Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 283
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 25th, 2021 at 10:12:55 AM permalink
Quote: MichaelBluejay

That's also #7.

Also, it looks like we can add "trolling" to the list of concepts you don't understand (along with things like "expected value" and "debunking").



You certainly win in the “can only agree with my own logic” department, and the “saturate the thread of anyone I dislike “ department.

If it feels good, do it. I don’t care to defend myself, like you
Don't poke the bear!
DeMango
DeMango
Joined: Feb 2, 2010
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2684
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146Hunterhill
April 25th, 2021 at 11:07:12 AM permalink
Where the F*** is BBB and the ban hammer?
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 110
  • Posts: 7780
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 25th, 2021 at 3:58:12 PM permalink
Quote: DeMango

Where the F*** is BBB and the ban hammer?



BBB reappeared kindly to congratulate my son on his crossword achievement. It seems like OnceDear has possession of the ban hammer, and for some unknown reason he has not used it on..... the most recent you know who!
MrV
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 313
  • Posts: 6886
Thanks for this post from:
MichaelBluejayMission146OnceDear
April 25th, 2021 at 5:07:20 PM permalink
To his credit, OD seems be applying an objective standard when administering discipline.

WB has not blatantly violated any rules that I can see, nor has MD, so they both get a bye.

Popularity of a person or their positions is not a valid criteria for discipline.

I've learned to use the "block" function to good effect: try it, as without an audience controversial posters may not wish to hang around.
"What, me worry?"
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 2233
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146Hunterhill
April 25th, 2021 at 8:31:12 PM permalink
Quote: TomG

Quote: Wellbush

So far, from what I've read, the only reason a negative progression strategy doesn't work in a card game, is because the player doesn't have a large enough bankroll to counter long losing streaks. Is this correct?

It is not correct. If you share the readings you are talking about it, there are several people here who could clear up this incorrect thinking.



I'm thinking that you didn't read about this anywhere and you only brought it up to troll the forum.
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
  • Threads: 211
  • Posts: 8121
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 26th, 2021 at 1:55:56 AM permalink
Taking a break is so good, I can wait so good!

OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 45
  • Posts: 5007
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146FTB
April 26th, 2021 at 2:05:37 AM permalink
Quote: Zcore13


He may have thought he had something before he came here and did not come to troll. But at this point, there is no way an intelligent person could continue to think that. He is definitely now trolling.
ZCore13



Wellbush has been thoroughly told that his 'modification' of taking breaks has absolutely no impact on the streaks that he might encounter. He's had simulations run for him and just dismisses them because they lack his 'secret modifications' and then he announces he's blocked anyone whose facts he cannot argue with. He constantly comes back with the same theme "I don't think people should just accept so called experts words," and claims to be debunking logical responses with what is just big servings of word soup. He's particularly keen to 'debunk' Mission146, MichaelBluejay and anyone who tries to help him. He simply WILL NOT BE TOLD!

Personally, I think he must know by now that his system and his philosophical take on the nature of the game has no merit, but possibly he's got drawn into the 'sport' of debating 'the naysayers' for its own sake. That, to me is trolling! Indeed, I'm starting to find his use of that word as derogatory.
Take care out there. Spare a thought for the newly poor who were happy in their world just a few days ago, but whose whole way of life just collapsed..
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 125
  • Posts: 13288
April 26th, 2021 at 5:36:05 AM permalink
Quote: OnceDear

Wellbush has been thoroughly told that his 'modification' of taking breaks has absolutely no impact on the streaks that he might encounter. He's had simulations run for him and just dismisses them because they lack his 'secret modifications' and then he announces he's blocked anyone whose facts he cannot argue with. He constantly comes back with the same theme "I don't think people should just accept so called experts words," and claims to be debunking logical responses with what is just big servings of word soup. He's particularly keen to 'debunk' Mission146, MichaelBluejay and anyone who tries to help him. He simply WILL NOT BE TOLD!

Personally, I think he must know by now that his system and his philosophical take on the nature of the game has no merit, but possibly he's got drawn into the 'sport' of debating 'the naysayers' for its own sake. That, to me is trolling! Indeed, I'm starting to find his use of that word as derogatory.



If he cannot be talked down from using his system, let's hope that he can be talked down from the top of the skyscraper after it fails.
Vultures can't be choosers.
Wellbush
Wellbush
Joined: Mar 23, 2021
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 283
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 26th, 2021 at 7:38:48 AM permalink
Look, I just want to acknowledge all my derisive fans out there in WOV land. I am truly humbled by your attention to me. It's overwhelming! Thankyou 😘

I will eventually try and return your favour to me, even though it may never match your rising number of posts. I'm assuming that there continues to be plenty of derision in these posts. That last sentence should hint that I don't read much of them, and I'll tell you all, the logic of not reading much of them. What does derision prove or disprove? It probably only proves that one is trying to put down another.

I did read one part where someone said I was taking only a snippet of information and not the whole. Granted, one can do this to falsely discredit someone, but was I doing this? I can tell you I wasn't doing this and why:

1. I could respond to large doses of information with even larger doses of information. But we are on a posting forum, not an essay writing forum.

2. I find absorbing and understanding information much better if it's done in bite-sized pieces. There are probably many educators and psychologists who would agree with this.

3. As mentioned, I didn't break up the information to discredit the whole. I was just doing it to make my rebuffs more understandable. I deliberately analysed the piece of information I was debunking, to make sure I was not taking it out of context. If one were to examine the post in question, and my response to it, one would probably agree with what I am suggesting.

I read another snippet where someone said I didn't know the meaning of the term "debunk." I really don't know whether this poster is just getting desperate? I would think it ridiculous to even reply to this proposition.

I don't mind being wrong, and I agree with indisputable math, as it applies to gambling. If people are going to take a stand, I think they need to prove themselves. I see nothing wrong with questioning. I don't think I have all the answers, but that doesn't mean I can't see faulty propositions. I will probably consult some mathematicians in due course, to get some more reputable information than what I seem to be getting at WOV.

If some here think they've won the argument, or saturated my threads with enough naysayer vocabulary to prove naysayers are right, I think that could be very presumptuous. Especially considering some of the naysayer arguments I've read thus far.

I think it more prudent to wait till more indisputable truths rise to the surface in due course. As my interest in this website is not all-consuming, anyone wanting short-term answers to some of my proposals, are probably not gonna get 'em in the short term. I have enough interest in the topic, however, to continue to tease things out in the long term.

Lastly, I think it's great that I've raised such controversy. It can only lead to a better understanding of math, as applied to gambling. Isn't it good that we question and clarify? I think the WOV site will be better for it in the long run. Has card counting ruined gambling? I don't think so. Kisses
Don't poke the bear!
billryan
billryan 
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 178
  • Posts: 10351
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
April 26th, 2021 at 8:32:45 AM permalink
It seems like someone is pissing on our shoes and insisting it is raining out.

  • Jump to: