Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an
advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see if I.
can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can
indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you?
Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an
advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see if I
can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can
indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you?
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the
long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an
advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see if I
can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can
indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you?
Again, I am still on vacation.
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false. A moment's thought should tell you why.
On 9/25/2023 10:43 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the >> long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an
advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see if I >> can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can
indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you?
Again, I am still on vacation.
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false. A moment's thought should tell you why.Good to know that you finally realize you described the game incorrectly
and are dodging that fact.
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add
more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/25/2023 10:43 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Good to know that you finally realize you described the game incorrectly
Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the >>>> long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an
advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see if I >>>> can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can
indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you?
Again, I am still on vacation.
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false. A moment's thought should tell you why.
and are dodging that fact.
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add
more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.
Show me my description of the game
On 9/25/2023 3:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/25/2023 10:43 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.Good to know that you finally realize you described the game incorrectly >> and are dodging that fact.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the
long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an
advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see if I >>>> can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can >>>> indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you?
Again, I am still on vacation.
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false. A moment's thought should tell you why.
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add
more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.
.Show me my description of the game
Come on, Tim ... you do know your description of the game?
You describe the game again for us.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 2:06:14 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/25/2023 3:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/25/2023 10:43 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.Good to know that you finally realize you described the game incorrectly >>>> and are dodging that fact.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the >>>>>> long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an
advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see if I >>>>>> can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can >>>>>> indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you?
Again, I am still on vacation.
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false. A moment's thought should tell you why.
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add
more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.
.
.Show me my description of the game
Come on, Tim ... you do know your description of the game?
*** KNEW YOU COULDN'T ANSWER ***
I do so enjoy having others join in at poking you with your own stick...
Like I said - and you continue to prove - you and Jack Off are Runners.
Now go Run & Hide again...
LOL!
You describe the game again for us.
On 9/25/2023 3:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/25/2023 10:43 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>> Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.Good to know that you finally realize you described the game incorrectly >>> and are dodging that fact.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the
long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an
advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see
if I
can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can >>>>> indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you?
Again, I am still on vacation.
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage"
in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with
more winnings than losing?" is false. A moment's thought should tell
you why.
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add
more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.
Show me my description of the game
Come on, Tim ... you do know your description of the game?
You describe the game again for us.
On 9/25/2023 4:06 PM, da pickle wrote:______________
On 9/25/2023 3:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>> On 9/25/2023 10:43 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>> Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.Good to know that you finally realize you described the game incorrectly >>> and are dodging that fact.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that >>>>> in the
long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an
advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see >>>>> if I
can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can >>>>> indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you?
Again, I am still on vacation.
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage"
in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with
more winnings than losing?" is false. A moment's thought should tell >>>> you why.
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add
more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.
Show me my description of the game
Come on, Tim ... you do know your description of the game?
You describe the game again for us.You brought up the game, Tim,
Have you forgotten?
Describe the game and I will show you how to gain an advantage, which
you say is impossible.
Need more rest?
.Show me my description of the game
Come on, Tim ... you do know your description of the game?
On 9/25/2023 6:01 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 2:06:14 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 9/25/2023 3:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/25/2023 10:43 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.Good to know that you finally realize you described the game incorrectly
Again, I am still on vacation.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the
long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing? >>>>>>
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an >>>>>> advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see if I
can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can >>>>>> indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you? >>>>>
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false. A moment's thought should tell you why.
and are dodging that fact.
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add >>>> more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.
.
.Show me my description of the game
Come on, Tim ... you do know your description of the game?
*** KNEW YOU COULDN'T ANSWER ***
I do so enjoy having others join in at poking you with your own stick...
Like I said - and you continue to prove - you and Jack Off are Runners. Now go Run & Hide again...
LOL!
.
You describe the game again for us.
If Tim cannot describe .....
Show me my description of the game
Come on, Tim ... you do know your description of the game?
[This is not your thread, Jerry
... Tim can take care of himself.]
.Show me my description of the game
Come on, Tim ... you do know your description of the game?
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add
more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.
Show me my description of the game
On 9/25/2023 3:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add
more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.
Show me my description of the game
Jerry cannot defend you forever, Tim.
Do not run and hide.
Present the rules of the Say Red game.
Do not change what you said before.
Here are the rules:
???????
On 9/27/2023 1:14 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
Nothing at all
Whoever you want to be can just keep quiet.
You are acting like a Tim sock puppet, "jerry"
If he wants to redeem himself, he can just post his version of the rules
and I will show him how to gain an advantage.
No problem ... if he is able to do it.
Whoever you want to be can just keep quiet.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/25/2023 10:43 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the
long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an
advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see if I >> can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can
indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you?
Again, I am still on vacation.
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false. A moment's thought should tell you why.Good to know that you finally realize you described the game incorrectly and are dodging that fact.
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add
more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.Show me my description of the game
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 4:54:15 PM UTC-4, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/25/2023 10:43 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Show me my description of the game
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>> Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.Good to know that you finally realize you described the game incorrectly >>> and are dodging that fact.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the >>>>> long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an
advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see if I >>>>> can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can >>>>> indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you?
Again, I am still on vacation.
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false. A moment's thought should tell you why.
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add
more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.
Since you chose not to reply, here is my statement:
I do not have a version of the “Say Red” game. I merely contributed some comments when it was discussed.
That being said, here is what it appears to be, boiled down to some essence:
1. Take 26 red and 26 black cards, randomized in order, and laid out so that no card can be distinguished.
2. The dealer begins to expose one card at a time, noting its colour.
3. At any point, the player can stop the dealer, who subsequently turns over one more card.
4. When the player does so, he/she wins the game if that next card is red, and loses if it is black.
5. If the player does not stop the game, the determination is on the last card of the deck.
Is that it?
On 9/28/2023 9:08 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 4:54:15 PM UTC-4, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>> On 9/25/2023 10:43 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Show me my description of the gameOn Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>> Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.Good to know that you finally realize you described the game incorrectly >>> and are dodging that fact.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the
long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an
advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see if I
can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can >>>>> indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you?
Again, I am still on vacation.
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false. A moment's thought should tell you why.
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add
more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.
Since you chose not to reply, here is my statement:
I do not have a version of the “Say Red” game. I merely contributed some comments when it was discussed.
That being said, here is what it appears to be, boiled down to some essence:
1. Take 26 red and 26 black cards, randomized in order, and laid out so that no card can be distinguished.
2. The dealer begins to expose one card at a time, noting its colour.
3. At any point, the player can stop the dealer, who subsequently turns over one more card.
4. When the player does so, he/she wins the game if that next card is red, and loses if it is black.
5. If the player does not stop the game, the determination is on the last card of the deck.
Is that it?You finally found a correct version. Seems like you looked a long time.
That is NOT the game you described, but now you describe it correctly.
Thanks for finding your error.
[You must have taken a long time finding that version [colour] ... just
a regular deck of shuffled cards would do. No "Say Red"?]
[You left out number 5.] A critical error.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:35:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/28/2023 9:08 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 4:54:15 PM UTC-4, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>> On 9/25/2023 10:43 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You finally found a correct version. Seems like you looked a long time.
Show me my description of the gameOn Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.Good to know that you finally realize you described the game incorrectly >>>>> and are dodging that fact.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the
long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an
advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see if I >>>>>>> can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can >>>>>>> indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you?
Again, I am still on vacation.
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false. A moment's thought should tell you why.
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add >>>>> more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.
Since you chose not to reply, here is my statement:
I do not have a version of the “Say Red” game. I merely contributed some comments when it was discussed.
That being said, here is what it appears to be, boiled down to some essence:
1. Take 26 red and 26 black cards, randomized in order, and laid out so that no card can be distinguished.
2. The dealer begins to expose one card at a time, noting its colour.
3. At any point, the player can stop the dealer, who subsequently turns over one more card.
4. When the player does so, he/she wins the game if that next card is red, and loses if it is black.
5. If the player does not stop the game, the determination is on the last card of the deck.
Is that it?
That is NOT the game you described, but now you describe it correctly.
Thanks for finding your error.
[You must have taken a long time finding that version [colour] ... just
a regular deck of shuffled cards would do. No "Say Red"?]
[You left out number 5.] A critical error.
Are you a liar, or insane. I challenged you to find a description that I had written, and you did not do so.
On 9/29/2023 3:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:35:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/28/2023 9:08 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 4:54:15 PM UTC-4, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>> On 9/25/2023 10:43 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You finally found a correct version. Seems like you looked a long time. >>
Show me my description of the gameOn Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Good to know that you finally realize you described the game incorrectly
Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.Again, I am still on vacation.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the
long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing? >>>>>>>
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an >>>>>>> advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see if I
can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can >>>>>>> indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you? >>>>>>
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false. A moment's thought should tell you why.
and are dodging that fact.
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add >>>>> more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.
Since you chose not to reply, here is my statement:
I do not have a version of the “Say Red” game. I merely contributed some comments when it was discussed.
That being said, here is what it appears to be, boiled down to some essence:
1. Take 26 red and 26 black cards, randomized in order, and laid out so that no card can be distinguished.
2. The dealer begins to expose one card at a time, noting its colour. >>> 3. At any point, the player can stop the dealer, who subsequently turns over one more card.
4. When the player does so, he/she wins the game if that next card is red, and loses if it is black.
5. If the player does not stop the game, the determination is on the last card of the deck.
Is that it?
That is NOT the game you described, but now you describe it correctly.
Thanks for finding your error.
[You must have taken a long time finding that version [colour] ... just >> a regular deck of shuffled cards would do. No "Say Red"?]
[You left out number 5.] A critical error.
Are you a liar, or insane. I challenged you to find a description that I had written, and you did not do so.
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ...
you are the liar.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:35:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:.
On 9/28/2023 9:08 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 4:54:15 PM UTC-4, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>> On 9/25/2023 10:43 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Show me my description of the gameOn Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Good to know that you finally realize you described the game incorrectly
Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.Again, I am still on vacation.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the
long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing? >>>>>
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an >>>>> advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see if I
can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can >>>>> indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you? >>>>
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false. A moment's thought should tell you why.
and are dodging that fact.
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add >>> more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.
Since you chose not to reply, here is my statement:
I do not have a version of the “Say Red” game. I merely contributed some comments when it was discussed.
That being said, here is what it appears to be, boiled down to some essence:
1. Take 26 red and 26 black cards, randomized in order, and laid out so that no card can be distinguished.
2. The dealer begins to expose one card at a time, noting its colour.
3. At any point, the player can stop the dealer, who subsequently turns over one more card.
4. When the player does so, he/she wins the game if that next card is red, and loses if it is black.
5. If the player does not stop the game, the determination is on the last card of the deck.
Is that it?You finally found a correct version. Seems like you looked a long time.
That is NOT the game you described, but now you describe it correctly.
Thanks for finding your error.
[You must have taken a long time finding that version [colour] ... just
a regular deck of shuffled cards would do. No "Say Red"?]
[You left out number 5.] A critical error.
Are you a liar, or insane.
I challenged you to find a description that I had written, and you did not do so.
On 9/29/2023 3:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:35:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/28/2023 9:08 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 4:54:15 PM UTC-4, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>> On 9/25/2023 10:43 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You finally found a correct version. Seems like you looked a long time. >>
Show me my description of the gameOn Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:54:30 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Good to know that you finally realize you described the game incorrectly
Just for the Tim version ... no others need apply.Again, I am still on vacation.
Is the proposed "bet" too difficult for you, Tim?
You say no player can gain an advantage in the game.
Will you confirm that the above statement is true?
Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the
long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing? >>>>>>>
I say I will never lose a game with you.
Will you agree that "I" will never lose a game with you?
Is the fact that "I" can never lose a game with you "gaining an >>>>>>> advantage" in the game?
Well, Tim ... do you want to play some games for real money to see if I
can win in the long run from you every single time ... because I can >>>>>>> indeed gain an advantage.
Or do you want Jerry to cut and paste and come in to defend you? >>>>>>
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false. A moment's thought should tell you why.
and are dodging that fact.
I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add >>>>> more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information.
Since you chose not to reply, here is my statement:
I do not have a version of the “Say Red” game. I merely contributed some comments when it was discussed.
That being said, here is what it appears to be, boiled down to some essence:
1. Take 26 red and 26 black cards, randomized in order, and laid out so that no card can be distinguished.
2. The dealer begins to expose one card at a time, noting its colour. >>> 3. At any point, the player can stop the dealer, who subsequently turns over one more card.
4. When the player does so, he/she wins the game if that next card is red, and loses if it is black.
5. If the player does not stop the game, the determination is on the last card of the deck.
Is that it?
That is NOT the game you described, but now you describe it correctly.
Thanks for finding your error.
[You must have taken a long time finding that version [colour] ... just >> a regular deck of shuffled cards would do. No "Say Red"?]
[You left out number 5.] A critical error.
Are you a liar, or insane. I challenged you to find a description that I had written, and you did not do so.I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ...
you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ...
you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar.
No you did not.
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ... >> you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar.
No you did not.
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. ......
gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of
the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.]
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were discussing.
Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing
cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you
will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.]
On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ... >> you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar.
No you did not.
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. YOU told me that no one could
gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of
the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.]
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were discussing. Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing
cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you
will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.]
[Need a little more help ... trying to come up with a dodge of the above?]
[A quick memory ... couple of weeks ago ... your words ... ]
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we discussed."
The "game that we discussed", Tim ... not the new version have found.
[Can you not find the comment ... your comment, Tim?]
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. YOU told me that no one could
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ... >>>> you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar.
No you did not.
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of
the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.]
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were
discussing. Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing
cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you
will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.]
[Need a little more help ... trying to come up with a dodge of the above?] >>
[A quick memory ... couple of weeks ago ... your words ... ]
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
The "game that we discussed", Tim ... not the new version have found.
[Can you not find the comment ... your comment, Tim?]
You are still claiming that I had a description of the game before a couple of days ago.
Produce it, or admit that you are lying.
On 9/30/2023 4:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. YOU told me that no one could
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ...
you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar.
No you did not.
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of
the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.]
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were
discussing. Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing
cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you
will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.]
[Need a little more help ... trying to come up with a dodge of the above?]
[A quick memory ... couple of weeks ago ... your words ... ]
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
The "game that we discussed", Tim ... not the new version have found.
[Can you not find the comment ... your comment, Tim?]
You are still claiming that I had a description of the game before a couple of days ago.
Produce it, or admit that you are lying.The quote "game we discussed" are your words, Tim.
Your words, Tim
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we discussed."
September 15 ... more than "a couple of days ago" ... want to dodge
again ... of just let Jerry step in for you.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:55:35 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/30/2023 4:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:The quote "game we discussed" are your words, Tim.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. YOU told me that no one could
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ... >>>>>> you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar.
No you did not.
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of >>>> the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.]
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were
discussing. Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing
cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you
will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.]
[Need a little more help ... trying to come up with a dodge of the above?] >>>>
[A quick memory ... couple of weeks ago ... your words ... ]
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we >>>> discussed."
The "game that we discussed", Tim ... not the new version have found.
[Can you not find the comment ... your comment, Tim?]
You are still claiming that I had a description of the game before a couple of days ago.
Produce it, or admit that you are lying.
Your words, Tim
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
September 15 ... more than "a couple of days ago" ... want to dodge
again ... of just let Jerry step in for you.
Yes. But your claim above is that I was the one who described the game. Back up that claim, or admit defeat.
On 9/30/2023 4:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. YOU told me that no one could
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ...
you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar.
No you did not.
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of
the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.]
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were
discussing. Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing
cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you
will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.]
[Need a little more help ... trying to come up with a dodge of the above?]
[A quick memory ... couple of weeks ago ... your words ... ]
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
The "game that we discussed", Tim ... not the new version have found.
[Can you not find the comment ... your comment, Tim?]
You are still claiming that I had a description of the game before a couple of days ago.
Produce it, or admit that you are lying.
The quote "game we discussed" are your words....
On 9/30/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:55:35 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/30/2023 4:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:The quote "game we discussed" are your words, Tim.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. YOU told me that no one could >>>> gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ...No you did not.
you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar. >>>>>
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of >>>> the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.] >>>>
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were >>>> discussing. Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing >>>> cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you >>>> will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.]
[Need a little more help ... trying to come up with a dodge of the above?]
[A quick memory ... couple of weeks ago ... your words ... ]
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we >>>> discussed."
The "game that we discussed", Tim ... not the new version have found. >>>>
[Can you not find the comment ... your comment, Tim?]
You are still claiming that I had a description of the game before a couple of days ago.
Produce it, or admit that you are lying.
Your words, Tim
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
September 15 ... more than "a couple of days ago" ... want to dodge
again ... of just let Jerry step in for you.
Yes. But your claim above is that I was the one who described the game. Back up that claim, or admit defeat.
Is that dodge all you have, Tim? I am...
Just walk away, Tim ... that is what others do.
On 9/30/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:55:35 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/30/2023 4:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:The quote "game we discussed" are your words, Tim.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. YOU told me that no one could >>>> gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ...No you did not.
you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar. >>>>>
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of >>>> the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.] >>>>
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were >>>> discussing. Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing >>>> cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you >>>> will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.]
[Need a little more help ... trying to come up with a dodge of the above?]
[A quick memory ... couple of weeks ago ... your words ... ]
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we >>>> discussed."
The "game that we discussed", Tim ... not the new version have found. >>>>
[Can you not find the comment ... your comment, Tim?]
You are still claiming that I had a description of the game before a couple of days ago.
Produce it, or admit that you are lying.
Your words, Tim
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
September 15 ... more than "a couple of days ago" ... want to dodge
again ... of just let Jerry step in for you.
Yes. But your claim above is that I was the one who described the game. Back up that claim, or admit defeat.Is that dodge all you have, Tim? I am talking about the "game we
discussed", Tim ... not you new post. Why are you still running?
Why, Tim? Read you own words above, Tim ...
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we discussed."
That is the "game" under discussion (again) ...
Are you now saying YOUR new description of the game is the one we were discussing ... surely you can prove that ... if you take back your own words.
Just walk away, Tim ... that is what others do.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:10:18 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/30/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:55:35 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/30/2023 4:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Is that dodge all you have, Tim? I am talking about the "game we
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:The quote "game we discussed" are your words, Tim.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. YOU told me that no one could >>>>>> gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ...No you did not.
you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar. >>>>>>>
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of >>>>>> the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.] >>>>>>
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were >>>>>> discussing. Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing >>>>>> cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you >>>>>> will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.]
[Need a little more help ... trying to come up with a dodge of the above?]
[A quick memory ... couple of weeks ago ... your words ... ]
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we >>>>>> discussed."
The "game that we discussed", Tim ... not the new version have found. >>>>>>
[Can you not find the comment ... your comment, Tim?]
You are still claiming that I had a description of the game before a couple of days ago.
Produce it, or admit that you are lying.
Your words, Tim
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we >>>> discussed."
September 15 ... more than "a couple of days ago" ... want to dodge
again ... of just let Jerry step in for you.
Yes. But your claim above is that I was the one who described the game. Back up that claim, or admit defeat.
discussed", Tim ... not you new post. Why are you still running?
Why, Tim? Read you own words above, Tim ...
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
That is the "game" under discussion (again) ...
Are you now saying YOUR new description of the game is the one we were
discussing ... surely you can prove that ... if you take back your own
words.
Just walk away, Tim ... that is what others do.
For fucks sake. When the game was being discussed years ago, I offered my own analysis, which you disagreed with.
I described the game in this thread the other day, from memory.
I never had 'my version' of the game, and for you to repeatedly insist that I did so is borderline insane, given that you can provide zero evidence.
On 10/1/2023 3:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:10:18 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/30/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:55:35 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/30/2023 4:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Is that dodge all you have, Tim? I am talking about the "game we
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:The quote "game we discussed" are your words, Tim.
On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. YOU told me that no one could >>>>>> gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ...No you did not.
you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar. >>>>>>>
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of
the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.] >>>>>>
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were >>>>>> discussing. Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing >>>>>> cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you >>>>>> will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.]
[Need a little more help ... trying to come up with a dodge of the above?]
[A quick memory ... couple of weeks ago ... your words ... ]
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
The "game that we discussed", Tim ... not the new version have found. >>>>>>
[Can you not find the comment ... your comment, Tim?]
You are still claiming that I had a description of the game before a couple of days ago.
Produce it, or admit that you are lying.
Your words, Tim
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we >>>> discussed."
September 15 ... more than "a couple of days ago" ... want to dodge >>>> again ... of just let Jerry step in for you.
Yes. But your claim above is that I was the one who described the game. Back up that claim, or admit defeat.
discussed", Tim ... not you new post. Why are you still running?
Why, Tim? Read you own words above, Tim ...
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
That is the "game" under discussion (again) ...
Are you now saying YOUR new description of the game is the one we were
discussing ... surely you can prove that ... if you take back your own
words.
Just walk away, Tim ... that is what others do.
For fucks sake. When the game was being discussed years ago, I offered my own analysis, which you disagreed with.
I described the game in this thread the other day, from memory.
I never had 'my version' of the game, and for you to repeatedly insist that I did so is borderline insane, given that you can provide zero evidence.
Your latest version is from memory, eh. Everyone knows better, Tim
But you are correct, you cannot gain an advantage in the Say Red game
using your version.
[But the game "we were discussing" a so long ago was not the same
version as the one you "remembered" "from memory".]
On 10/1/2023 3:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:10:18 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/30/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:55:35 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/30/2023 4:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Is that dodge all you have, Tim? I am talking about the "game we
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:The quote "game we discussed" are your words, Tim.
On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. YOU told me that no one could >>>>>> gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ...No you did not.
you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar. >>>>>>>
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of
the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.] >>>>>>
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were >>>>>> discussing. Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing >>>>>> cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you >>>>>> will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.]
[Need a little more help ... trying to come up with a dodge of the above?]
[A quick memory ... couple of weeks ago ... your words ... ]
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
The "game that we discussed", Tim ... not the new version have found. >>>>>>
[Can you not find the comment ... your comment, Tim?]
You are still claiming that I had a description of the game before a couple of days ago.
Produce it, or admit that you are lying.
Your words, Tim
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we >>>> discussed."
September 15 ... more than "a couple of days ago" ... want to dodge >>>> again ... of just let Jerry step in for you.
Yes. But your claim above is that I was the one who described the game. Back up that claim, or admit defeat.
discussed", Tim ... not you new post. Why are you still running?
Why, Tim? Read you own words above, Tim ...
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
That is the "game" under discussion (again) ...
Are you now saying YOUR new description of the game is the one we were
discussing ... surely you can prove that ... if you take back your own
words.
Just walk away, Tim ... that is what others do.
For fucks sake. When the game was being discussed years ago, I offered my own analysis, which you disagreed with.
I described the game in this thread the other day, from memory.
I never had 'my version' of the game, and for you to repeatedly insist that I did so is borderline insane, given that you can provide zero evidence.Your latest version is from memory, eh. Everyone knows better, Tim
But you are correct, you cannot gain an advantage in the Say Red game
using your version.
[But the game "we were discussing" a so long ago was not the same
version as the one you "remembered" "from memory".]
On 10/2/2023 8:39 AM, BillB wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 5:16:11 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 10/1/2023 3:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:10:18 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Your latest version is from memory, eh. Everyone knows better, Tim
On 9/30/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:55:35 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Is that dodge all you have, Tim? I am talking about the "game we
On 9/30/2023 4:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:The quote "game we discussed" are your words, Tim.
On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. YOU told me that no one could >>>>>>>> gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ...
you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar.
No you did not.
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of
the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.]
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were
discussing. Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing
cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you >>>>>>>> will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.]
[Need a little more help ... trying to come up with a dodge of the above?]
[A quick memory ... couple of weeks ago ... your words ... ] >>>>>>>>
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
The "game that we discussed", Tim ... not the new version have found.
[Can you not find the comment ... your comment, Tim?]
You are still claiming that I had a description of the game before a couple of days ago.
Produce it, or admit that you are lying.
Your words, Tim
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
September 15 ... more than "a couple of days ago" ... want to dodge >>>>>> again ... of just let Jerry step in for you.
Yes. But your claim above is that I was the one who described the game. Back up that claim, or admit defeat.
discussed", Tim ... not you new post. Why are you still running?
Why, Tim? Read you own words above, Tim ...
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we >>>> discussed."
That is the "game" under discussion (again) ...
Are you now saying YOUR new description of the game is the one we were >>>> discussing ... surely you can prove that ... if you take back your own >>>> words.
Just walk away, Tim ... that is what others do.
For fucks sake. When the game was being discussed years ago, I offered my own analysis, which you disagreed with.
I described the game in this thread the other day, from memory.
I never had 'my version' of the game, and for you to repeatedly insist that I did so is borderline insane, given that you can provide zero evidence.
But you are correct, you cannot gain an advantage in the Say Red game
using your version.
[But the game "we were discussing" a so long ago was not the same
version as the one you "remembered" "from memory".]
lol...pickle is calling the most honest person in North America a liar. Literally the worst instincts I have ever seen in a (so-called) lawyer. He's wrong almost every single time.Only you, "Bill" could have known that "Tim" was the most honest person
in North America ... and would deflect the obvious "memory" loss to
trying to be honest. "Jerry" can help close the close friendship trio.
[BTW, "Tim: is not lying, he is just misremembering ... I am
"absolutely" positive.]
