point? Unless you can have an intelligent discourse on a model built from a different axiomatic base, then it might be interesting.
Or if you read some other posters in GG, some advocate a more Zen like appreciation of random streaks.
Except Ken also thinks that the probability of every number on every spin is constant at 1/38 -- that *is* the axiomatic base. Everything anyone has ever (properly) concluded about roulette flows from that premise. It would be different if he thought that the odds actually did change, and had a plausible rationale for how and why that could happen. That might merit discussion. But there's no consistent way to reconcile "p(each number) = 1/38" with "betting on hot numbers gives me an edge".
If, as Mosca has suggested, he's just trolling to get a rise out of people, then there is no point in arguing. Having skimmed through the link someone posted to the GG forum, wherein Ken had a day-long argument with himself after his posting rights were suspended, I'd never invite that behavior back to this forum. But that's just me. I view forums like this as an online equivalent to a happy hour at a bar. Anyone can come in for a drink and start up a conversation, but if you're only there to pick fights, out you go. Management reserves the right to refuse service, etc. Perhaps there are some bars where getting in fights is encouraged, but that's not where I'd choose to hang out.
denying it. An edge Ken has that isn't discussed
is, he has a lot of discipline. He sets win and
loss goals and sticks to them. He doesn't just
play and play till he loses or wins a lot. He
doesn't have a gambling problem. And he spends
far more time practicing at home than he does
playing in a casino. This keeps you sharp and
lets you constantly tweak your game to make
it better.
Quote: EvenBobThere are hot numbers in roulette, there's no
denying it.
Really, no denying it? I think pretty much everyone on this board would deny that fact on an unbiased wheel.
Are you saying you believe that the probability of each number is not exactly 1/38 on every spin? Or are you talking about biased wheels, which Ken doesn't believe in?
I wouldn't consider these hot numbers. If you happen to notice a number coming a lot in a shorter period of time,
It could be that you are just noticing that particular number and that there are others coming up just as frequently that you are not noticing.
Just because a number comes up frequently has no bearing on it's future frequency.
Quote: EvenBobThere are hot numbers in roulette, there's no
denying it.
I accept that there *were* hot numbers. I do not accept that numbers *are* hot insofar as that implies they *will continue to be* hot.
Quote: MathExtremistI accept that there *were* hot numbers. I do not accept that numbers *are* hot insofar as that implies they *will continue to be* hot.
Thats what you're betting, that they will continue. Its also
a fact that out of 36 spins, generally only 24 unique numbers
will occur. They call this the 'Law of the Third' and of course
its not a law at all. Out of those 24 numbers there have to
be repeats. Also, some numbers will sleep for a long time,
sometimes hundreds of spins. This makes for even more
repeats, or 'hot numbers'. The newer roulette tote boards
will even list the hot and cold numbers for you, which tells
you how much the casino fears this information.
Quote: MathExtremistI accept that there *were* hot numbers. I do not accept that numbers *are* hot insofar as that implies they *will continue to be* hot.
To steal from Robert Burns and revise:
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see the future as it precedes us!
