Probability in Gambling is a Theory, NOT a Law

[Spike!]

as they have the holy grail inside them in there brain>>>

Its called experience. Its called practice. There is no substitute for it. A newbie who sits down and plays roulette for the first time is not exactly equal to the guy who's been playing for 10 years, as the MathBoyz would have you believe. There is good bet selection, there is doing better than expectancy, don't listen to the gossipy old math ladies.

[Herb6]

Spike,


How would you know?  You admit that you're ignorant when it comes to math.

By your own admission, You don't comprehend the subject well enough to comment. 

[Kelly]

Spike you shouldn`t keep stating threads about something you obviously don`t understand.

Probability is not a  law or a theory, it is something that simply IS.  If your expectation in 37 spins is 18 reds and you get more than that, its a positive variance that can be calculated and vice versa.  There is no law that says that you after X amount of spins is bound to have received the expectation.  Which means that you could easyli have received more hits than what the expectation says.  Mind you,  If in 50.000 spins you have had 670 more hits that what the expectation says, you will still be at +-0 because you would also have encountered ~1340 zeros.

Any likelyhood of an event to take place can be calculated but its not telling you anything about when its gonna happen.  But funny enough, when enough spins is involved somehow by magic, the events starts slowly to come closer to the expectation as the sample size grows. 

No one will argue that you might have won a few times in the casino if you ever happened to actually go there,  your biggest plonker was hanging on to statements like:

- 72% hit rate
- breaking even for 100s of spins (imagine how high the following hit rate should be to keep the 72%)
- practising 4 hours every day, travel 2 hours to the casino, watch 30 spins and bet 30 and go home with 150$. (what a life......)

and when challenged about the 72%, running like hell and calling the entire world population for math fanatics.   

[Noble Savage]

Probability in Gambling is a Theory, NOT a Law

Spike, (Bayes explained this already) but this might help you:

Q: But Probability is just a theory, right?

A: No, it's a scientific theory. The statement that "probability is just a theory" is rooted in a deep misunderstanding of scientific thought. There are only theories in science. A scientific theory is testable, which means that it can be disproven with evidence. Existing scientific theories have not been disproven, therefore, they are generally accepted to be accurate, or as accurate as it is possible to be. Something that cannot be disproven is not a theory -- it's just a belief -- for example, my existence. In other words, theory is much better than belief -- belief which isn't based on anything provable.

The misunderstanding arises because there's a difference between a scientific theory, and the word "theory" as it is commonly used, to indicate something postulated, but not necessarily reality. Your theory that a flying spaghetti monster created the universe is not a scientific theory.

[Spike!]

Probability is not a  law or a theory, it is something that simply IS. >>

So now its neither a law or theory, its whatever you want it to be. Thats exactly what I always thought. I'll glaly show you every detail of how I play just as soon as you show me the math that says I CAN'T do it. Theres tons of math for everything else that shows you positively why you can't do certain things. Where's the math that says past spins can't be used to guess future outcomes? All you have is theory and speculation. And Herb repeating himself a thousand times.

[Noble Savage]

I'll glaly show you every detail of how I play

No you won't. I know it, you know it, we all do.

I know you won't show any real proof of your claims, just talk about it.

[Nathan Detroit]

Kelly,

Now  we finally know  what is meant by  when  is  IS. ( William J. Clinton : when is IS?  )

Keep the party going.

Nathan Detroit

[potatochips]

Probability is not a  law or a theory, it is something that simply IS. >>

So now its neither a law or theory, its whatever you want it to be. Thats exactly what I always thought. I'll glaly show you every detail of how I play just as soon as you show me the math that says I CAN'T do it. Theres tons of math for everything else that shows you positively why you can't do certain things. Where's the math that says past spins can't be used to guess future outcomes? All you have is theory and speculation. And Herb repeating himself a thousand times.

I can't believe you guys still debate the same idea. You have been doing it for the past 5-6 years and you're still at the same point. You have not moved one bit from the starting line. I thought you were in it to make money. Apparently, some here prefer the discretionary aspects of the theory behind making a buck.
My next visit will be in 5 years just to see if you have progressed in your quest. My bet is you won't.

[Noble Savage]

My next visit will be in 5 years just to see if you have progressed in your quest. My bet is you won't.

lol, I would have left, and a new generation of posters would have appeared, and Spike and company would be still at the same thing, posting the same stuff.

[Spike!]

No you won't. I know it, you know it, we all do.

You show me the proof that I can't use past spins and I'll do what I said.

If I said I was going to jump off the roof and fly without help, you could prove with math from the Law of Gravity and Newtons Laws of Motion that I would 100% of the time fall to the ground.

Show me the math that proves I can't use past spins effectively. You can't and you know you can't.

[mistarlupo]

Show me the math that proves I can't use past spins effectively.

Testing extensively is the way to prove theories. I've been doing it for years. Unfortunately, they all fail in the long run.

[Herb6]

Show me the math that proves I can't use past spins effectively. You can't and you know you can't.

We have.  However, you have told us that you are too ignorant to comprehend it.

[Spike!]

We have.  However, you have told us that you are too ignorant to comprehend it.

You have NOT showed the math that past spins CAN'T be used. There's only the theory of independent spins that you bring up ad nauseum. You have no math to back up your claims. You can prove past spins are independent, so you THINK they can't effectively be used for anything. You're wrong.

[Herb6]

Again, how would you know?  You're not a mathboy.  You're blissfully ignorant.

[Spike!]

Again, how would you know?  You're not a mathboy.  You're blissfully ignorant.

LOL! You STILL don't show the math that says past spins won't work. There is no such math.

[Spike!]

-