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 5:16:11 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 10/1/2023 3:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:10:18 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Your latest version is from memory, eh. Everyone knows better, Tim
On 9/30/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:55:35 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/30/2023 4:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Is that dodge all you have, Tim? I am talking about the "game we
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:The quote "game we discussed" are your words, Tim.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. YOU told me that no one could >>>>>>>> gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ...No you did not.
you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar. >>>>>>>>>
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of >>>>>>>> the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.] >>>>>>>>
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were >>>>>>>> discussing. Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing >>>>>>>> cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you >>>>>>>> will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.]
[Need a little more help ... trying to come up with a dodge of the above?]
[A quick memory ... couple of weeks ago ... your words ... ]
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we >>>>>>>> discussed."
The "game that we discussed", Tim ... not the new version have found. >>>>>>>>
[Can you not find the comment ... your comment, Tim?]
You are still claiming that I had a description of the game before a couple of days ago.
Produce it, or admit that you are lying.
Your words, Tim
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we >>>>>> discussed."
September 15 ... more than "a couple of days ago" ... want to dodge >>>>>> again ... of just let Jerry step in for you.
Yes. But your claim above is that I was the one who described the game. Back up that claim, or admit defeat.
discussed", Tim ... not you new post. Why are you still running?
Why, Tim? Read you own words above, Tim ...
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we >>>> discussed."
That is the "game" under discussion (again) ...
Are you now saying YOUR new description of the game is the one we were >>>> discussing ... surely you can prove that ... if you take back your own >>>> words.
Just walk away, Tim ... that is what others do.
For fucks sake. When the game was being discussed years ago, I offered my own analysis, which you disagreed with.
I described the game in this thread the other day, from memory.
I never had 'my version' of the game, and for you to repeatedly insist that I did so is borderline insane, given that you can provide zero evidence.
But you are correct, you cannot gain an advantage in the Say Red game
using your version.
[But the game "we were discussing" a so long ago was not the same
version as the one you "remembered" "from memory".]
lol...pickle is calling the most honest person in North America a liar. Literally the worst instincts I have ever seen in a (so-called) lawyer. He's wrong almost every single time.
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:28:59 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 8:39 AM, BillB wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 5:16:11 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:Only you, "Bill" could have known that "Tim" was the most honest person
On 10/1/2023 3:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:10:18 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Your latest version is from memory, eh. Everyone knows better, Tim
On 9/30/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:55:35 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/30/2023 4:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Is that dodge all you have, Tim? I am talking about the "game we
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:The quote "game we discussed" are your words, Tim.
On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. YOU told me that no one could >>>>>>>>>> gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ...No you did not.
you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar. >>>>>>>>>>>
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of
the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.]
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were
discussing. Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing >>>>>>>>>> cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you >>>>>>>>>> will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.] >>>>>>>>>>
[Need a little more help ... trying to come up with a dodge of the above?]
[A quick memory ... couple of weeks ago ... your words ... ] >>>>>>>>>>
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
The "game that we discussed", Tim ... not the new version have found.
[Can you not find the comment ... your comment, Tim?]
You are still claiming that I had a description of the game before a couple of days ago.
Produce it, or admit that you are lying.
Your words, Tim
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we >>>>>>>> discussed."
September 15 ... more than "a couple of days ago" ... want to dodge >>>>>>>> again ... of just let Jerry step in for you.
Yes. But your claim above is that I was the one who described the game. Back up that claim, or admit defeat.
discussed", Tim ... not you new post. Why are you still running?
Why, Tim? Read you own words above, Tim ...
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we >>>>>> discussed."
That is the "game" under discussion (again) ...
Are you now saying YOUR new description of the game is the one we were >>>>>> discussing ... surely you can prove that ... if you take back your own >>>>>> words.
Just walk away, Tim ... that is what others do.
For fucks sake. When the game was being discussed years ago, I offered my own analysis, which you disagreed with.
I described the game in this thread the other day, from memory.
I never had 'my version' of the game, and for you to repeatedly insist that I did so is borderline insane, given that you can provide zero evidence.
But you are correct, you cannot gain an advantage in the Say Red game
using your version.
[But the game "we were discussing" a so long ago was not the same
version as the one you "remembered" "from memory".]
lol...pickle is calling the most honest person in North America a liar. Literally the worst instincts I have ever seen in a (so-called) lawyer. He's wrong almost every single time.
in North America ... and would deflect the obvious "memory" loss to
trying to be honest. "Jerry" can help close the close friendship trio.
[BTW, "Tim: is not lying, he is just misremembering ... I am
"absolutely" positive.]
You were clearly accusing him of lying. Now you are running away from it like a little bitch?
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote: >> For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support one
of the parties in this discussion.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support one of the parties in this discussion.
Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support oneI don't understand your claim. I simply reported the facts. Where's
of the parties in this discussion.
the bias?
--bks
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:50:24 PM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote: >> Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:I don't understand your claim. I simply reported the facts. Where's
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support one
of the parties in this discussion.
the bias?
(First hint) verbatim.
On 10/2/2023 10:43 AM, Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote: >>> For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupone of the parties in this discussion.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support
Actually, a search of Google Groups does not show the post from 8 years
ago ... as if that would be discussed "recently" ... but maybe the date
is incorrect. That would not be the one Tim is "remembering".
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:50:24 PM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support one >of the parties in this discussion.I don't understand your claim. I simply reported the facts. Where's
the bias?
--bks(First hint) verbatim.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:.
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support one of the parties in this discussion..
Grunty <grunti...@yahoo.com> wrote:.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:50:24 PM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:I don't understand your claim. I simply reported the facts. Where's
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support one >> >of the parties in this discussion.
the bias?
(First hint) verbatim.
?? Still not following you.
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:.
On 10/2/2023 10:43 AM, Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:one of the parties in this discussion.
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support
Actually, a search of Google Groups does not show the post from 8 years >ago ... as if that would be discussed "recently" ... but maybe the dateWrong again, Pickle: <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/s9R5syIhaR8/m/X4XTC9xlaTwJ>
is incorrect. That would not be the one Tim is "remembering".
On 10/2/2023 9:44 AM, BillB wrote:.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:28:59 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 8:39 AM, BillB wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 5:16:11 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:Only you, "Bill" could have known that "Tim" was the most honest person >> in North America ... and would deflect the obvious "memory" loss to
On 10/1/2023 3:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:10:18 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 9/30/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Your latest version is from memory, eh. Everyone knows better, Tim
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:55:35 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Is that dodge all you have, Tim? I am talking about the "game we >>>>>> discussed", Tim ... not you new post. Why are you still running? >>>>>>
On 9/30/2023 4:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:The quote "game we discussed" are your words, Tim.
On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. YOU told me that no one could
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ...
you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar.
No you did not.
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of
the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.]
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were
discussing. Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing
cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you
will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.] >>>>>>>>>>
[Need a little more help ... trying to come up with a dodge of the above?]
[A quick memory ... couple of weeks ago ... your words ... ] >>>>>>>>>>
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
The "game that we discussed", Tim ... not the new version have found.
[Can you not find the comment ... your comment, Tim?]
You are still claiming that I had a description of the game before a couple of days ago.
Produce it, or admit that you are lying.
Your words, Tim
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
September 15 ... more than "a couple of days ago" ... want to dodge >>>>>>>> again ... of just let Jerry step in for you.
Yes. But your claim above is that I was the one who described the game. Back up that claim, or admit defeat.
Why, Tim? Read you own words above, Tim ...
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
That is the "game" under discussion (again) ...
Are you now saying YOUR new description of the game is the one we were
discussing ... surely you can prove that ... if you take back your own
words.
Just walk away, Tim ... that is what others do.
For fucks sake. When the game was being discussed years ago, I offered my own analysis, which you disagreed with.
I described the game in this thread the other day, from memory.
I never had 'my version' of the game, and for you to repeatedly insist that I did so is borderline insane, given that you can provide zero evidence.
But you are correct, you cannot gain an advantage in the Say Red game >>>> using your version.
[But the game "we were discussing" a so long ago was not the same
version as the one you "remembered" "from memory".]
lol...pickle is calling the most honest person in North America a liar. Literally the worst instincts I have ever seen in a (so-called) lawyer. He's wrong almost every single time.
trying to be honest. "Jerry" can help close the close friendship trio.
[BTW, "Tim: is not lying, he is just misremembering ... I am
"absolutely" positive.]
You were clearly accusing him of lying. Now you are running away from it like a little bitch?
Sounding more jerry-like all the time.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 9:35:16 AM UTC-7, Grunty wrote:.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:50:24 PM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support one >of the parties in this discussion.I don't understand your claim. I simply reported the facts. Where's
the bias?
How the fuck did this lame thread get to 50 posts?--bks(First hint) verbatim.
Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:50:24 PM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:I don't understand your claim. I simply reported the facts. Where's
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support one >> >of the parties in this discussion.
the bias?
(First hint) verbatim.
?? Still not following you.
--bks
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/2023 10:43 AM, Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:one of the parties in this discussion.
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support
Actually, a search of Google Groups does not show the post from 8 years
ago ... as if that would be discussed "recently" ... but maybe the date
is incorrect. That would not be the one Tim is "remembering".
Wrong again, Pickle: <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/s9R5syIhaR8/m/X4XTC9xlaTwJ>
--bks
On 10/2/2023 10:43 AM, Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support one of the parties in this discussion.Actually, a search of Google Groups does not show the post from 8 years
ago ... as if that would be discussed "recently" ... but maybe the date
is incorrect. That would not be the one Tim is "remembering".
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bksAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
On 10/1/2023 3:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:10:18 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 9/30/2023 8:35 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:55:35 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 9/30/2023 4:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Is that dodge all you have, Tim? I am talking about the "game we
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:04:44 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:The quote "game we discussed" are your words, Tim.
On 9/29/2023 8:17 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Tim, you and Jerry are one of a kind. YOU told me that no one could >>>>>> gain an advantage in the game we were discussing.
I challenged you to print the description that you were referring to ...No you did not.
you are the liar.
The description above was NOT the one "under discussion" ... liar. >>>>>>>
Read what is above this. You made the claim that I had described the game, which I did not.
Now, apparently after digging you come up with a proper description of
the game. [Where did you get that description? Asking a second time.] >>>>>>
But somehow you cannot come up with a description of the game we were >>>>>> discussing. Why not, Tim? We both know.
[It may assist you to remember that it was a regular deck of playing >>>>>> cards involved, not just 26 red and 26 black cards. But I doubt you >>>>>> will do anything but wake up Jerry for another diversion.]
[Need a little more help ... trying to come up with a dodge of the above?]
[A quick memory ... couple of weeks ago ... your words ... ]
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
The "game that we discussed", Tim ... not the new version have found. >>>>>>
[Can you not find the comment ... your comment, Tim?]
You are still claiming that I had a description of the game before a couple of days ago.
Produce it, or admit that you are lying.
Your words, Tim
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we >>>> discussed."
September 15 ... more than "a couple of days ago" ... want to dodge >>>> again ... of just let Jerry step in for you.
Yes. But your claim above is that I was the one who described the game. Back up that claim, or admit defeat.
discussed", Tim ... not you new post. Why are you still running?
Why, Tim? Read you own words above, Tim ...
"It is not possible to gain an advantage in the 'Say Red' game that we
discussed."
That is the "game" under discussion (again) ...
Are you now saying YOUR new description of the game is the one we were
discussing ... surely you can prove that ... if you take back your own
words.
Just walk away, Tim ... that is what others do.
For fucks sake. When the game was being discussed years ago, I offered my own analysis, which you disagreed with.
I described the game in this thread the other day, from memory.
I never had 'my version' of the game, and for you to repeatedly insist that I did so is borderline insane, given that you can provide zero evidence.Your latest version is from memory, eh. Everyone knows better, Tim
But you are correct, you cannot gain an advantage in the Say Red game
using your version.
[But the game "we were discussing" a so long ago was not the same
version as the one you "remembered" "from memory".]
On 10/2/2023 12:12 PM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/2023 10:43 AM, Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:one of the parties in this discussion.
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support
Actually, a search of Google Groups does not show the post from 8 years
ago ... as if that would be discussed "recently" ... but maybe the date
is incorrect. That would not be the one Tim is "remembering".
Wrong again, Pickle:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/s9R5syIhaR8/m/X4XTC9xlaTwJ>
And you did not read the entire discussion ... you (and Tim) are stuck
on the last card being red.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:04:36 PM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
Grunty wrote:Sherman wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:50:24 PM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K.
...?? Still not following you.I don't understand your claim. I simply reported the facts. Where'sFor the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support one >> >> >of the parties in this discussion.
the bias?
(First hint) verbatim.
(Second hint - Etymological) from Latin: "verba" (words)
I even have a third hint if you need it ;-)
Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:04:36 PM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote: >> Grunty wrote:
...On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:50:24 PM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:?? Still not following you.
Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. >Sherman wrote:I don't understand your claim. I simply reported the facts. Where's
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support one
of the parties in this discussion.
the bias?
(First hint) verbatim.
(Second hint - Etymological) from Latin: "verba" (words)
I even have a third hint if you need it ;-)Yes, verbatim, word-for-word. I'm going to need the third hint,
because I find my usage correct.
--bks
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 9:35:16 AM UTC-7, Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:50:24 PM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support one >of the parties in this discussion.I don't understand your claim. I simply reported the facts. Where's
the bias?
How the fuck did this lame thread get to 50 posts?--bks(First hint) verbatim.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 8:43:44 AM UTC-7, Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:.
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support one of the parties in this discussion..
Heh. The truth is bias? You're a Fox News Republican, right?
...
(Third hint - Word decomposition) Latin: "verba", plus "tim" (this one I
hope you'll guess it)
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/2023 12:12 PM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/2023 10:43 AM, Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:one of the parties in this discussion.
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support
Actually, a search of Google Groups does not show the post from 8 years >>> ago ... as if that would be discussed "recently" ... but maybe the date >>> is incorrect. That would not be the one Tim is "remembering".
Wrong again, Pickle:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/s9R5syIhaR8/m/X4XTC9xlaTwJ>
And you did not read the entire discussion ... you (and Tim) are stuckWrong again, Pickle. I'm not "stuck on" the last card being red.
on the last card being red.
--bks
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:19:05 PM UTC-4, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/2023 12:12 PM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/2023 10:43 AM, Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support >>> one of the parties in this discussion.
Actually, a search of Google Groups does not show the post from 8 years
ago ... as if that would be discussed "recently" ... but maybe the date
is incorrect. That would not be the one Tim is "remembering".
Wrong again, Pickle:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/s9R5syIhaR8/m/X4XTC9xlaTwJ>
And you did not read the entire discussion ... you (and Tim) are stuck >on the last card being red.Wrong again, Pickle. I'm not "stuck on" the last card being red.
--bksNeither, for the record, am I. However, in all situations, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability of the last card being red.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 3:05:28 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:19:05 PM UTC-4, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/2023 12:12 PM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On 10/2/2023 10:43 AM, Grunty wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-3, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Here is the entire post, verbatim:
Bradley, your statement is clearly biased, it's obvious you support >>> one of the parties in this discussion.
Actually, a search of Google Groups does not show the post from 8 years
ago ... as if that would be discussed "recently" ... but maybe the date
is incorrect. That would not be the one Tim is "remembering".
Wrong again, Pickle:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.gambling.poker/c/s9R5syIhaR8/m/X4XTC9xlaTwJ>
And you did not read the entire discussion ... you (and Tim) are stuck >on the last card being red.Wrong again, Pickle. I'm not "stuck on" the last card being red.
--bksNeither, for the record, am I. However, in all situations, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability of the last card being red.
This entire thread is retarded. The real question is why any of you, in a poker group, would play any game
where you didn't think you had a known edge?
1. Take 26 red and 26 black cards, randomized in order, and laid out so that no card can be distinguished.
2. The dealer begins to expose one card at a time, noting its colour.
3. At any point, the player can stop the dealer, who subsequently turns over one more card.
4. When the player does so, he/she wins the game if that next card is red, and loses if it is black.
5. If the player does not stop the game, the determination is on the last card of the deck.
On September 28, Tim Norfolk wrote:
1. Take 26 red and 26 black cards, randomized in order, and laid out so that >> no card can be distinguished.turns over one more card.
2. The dealer begins to expose one card at a time, noting its colour.
3. At any point, the player can stop the dealer, who subsequently
4. When the player does so, he/she wins the game if that next card isred, and loses if it is black.
5. If the player does not stop the game, the determination is on thelast card of the deck.
Change it to Say Red or Black:
At any point, the player can call the next card as red or black,
his choice.
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On September 28, Tim Norfolk wrote:
1. Take 26 red and 26 black cards, randomized in order, and laid out so thatturns over one more card.
no card can be distinguished.
2. The dealer begins to expose one card at a time, noting its colour.
3. At any point, the player can stop the dealer, who subsequently
4. When the player does so, he/she wins the game if that next card is >red, and loses if it is black.
5. If the player does not stop the game, the determination is on the >last card of the deck.
Change it to Say Red or Black:I can win that game *every time* by calling the final card.
At any point, the player can call the next card as red or black,
his choice.
--bks
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me
in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been discussing?]
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me
in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been discussing?]
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:.
