Why Are MathBoyz Always Close Minded?

[Spike!]

Herb Says: Spike's claim to fame is that he's ignorant.

Translation: Herb buys everything he's taught hook line and sinker and can't see beyond it. He's a math 'company man', a math 'good ol boy'.. God bless em.

[Spike!]

You never answer anything. >>>

Actually, I answer everything, I just don't give examples of what I do.

[Bayes]

" The foundations of probability are irrelevant to the real world."

Probabilities are the  states of partial information about past numbers when applied in the correct way can assist you with playing the next numbers.


"I'd love to see an example of how you use it to get better-than-expectation results, as would other budding educated guessers I'm sure!"

Probability distributions of numbers are called Binomial distribution. For an example read The Holy Gral or G.U.T the Great Universal Theory

Regard
Max

Max,

A Bayesian approach is appropriate for a game like poker, where every time a player acts, you can use the theorem to update your beliefs about the way he plays. You could even use it in Blackjack. The difference between these games and roulette is...

Yep, you guessed it - roulette is a game of independent trials (I know, I know) 

The fact that you don't seem to be aware of this (or don't know what it means) leads me to believe that you are talking bollocks (I have updated my beliefs).

[Spike!]

roulette is a game of independent trials (I know, I know)  The fact that you don't seem to be aware of this>>

According to you, Kelly, Herb, Number Six, Noble Savage and others, nobody here is capable of understanding it in the way you need us to. No matter how you try and explain it, we never quite seem to get it. Thats because to understand it your way completely, we have to buy the package of baloney that comes with it.

[Bayes]

to understand it your way completely, we have to buy the package of baloney that comes with it.

It's called LOGIC Spike; certain facts imply other facts. You are constantly demonstrating your ignorance.

Where, specifically, is the baloney?

You say that:

1) spins are independent
2) valid 'clues' can be gleaned from past spins which enable you to achieve a better-than-expectation win rate.

If you can't see that these are incompatible, it means you don't understand the meaning of independence. 1) means that there is no connection between any two separate sequences of spins. You, the guesser, can perceive a connection, but it doesn't mean that there really is one. Get it?

Finding meaning and connections is natural for human beings, and we're really good at it. Many of those connections don't really exist, they are subjective. It's the job of science to sift the good from the bad, the reality from the illusion. It's the best method we have for finding out how the world works. Science is based on logic and empirical evidence.

[Spike!]

it means you don't understand the meaning of independence.>>

Obviously you attach many more meanings to the word independence than I do. You look at independent past spins as dried up useless husks devoid of information, and I look at them as fresh and vibrant clues to whats coming next. Its just semantics, past spins are whatever you want them to be. They are equally as valid as the next spin, they are the next piece in an ever changing jig saw puzzle.

[Herb6]

Spike,

You've already proclaimed your IgNOrancE.  So how would know if you know anything?  

[Bayes]

Its just semantics, past spins are whatever you want them to be. They are equally as valid as the next spin, they are the next piece in an ever changing jig saw puzzle.

It isn't just semantics.

Look, if you pick 2 cards from a deck, what is the chance that they are both aces?

It depends on whether you discard the first card you pick before drawing the next, or not.

There are 52 cards in a deck, and 4 aces. The chance that the first card is an ace is 4/52. Now, the odds that the 2nd card will also be an ace depends on whether you put the first one (the one you've just drawn) back into the deck or not. If you don't put it back, the chance that the 2nd card will be an ace is not 4/52 but 3/51. If you do put it back (and re-shuffle!) the odds are exactly the same that the 2nd card will be an ace as were the odds that the first card was, because there are still 52 cards and 4 aces.

This principle of taking 'with replacement' and 'without replacement' is the difference between independent and dependent trials. Blackjack in the early days of card-counting was a game of 'without replacement' - dependent trials. The odds changed because cards were discarded after being drawn, which changed the odds of the next card being drawn being a particular value. These days it's pretty much a game of independent trials, because the cards are put back into the deck after having been drawn (into a continuous shuffle machine).

Obviously, roulette is a game of 'with replacement', the winning numbers and pockets aren't removed after each spin.

By using past spins as a guide to future spins, you are assuming that roulette is a game of 'without replacement', that somehow blacks or reds are 'used up' so that the likelihood of some pattern or other coming up is affected by what has just been 'drawn'.  It should be obvious why this is a fallacy.

You can look at past spins how you like, give them any meaning you want, but whatever it is, an indicator to future outcomes shouldn't be one of them. At least not if you're in touch with reality.

[Spike!]

You can look at past spins how you like, give them any meaning you want>>

They show where the wheel just was and where it might be going. You make too much of it. This isn't rocket science. Math people miss the nuances, they over think everything. Too bad, I doubt if its something you can unlearn. All you see is black and white, you miss all the shades of grey in between.

[Bayes]

The fact that you think basic probability (nay, common sense) is 'rocket science' says it all. Sometimes you have to 'over think'  because intuition isn't reliable. This is one of those times. Many highly intelligent people are taken in by the gambler's fallacy, it's what's called a 'cognitive bias' of which there are quite a few, and no-one is immune.

That's one reason why the scientific method is a relatively recent development in history, it took a lot of swimming against the tide to get it going and it came up against a lot of opposition (by the establishment of the day - the church).
If you don't follow a rigorous set of rules then a lot of garbage slips through, but that doesn't mean you can't have inspiration or be creative and have crazy ideas, and it certainly doesn't mean everything is 'black or white', it just means that you need evidence of your assertions which must also be logical in hindsight (but that doesn't necessarily mean that you came to the proposition by using logic).

[Spike!]

>>The fact that you think basic probability (nay, common sense) is 'rocket science' says it all. Sometimes you have to 'over think'  because intuition isn't reliable. This is one of those times. Many highly intelligent people are taken in by the gambler's fallacy>>

Are you trying to talk me out of what I do? I was in the casino for 3 hours today and did what I always do, are you saying I didn't or couldn't? Do you realize how insane that is? I'm showing you a green card, but you're color blind and trying to tell me all the reasons it can't be green. The casino saw it was green and paid me. Who should I listen to, the obviously insane person, namely you, or the casino?

[Bayes]

Do you realize how insane that is?

Seriously, the only thing that's insane here is your arrogance. Without evidence you're just another internet troll blowing hot air, but you think it's not necessary - your word alone is the truth.   

[Spike!]

Seriously, the only thing that's insane here is your arrogance.>>

LOL, I somewhat agree with you. I'm always on a non drug induced high when I get home from playing roulette for real money. The casino is like a beautiful woman, I bend her over the roulette table and raise her skirt and, well, you know. It probably gets old, but I doubt it.....

[Spike!]

-