Why Are MathBoyz Always Close Minded?

[Spike!]

All the MathBoyz have on major truth, one thought, one mantra: Each spin is an independent trial and past spins have no physical influence on future spins.

Who's arguing with that? I never have, its the inarguable truth. Past outcomes can have no physical influence on where the ball will fall next. How could they?

They can, however, influence your DECISION on where to bet next. They can influence it as much as you want them to. So they have no physical effect on the next spin, so what? They tell you where the wheel has just BEEN and maybe where its going NEXT. Whats so hard to understand about this? You'd think I was advocating human sacrifice to a sun god, the way they carry on about it. Why are using past spins so obviously offensive to MathBoyz?

[bombus]

I think our mathematician members have a lot to offer. They maintain a very pragmatic approach to the game and in the end no one can really argue with their evaluations. They are correct about independent trials, unfair payouts, probabilities, variance, distribution, et al. They are mostly into AP, but not all, and beating the gaming device would seem the only obvious avenue open to us roulette players.

The knowledge they impart is absorbed by those who need it, and can only help improve everyone's understanding of the game. However all of us deserve the freedom to approach the game in any way we desire.

Just don't be compulsive gamblers, and do enjoy your roulette experience.

[Spike!]

I think our mathematician members have a lot to offer.>>>

Really? Do they mow lawns? I pay $10 an hour.

[Bayes]

All the MathBoyz have on major truth, one thought, one mantra: Each spin is an independent trial and past spins have no physical influence on future spins.

Spike,

The mathboyz are not arguing that previous spins don't have a physical influence on future spins. The notion of statistical independence has nothing to do with cause and effect, only that events are independent when the occurrence (or nonoccurrence) of one of the events carries no information about the occurrence (or nonoccurrence) of the other event.

One misunderstanding of independence involves interpreting a dependent relationship between events as a causal relationship. Obviously there are such relationships, for example an increase in the speed of an object is caused by an increase in force on the object. But there are plenty of examples of dependent relationships between events where there is no causal relationship: fire depends on the presence of oxygen, but the fire is not caused by oxygen.

I agree though, that the way statistical independence is presented can be confusing. 'Past spins don't influence future spins' seems to imply that there is no cause and effect between past and future, which is true, but it doesn't make clear that the issue really concerns information content.

[bombus]

That lawn looks like S H I T! You need a horticulturalist, not a mower.

[Jakkalsdraai]

  Like to see Spike challenge Lance Armstrong on that!

[Spike!]

>>events are independent when the occurrence of one of the events carries no information>>

Past spins convey information. They show where the wheel has just been.

[Bayes]

Past spins convey information. They show where the wheel has just been.

Oh Lordy.  

Finish the sentence, don't just take part of it and ignore the rest:

events are independent when the occurrence (or nonoccurrence) of one of the events carries no information about the occurrence (or nonoccurrence) of the other event.

There are two events: one is the past spins, the other is the future spins. The first event conveys no information with regard to the second. It makes no sense to talk about independence with regard to one event.

Nice try though.

[Mr J]

"Past spins convey information. They show where the wheel has just been" >>> I agree.  Ken

[MiniBaccarat]

G'day,

The first event conveys no information with regard to the second.

If you're betting that the next decision is going to be the same (decision) as the last OR
opposite for that matter, it would help if you knew what the last decision was let alone
the fact that it does affect the next decision to the effect of getting the desired result!

Glenn.

[Noble Savage]

Who's arguing with that? I never have, its the inarguable truth. Past outcomes can have no physical influence on where the ball will fall next. How could they?

Past spins convey information. They show where the wheel has just been.

Spike you make me laugh.

I think our mathematician members have a lot to offer. They maintain a very pragmatic approach to the game and in the end no one can really argue with their evaluations. They are correct about independent trials, unfair payouts, probabilities, variance, distribution, et al. They are mostly into AP, but not all, and beating the gaming device would seem the only obvious avenue open to us roulette players.

The knowledge they impart is absorbed by those who need it, and can only help improve everyone's understanding of the game. However all of us deserve the freedom to approach the game in any way we desire.

Just don't be compulsive gamblers, and do enjoy your roulette experience.

Well said.

[gizmotron]

The math argument always comes down to independent events. So please explain the independent event of ten reds in a row. Just because ten reds in a row occurs that does not mean that it has any influence on when the next time that ten reds in a row will occur. Everyone knows that it takes ten independent coincidences to put together a string of ten reds in a row.

I'm tired of arguing these fundamental truths with people that never see the bigger picture. The discussion I want to have is about acknowledging these basic truths and discussing things that relate to circumstantial coincidences. The other truth is that these independent thinkers have know idea how to deal with visible coincidences. They have no idea that there are times when patterns and trends lay out at times that give the player an almost 100% advantage for a brief period. It's ridiculous to keep beating this dead horse. The discussion of independent trials is acknowledged and done. It's also a crutch that prevents the wider discussion that is almost feared to occur by many here.

[Herb6]

Gizmo/Spike,



When someone brags that they are NOT a "Mathboy(z)", they are essentially bragging that they are ignorant.  

Consequently, why would any one with an education want to consider roulette advice offered by someone that's ignorant of math?


It would be like taking advice on how to write a book from someone that brags that they are NOT a "Readingboy".  



Also, why on Earth should we believe you when you tell us that all of the encyclopedias and mathematicians are wrong?  After all, how would you know?  You've already admitted that you're ignorant.      

-Herb6

[Spike!]

There are two events: one is the past spins, the other is the future spins. The first event conveys no information with regard to the second.>>>

The past spins contain so much info, they are almost a roadmap to future spins. You just have to learn to read them. The map isn't perfect, you have to learn to fill in the gaps. MathBoyz start with a faulty premise, that past spins have no info whatever, so they close their briefcases and go home for the day. The faulty premise is, random is useless, random is empty, random is unreadable. They think past spins can't hold any info because they're independent. In a way, Gizmo is correct. Talking about this with fanatics is like telling a Catholic hell is a myth thought up to scare children. They just pat you on the head and feel sorry for you..

[Spike!]

Herb reaches deep into his bag of famous Herb quotes and comes up with:

Blah blah, blah blah blah blah.

Ignorance, math, encyclopedias, the same thing he's posted a hundred times on the subject. Translation: We're all idiots because we're not MathBoyz and he's a genius because he is. We get it, Herb. Yawn....

[Spike!]

-