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me
in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been discussing?]Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 3:35:52 PM UTC-4, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On September 28, Tim Norfolk wrote:I can win that game *every time* by calling the final card.
1. Take 26 red and 26 black cards, randomized in order, and laid out so thatturns over one more card.
no card can be distinguished.
2. The dealer begins to expose one card at a time, noting its colour.
3. At any point, the player can stop the dealer, who subsequently
4. When the player does so, he/she wins the game if that next card isred, and loses if it is black.
5. If the player does not stop the game, the determination is on thelast card of the deck.
Change it to Say Red or Black:
At any point, the player can call the next card as red or black,
his choice.
--bks
That's why the player only wins on Red
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.
in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been
discussing?]
Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:07:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:Suited Connectors, flop to river, chance to hit open ended straight, etc.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been discussing?]Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60..
SIDEBAR
Tim: You're an odds guy (not 'odd' guy). I have a question you may be able to answer.
When I was playing lots of tournaments around here, (Vegas), it was popular among players to have a cheat sheet, of sorts, to glance at before the game or during breaks. It had the odd of various situation; odds of this or that on the deal, flop,
My list is lost gone, (or lost in my computer), but I remember reading one of the pros' books and him mentioning that if another player gets (or shows) they have a pair, (or a pair in the flop), that the 16:1 falls quite dramatically. i.e. If I have apair, obviously the odds increase that another player has a pair also. I used to have that number next to my 16:1 but don't remember what it was. Do you happen to know that number?
On 10/3/2023 7:07 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.
in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been
discussing?]
Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60.Why don't you reread the quite old discussion. How about I quit when I
am ahead?
Or do I "never" get "ahead" ... even once?
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:07:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:Suited Connectors, flop to river, chance to hit open ended straight, etc.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been discussing?]Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60..
SIDEBAR
Tim: You're an odds guy (not 'odd' guy). I have a question you may be able to answer.
When I was playing lots of tournaments around here, (Vegas), it was popular among players to have a cheat sheet, of sorts, to glance at before the game or during breaks. It had the odd of various situation; odds of this or that on the deal, flop,
My list is lost gone, (or lost in my computer), but I remember reading one of the pros' books and him mentioning that if another player gets (or shows) they have a pair, (or a pair in the flop), that the 16:1 falls quite dramatically. i.e. If I have apair, obviously the odds increase that another player has a pair also. I used to have that number next to my 16:1 but don't remember what it was. Do you happen to know that number?
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:07:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been discussing?]Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60..
SIDEBAR
Tim: You're an odds guy (not 'odd' guy). I have a question you may be able to answer.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:26:53 AM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:Suited Connectors, flop to river, chance to hit open ended straight, etc.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:07:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been discussing?]Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60..
SIDEBAR
Tim: You're an odds guy (not 'odd' guy). I have a question you may be able to answer.
When I was playing lots of tournaments around here, (Vegas), it was popular among players to have a cheat sheet, of sorts, to glance at before the game or during breaks. It had the odd of various situation; odds of this or that on the deal, flop,
a pair, obviously the odds increase that another player has a pair also. I used to have that number next to my 16:1 but don't remember what it was. Do you happen to know that number?My list is lost gone, (or lost in my computer), but I remember reading one of the pros' books and him mentioning that if another player gets (or shows) they have a pair, (or a pair in the flop), that the 16:1 falls quite dramatically. i.e. If I have
Offhand not, but I can likely figure it out..
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:26:53 AM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:Suited Connectors, flop to river, chance to hit open ended straight, etc.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:07:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been discussing?]Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60..
SIDEBAR
Tim: You're an odds guy (not 'odd' guy). I have a question you may be able to answer.
When I was playing lots of tournaments around here, (Vegas), it was popular among players to have a cheat sheet, of sorts, to glance at before the game or during breaks. It had the odd of various situation; odds of this or that on the deal, flop,
a pair, obviously the odds increase that another player has a pair also. I used to have that number next to my 16:1 but don't remember what it was. Do you happen to know that number?My list is lost gone, (or lost in my computer), but I remember reading one of the pros' books and him mentioning that if another player gets (or shows) they have a pair, (or a pair in the flop), that the 16:1 falls quite dramatically. i.e. If I have
Player A gets a pair 78 times out of 1326 possible deals, which works out to 16 to 1 against, exactly.
If Player A has a pair, then player B can have a pair 73 times of the remaining 1225 deals, which is approximately 15.78 to 1 against
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:26:53 AM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:07:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been discussing?]Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60..
SIDEBAR
Tim: You're an odds guy (not 'odd' guy). I have a question you may be able to answer.
<snip>
I am both. Nature of the beast.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:17:19 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/3/2023 7:07 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Why don't you reread the quite old discussion. How about I quit when I
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me >>>> in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure. >>>>
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been
discussing?]
Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60.
am ahead?
Or do I "never" get "ahead" ... even once?
Except that you said that you would never lose above. Make your mind up.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 4:04:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:Suited Connectors, flop to river, chance to hit open ended straight, etc.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:26:53 AM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:07:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me
in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been discussing?]Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60..
SIDEBAR
Tim: You're an odds guy (not 'odd' guy). I have a question you may be able to answer.
When I was playing lots of tournaments around here, (Vegas), it was popular among players to have a cheat sheet, of sorts, to glance at before the game or during breaks. It had the odd of various situation; odds of this or that on the deal, flop,
have a pair, obviously the odds increase that another player has a pair also. I used to have that number next to my 16:1 but don't remember what it was. Do you happen to know that number?My list is lost gone, (or lost in my computer), but I remember reading one of the pros' books and him mentioning that if another player gets (or shows) they have a pair, (or a pair in the flop), that the 16:1 falls quite dramatically. i.e. If I
Player A gets a pair 78 times out of 1326 possible deals, which works out to 16 to 1 against, exactly
If Player A has a pair, then player B can have a pair 73 times of the remaining 1225 deals, which is approximately 15.78 to 1 against.
Ah! Good. Thanks. For some reason the writer indicated a significantly lower number.
(So whenever I get a pair, or see a pair in the flop, I'm think at least another of the 9 players has a pair also.
On 10/4/2023 5:58 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:17:19 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/3/2023 7:07 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Why don't you reread the quite old discussion. How about I quit when I
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me >>>> in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure. >>>>
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been
discussing?]
Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60.
am ahead?
Or do I "never" get "ahead" ... even once?
Except that you said that you would never lose above. Make your mind up.In the long run, Tim ...
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:11:10 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/4/2023 5:58 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:17:19 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:In the long run, Tim ...
On 10/3/2023 7:07 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Why don't you reread the quite old discussion. How about I quit when I >>>> am ahead?
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me >>>>>> in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure. >>>>>>
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been
discussing?]
Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60.
Or do I "never" get "ahead" ... even once?
Except that you said that you would never lose above. Make your mind up.
Here is what you said above: "I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add
more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information."
That is not a statement about long-term results.
On 10/5/2023 2:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:11:10 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/4/2023 5:58 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:17:19 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/3/2023 7:07 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Why don't you reread the quite old discussion. How about I quit when I >>>> am ahead?
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group >>>>>>>>> on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But >>>>>>>>> Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:Added #5 ... critical. All good.
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will >>>>>>>>> | be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer. >>>>>>>>>
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.
in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been >>>>>> discussing?]
Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60.
Or do I "never" get "ahead" ... even once?
Except that you said that you would never lose above. Make your mind up. >> In the long run, Tim ...
Here is what you said above: "I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add
more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information."
That is not a statement about long-term results.You still do not understand. Interesting
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 8:39:02 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:Suited Connectors, flop to river, chance to hit open ended straight, etc.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 4:04:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:26:53 AM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:07:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group >>> on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, ButAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will >>> | be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me
in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been discussing?]Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60..
SIDEBAR
Tim: You're an odds guy (not 'odd' guy). I have a question you may be able to answer.
When I was playing lots of tournaments around here, (Vegas), it was popular among players to have a cheat sheet, of sorts, to glance at before the game or during breaks. It had the odd of various situation; odds of this or that on the deal, flop,
have a pair, obviously the odds increase that another player has a pair also. I used to have that number next to my 16:1 but don't remember what it was. Do you happen to know that number?My list is lost gone, (or lost in my computer), but I remember reading one of the pros' books and him mentioning that if another player gets (or shows) they have a pair, (or a pair in the flop), that the 16:1 falls quite dramatically. i.e. If I
.Player A gets a pair 78 times out of 1326 possible deals, which works out to 16 to 1 against, exactly
If Player A has a pair, then player B can have a pair 73 times of the remaining 1225 deals, which is approximately 15.78 to 1 against.
