Proof Demo

[bombus]

...strangely repugnant..

A bit like Casu Marzu.

[cheese]

I just bet straight into a loss situation that almost always wins in the rare moment.

Always wins? ALWAYS WINS? There is absolutely no pattern, no sequence, no possible scenerio when dealing with random numbers, that anything has a better chance of winning than any other time. I thought you read all 16,000 of the posts on GG? How in god's name did you come to the conclusion that there is ever a time when anything 'almost always wins?' You didn't do enough testing, obviously. Believe me, there are times when something appears to work for a very long time, but thats an illusion. Nothing is dependable with random numbers, you can count on nothing being equal. Thats its flaw, thats its Achilles heel. Thats how it can be beat. Why do you think I don't play RNG's? They aren't true random. You talk about being able to read random. Time to start over. For starters, go and read my thread 'Want your mind Blown' that I posted a few hours ago. Read it twice. Its important.

[schoenpoetser]

Cheese do not use EV in the wrong way.Only pokerplayers use a personal EV.EV+ means the player  is a winner and EV- means the player is a loser. In poker terms a rabbit,a fish or a banana.

[gizmotron]

Always wins? ALWAYS WINS? There is absolutely no pattern, no sequence, no possible scenerio when dealing with random numbers, that anything has a better chance of winning than any other time.

The straight up odds for this to win in three spins is 95%. It's a very rare situation that the first time you try it that you would hit that 5% for a loss. You must add how many times do you hit a 5% loss combo in the first three spins of 100 spins. That doesn't happen very often. So you multiple 5% times whatever those odds are. For me that's very rare. And that very rare thing happened right in front of everyone.

No need to invoke god's name here. I know how rare this is. Are you satisfied or do we need to do all the arithmetic down to the exact odds? Your blatant accusation that I don't do enough testing is founded in your own personal baloney. What are the odds of that? Randomness can always be counted on to be dependable. Anything can happen at any time. Any killer sequence can happen at any time. If you don't count on that then you are only fooling yourself.

[Mike]

Why do you think I don't play RNG's? They aren't true random.

I missed this earlier. So you can win on a real wheel playing ECs but not an RNG?

[Mike]

Mike, I did  not intentionally intend to mess with your mind. You did set out to do a real test. But you inspired me along the  way. You really did inspire me to try to write the algorithm. That is almost mind boggling.

Glad I could help. 

[cheese]

Cheese do not use EV in the wrong way.Only pokerplayers use a personal EV.

Puleeze, BJ players practically invented EV. I was figuring EV when you were in short pants. You can find the EV of any game if you know the edge you have.

[cheese]

It's a very rare situation that the first time you try it that you would hit that 5% for a loss.

Good grief, listen to what you're saying. Do you also believe because there were 10 reds in a row, the chance that the next spin will be black is more than 50/50? You can't predict the next spin of random outcomes by calling some rare and some typical, it doesn't work. Its like you don't understand the nature of random at all.

[gizmotron]

Good grief, listen to what you're saying. Do you also believe because there were 10 reds in a row, the chance that the next spin will be black is more than 50/50? You can't predict the next spin of random outcomes by calling some rare and some typical, it doesn't work. Its like you don't understand the nature of random at all.

Shouldn't that be "gadzooks Batman?" You are still just as stupid as Spike is when it comes to odds. Yet another lame coincidence. The probability that Cheese and Spike are the same person grows exponentially each day. The odds were 15/1000 or .0015 that it would happen. That's rare for the game of Roulette.

But dig this folks. Spike thinks his game within a game is in how he places the bets. So here is an example of that. You bet 20 on the middle dozen and 10 on the upper dozen. If you hit the 20 you have +30. That's a 50/50 payoff for a 63% chance of losing nothing. You see if the 10 hits then you break even and gain or lose nothing. That's a game within the game. Now try to figure out Spike's game. I think he likes the streets and the double streets. Now you have a clue to work from.

[gizmotron]

I just noticed that wimpy Cheese (Spike) has tried to make a point in several threads. He's kind of repetitious that way, almost anal. But did you notice that he decided to miss interpret my point about what rare means? He did this  just to get himself an easy valid point. Only one huge problem with that. His original premise is wrong. So he has a great point appearing to be right with a wrong supposition. He's king of the weenie arguments. I doubt if he has anything to say about the odds. You know, my real reason for making that bet.

Have you ever asked Spike to explain his 72% win rate. Now there's an easy argument.

[cheese]

I think he likes the streets and the double streets. Now you have a clue to work from.

Nope, he likes just the EC's, sorry. Always has and always will.

[cheese]

He did this  just to get himself an easy valid point. Only one huge problem with that. His original premise is wrong.

OK, I'll bite. Explain how its wrong.

[gizmotron]

OK, I'll bite. Explain how its wrong.

No, you are an idiot.  Spending time on you is fly paper.

[gizmotron]

Nope, he likes just the EC's, sorry. Always has and always will.

No, you are an idiot.  Spending time on you is fly paper.

Still trying to do damage control aren't you.

[cheese]

Still trying to do damage control aren't you.

You say Spike plays something he doesn't, just correcting you. Spike has said for years all he plays is the EC's, find where he ever said different.

[cheese]

-