Ah! Good. Thanks. For some reason the writer indicated a significantly lower number.Different question. Make it a little more precise, and I might be able to help.
(So whenever I get a pair, or see a pair in the flop, I'm think at least another of the 9 players has a pair also.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:19:26 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/5/2023 2:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:11:10 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You still do not understand. Interesting
On 10/4/2023 5:58 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:17:19 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/3/2023 7:07 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Why don't you reread the quite old discussion. How about I quit when I >>>>>> am ahead?
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me >>>>>>>> in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure. >>>>>>>>
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group >>>>>>>>>>> on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But >>>>>>>>>>> Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim: >>>>>>>>>>> |Added #5 ... critical. All good.
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will >>>>>>>>>>> | be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you >>>>>>>>>>> | lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red" >>>>>>>>>>> | just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer. >>>>>>>>>>>
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been >>>>>>>> discussing?]
Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60.
Or do I "never" get "ahead" ... even once?
Except that you said that you would never lose above. Make your mind up. >>>> In the long run, Tim ...
Here is what you said above: "I will never lose ... that is indeed an advantage ... unless you add
more to your description of the game. Try again.
I never lose at all unless you add more information."
That is not a statement about long-term results.
I understand your claim. It is not what you claimed above, that is all.
Okay. We delt two cards each to 26 'players.' I presume the odd of the first player turning over a pair is still 16:1 ?
So if the first player does turn over a pair; what's the odd of the next player having a pair? Is that your 15.78:1 ?
(Although I'm curious as to the progression as each player turns over a pair, all the way down to the last one
being 1:1, we can let that mess go).
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 12:25:23 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:flop, Suited Connectors, flop to river, chance to hit open ended straight, etc.
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 8:39:02 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 4:04:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:26:53 AM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:07:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this group >>> on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But >>> Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:Added #5 ... critical. All good.
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will >>> | be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer. >>>
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me
in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had been discussing?]Let's cut to the chase.
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60..
SIDEBAR
Tim: You're an odds guy (not 'odd' guy). I have a question you may be able to answer.
When I was playing lots of tournaments around here, (Vegas), it was popular among players to have a cheat sheet, of sorts, to glance at before the game or during breaks. It had the odd of various situation; odds of this or that on the deal,
have a pair, obviously the odds increase that another player has a pair also. I used to have that number next to my 16:1 but don't remember what it was. Do you happen to know that number?My list is lost gone, (or lost in my computer), but I remember reading one of the pros' books and him mentioning that if another player gets (or shows) they have a pair, (or a pair in the flop), that the 16:1 falls quite dramatically. i.e. If I
Player A gets a pair 78 times out of 1326 possible deals, which works out to 16 to 1 against, exactly
If Player A has a pair, then player B can have a pair 73 times of the remaining 1225 deals, which is approximately 15.78 to 1 against.
.Ah! Good. Thanks. For some reason the writer indicated a significantly lower number.Different question. Make it a little more precise, and I might be able to help.
(So whenever I get a pair, or see a pair in the flop, I'm think at least another of the 9 players has a pair also.
Okay. We delt two cards each to 26 'players.' I presume the odd of the first player turning over a pair is still 16:1 ?
So if the first player does turn over a pair; what's the odd of the next player having a pair? Is that your 15.78:1 ?
(Although I'm curious as to the progression as each player turns over a pair, all the way down to the last one
being 1:1, we can let that mess go).
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:21:02 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:flop, Suited Connectors, flop to river, chance to hit open ended straight, etc.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 12:25:23 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 8:39:02 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 4:04:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:26:53 AM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:07:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But >>> Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim: >>> |
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you >>> | lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red" >>> | just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer. >>>
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me
in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had beenLet's cut to the chase.
discussing?]
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60..
SIDEBAR
Tim: You're an odds guy (not 'odd' guy). I have a question you may be able to answer.
When I was playing lots of tournaments around here, (Vegas), it was popular among players to have a cheat sheet, of sorts, to glance at before the game or during breaks. It had the odd of various situation; odds of this or that on the deal,
I have a pair, obviously the odds increase that another player has a pair also. I used to have that number next to my 16:1 but don't remember what it was. Do you happen to know that number?My list is lost gone, (or lost in my computer), but I remember reading one of the pros' books and him mentioning that if another player gets (or shows) they have a pair, (or a pair in the flop), that the 16:1 falls quite dramatically. i.e. If
.Player A gets a pair 78 times out of 1326 possible deals, which works out to 16 to 1 against, exactly
If Player A has a pair, then player B can have a pair 73 times of the remaining 1225 deals, which is approximately 15.78 to 1 against.
.Ah! Good. Thanks. For some reason the writer indicated a significantly lower number.Different question. Make it a little more precise, and I might be able to help.
(So whenever I get a pair, or see a pair in the flop, I'm think at least another of the 9 players has a pair also.
Okay. We delt two cards each to 26 'players.' I presume the odd of the first player turning over a pair is still 16:1 ?
So if the first player does turn over a pair; what's the odd of the next player having a pair? Is that your 15.78:1 ?
(Although I'm curious as to the progression as each player turns over a pair, all the way down to the last oneIf players A and B show a pair of the same rank, then the odds against player C getting a pair are 15.33 : 1
being 1:1, we can let that mess go).
If players A and B show pairs of different ranks, the odds against player C getting a pair are 16.29 : 1
Adding more players makes it much messier
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 10:55:19 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:flop, Suited Connectors, flop to river, chance to hit open ended straight, etc.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:21:02 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 12:25:23 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 8:39:02 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 4:04:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:26:53 AM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:07:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim: >>> |
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If >>> | the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you >>> | lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red" >>> | just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me
in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had beenLet's cut to the chase.
discussing?]
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60..
SIDEBAR
Tim: You're an odds guy (not 'odd' guy). I have a question you may be able to answer.
When I was playing lots of tournaments around here, (Vegas), it was popular among players to have a cheat sheet, of sorts, to glance at before the game or during breaks. It had the odd of various situation; odds of this or that on the deal,
If I have a pair, obviously the odds increase that another player has a pair also. I used to have that number next to my 16:1 but don't remember what it was. Do you happen to know that number?My list is lost gone, (or lost in my computer), but I remember reading one of the pros' books and him mentioning that if another player gets (or shows) they have a pair, (or a pair in the flop), that the 16:1 falls quite dramatically. i.e.
Player A gets a pair 78 times out of 1326 possible deals, which works out to 16 to 1 against, exactly
If Player A has a pair, then player B can have a pair 73 times of the remaining 1225 deals, which is approximately 15.78 to 1 against.
.Ah! Good. Thanks. For some reason the writer indicated a significantly lower number.Different question. Make it a little more precise, and I might be able to help.
(So whenever I get a pair, or see a pair in the flop, I'm think at least another of the 9 players has a pair also.
Okay. We delt two cards each to 26 'players.' I presume the odd of the first player turning over a pair is still 16:1 ?
So if the first player does turn over a pair; what's the odd of the next player having a pair? Is that your 15.78:1 ?
(Although I'm curious as to the progression as each player turns over a pair, all the way down to the last oneIf players A and B show a pair of the same rank, then the odds against player C getting a pair are 15.33 : 1
being 1:1, we can let that mess go).
If players A and B show pairs of different ranks, the odds against player C getting a pair are 16.29 : 1
Adding more players makes it much messier.
Well, I wouldn’t think so. You can make the same number of pairs by using any pairs.
With 26 players, and 25 showing pairs, the last player MUST have a pair.
Anyway, thanks Tim. I’ve got my question answered. One pair visible, increases the odds quite a bit, of another pair out.
And with two pairs visible, the odds are even greater of another pair out there.
Thanks Tim
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 2:36:30 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:deal, flop, Suited Connectors, flop to river, chance to hit open ended straight, etc.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 10:55:19 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:21:02 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 12:25:23 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 8:39:02 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 4:04:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:26:53 AM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:07:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If >>> | the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me
in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had beenLet's cut to the chase.
discussing?]
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60..
SIDEBAR
Tim: You're an odds guy (not 'odd' guy). I have a question you may be able to answer.
When I was playing lots of tournaments around here, (Vegas), it was popular among players to have a cheat sheet, of sorts, to glance at before the game or during breaks. It had the odd of various situation; odds of this or that on the
If I have a pair, obviously the odds increase that another player has a pair also. I used to have that number next to my 16:1 but don't remember what it was. Do you happen to know that number?My list is lost gone, (or lost in my computer), but I remember reading one of the pros' books and him mentioning that if another player gets (or shows) they have a pair, (or a pair in the flop), that the 16:1 falls quite dramatically. i.e.
.Player A gets a pair 78 times out of 1326 possible deals, which works out to 16 to 1 against, exactly
If Player A has a pair, then player B can have a pair 73 times of the remaining 1225 deals, which is approximately 15.78 to 1 against.
.Ah! Good. Thanks. For some reason the writer indicated a significantly lower number.Different question. Make it a little more precise, and I might be able to help.
(So whenever I get a pair, or see a pair in the flop, I'm think at least another of the 9 players has a pair also.
Okay. We delt two cards each to 26 'players.' I presume the odd of the first player turning over a pair is still 16:1 ?
So if the first player does turn over a pair; what's the odd of the next player having a pair? Is that your 15.78:1 ?
(Although I'm curious as to the progression as each player turns over a pair, all the way down to the last oneIf players A and B show a pair of the same rank, then the odds against player C getting a pair are 15.33 : 1
being 1:1, we can let that mess go).
If players A and B show pairs of different ranks, the odds against player C getting a pair are 16.29 : 1
Adding more players makes it much messier.
Well, I wouldn’t think so. You can make the same number of pairs by using any pairs.
With 26 players, and 25 showing pairs, the last player MUST have a pair.
Anyway, thanks Tim. I’ve got my question answered. One pair visible, increases the odds quite a bit, of another pair out.
And with two pairs visible, the odds are even greater of another pair out there.
Thanks Tim
Read my answer again. If the first two show different pairs, the odds increase against the third player..
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 3:41:11 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:deal, flop, Suited Connectors, flop to river, chance to hit open ended straight, etc.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 2:36:30 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 10:55:19 AM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:21:02 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 12:25:23 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 8:39:02 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 4:04:52 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:26:53 AM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 5:07:16 PM UTC-7, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 8:31:20 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 3:12 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/2/2023 9:54 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
For the record, I introduced the Say Red game to this groupAdded #5 ... critical. All good.
on 19 April 2015. Subject line was: "Not Really Poker, But
Definitely Gambling". Here is the entire post, verbatim:
|
| The cards in a standard, well-shuffled, 52-card deck will
| be turned face-up, one at a time.
|
| At some point during the deal you must say "red". If
| the next card dealt is red you win $100. If black, you
| lose $100.
|
| Play, or don't play?
|
| --bks
|
| (If you say nothing, it will be assumed you said "red"
| just before the last card is dealt.)
And Tim Norfolk was the first to post the correct answer.
--bks
And that was the first post of that thread, and the model that we discussed. You really need to check your medications.And you need to go back and admit you were beaten by more than just me
in that old thread. Eight years and you still cannot admit to failure.
[Why did you not "remember" the version you thought you had beenLet's cut to the chase.
discussing?]
Try the game yourself with a deck of cards. Award yourself one point every time that you guess 'Red' correctly. Repeat for 100 trials and report the results.
If you do so honestly, I have high confidence that your score will be somewhere between 40 and 60..
SIDEBAR
Tim: You're an odds guy (not 'odd' guy). I have a question you may be able to answer.
When I was playing lots of tournaments around here, (Vegas), it was popular among players to have a cheat sheet, of sorts, to glance at before the game or during breaks. It had the odd of various situation; odds of this or that on the
e. If I have a pair, obviously the odds increase that another player has a pair also. I used to have that number next to my 16:1 but don't remember what it was. Do you happen to know that number?My list is lost gone, (or lost in my computer), but I remember reading one of the pros' books and him mentioning that if another player gets (or shows) they have a pair, (or a pair in the flop), that the 16:1 falls quite dramatically. i.
Player A gets a pair 78 times out of 1326 possible deals, which works out to 16 to 1 against, exactly
If Player A has a pair, then player B can have a pair 73 times of the remaining 1225 deals, which is approximately 15.78 to 1 against.
.Ah! Good. Thanks. For some reason the writer indicated a significantly lower number.Different question. Make it a little more precise, and I might be able to help.
(So whenever I get a pair, or see a pair in the flop, I'm think at least another of the 9 players has a pair also.
Okay. We delt two cards each to 26 'players.' I presume the odd of the first player turning over a pair is still 16:1 ?
So if the first player does turn over a pair; what's the odd of the next player having a pair? Is that your 15.78:1 ?
(Although I'm curious as to the progression as each player turns over a pair, all the way down to the last oneIf players A and B show a pair of the same rank, then the odds against player C getting a pair are 15.33 : 1
being 1:1, we can let that mess go).
If players A and B show pairs of different ranks, the odds against player C getting a pair are 16.29 : 1
Adding more players makes it much messier.
Well, I wouldn’t think so. You can make the same number of pairs by using any pairs.
With 26 players, and 25 showing pairs, the last player MUST have a pair.
Anyway, thanks Tim. I’ve got my question answered. One pair visible, increases the odds quite a bit, of another pair out.
And with two pairs visible, the odds are even greater of another pair out there.
.Thanks Tim
Read my answer again. If the first two show different pairs, the odds increase against the third player..
Oh, oh. I think I see what you're saying. I also see that now makes it over my head...
(I'll blame my medicine, rather than my age...)
But thank you for responding...
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
On September 25, Tim Norfolk wrote:
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
--
Rich
--
Rich
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
in the game means thatHowever, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage"
losing?" is false.in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
Prove it.
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
Prove it.
--
Rich
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
in the game means thatHowever, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage"
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than >losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
Prove it.Will it work with just two cards, one red, one black?
How about four cards, two red, two black?
If not, what is the minimum number of cards you can show
a winning percentage with?
--bks
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.Prove it.
--
Rich
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
in the game means thatHowever, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage"
losing?" is false.in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
Prove it.
Will it work with just two cards, one red, one black?
How about four cards, two red, two black?
If not, what is the minimum number of cards you can show
a winning percentage with?
--bks
On 10/13/2023 1:52 PM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
in the game means thatHowever, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage"
losing?" is false.in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
Prove it.
Will it work with just two cards, one red, one black?
How about four cards, two red, two black?
If not, what is the minimum number of cards you can show
a winning percentage with?
When did "winning percentage" replace "winner" in the discussion?
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On 10/13/2023 1:52 PM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
in the game means thatHowever, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage"
losing?" is false.in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
Prove it.
Will it work with just two cards, one red, one black?
How about four cards, two red, two black?
If not, what is the minimum number of cards you can show
a winning percentage with?
When did "winning percentage" replace "winner" in the discussion?
Because the original question was simply "Play, or don't play?"
But okay what is the minimum number of cards that guarantee you
can quit a winner? 2?
--bks
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
...
I will play "Tim's" Say Red game until I leave a "winner". It will not
take many "plays" to leave a winner.
...
How many "plays" on average? I don't think you've thought
this through.
--bks
...
I will play "Tim's" Say Red game until I leave a "winner". It will not
take many "plays" to leave a winner.
...
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On 10/14/2023 8:48 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
...
I will play "Tim's" Say Red game until I leave a "winner". It will not >>>> take many "plays" to leave a winner.
...
How many "plays" on average? I don't think you've thought
this through.
Half the time only one ...
I am only going to leave a "winner" once ... other games offer more
advantages for long term play.
How many more "rules" are you going to add?
I'm not adding any rules. I'm just asking you for the average
number of plays before you leave a winner. Not sure why you
find that question so difficult to answer. So far you've
said half the time you're a winner. But of the times you're
a loser (after one play), you have to win the next *two times
in a row* to leave a winner. If the first two plays are losers,
now you have win three times *in a row* to leave a winner.
I don't think you've thought this through.
--bks
On 10/14/2023 8:48 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
...
I will play "Tim's" Say Red game until I leave a "winner". It will not
take many "plays" to leave a winner.
...
How many "plays" on average? I don't think you've thought
this through.
Half the time only one ...
I am only going to leave a "winner" once ... other games offer more >advantages for long term play.
How many more "rules" are you going to add?
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On 10/14/2023 8:48 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
...
I will play "Tim's" Say Red game until I leave a "winner". It will not >>>> take many "plays" to leave a winner.
...
How many "plays" on average? I don't think you've thought
this through.
Half the time only one ...
I am only going to leave a "winner" once ... other games offer more
advantages for long term play.
How many more "rules" are you going to add?
I'm not adding any rules. I'm just asking you for the average
number of plays before you leave a winner. Not sure why you
find that question so difficult to answer. So far you've
said half the time you're a winner. But of the times you're
a loser (after one play), you have to win the next *two times
in a row* to leave a winner. If the first two plays are losers,
now you have win three times *in a row* to leave a winner.
I don't think you've thought this through.
--bks
...
I don't think you understand that I do not care how long it takes at all
... I can "always leave a winner" ...
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
...
I don't think you understand that I do not care how long it takes at all
... I can "always leave a winner" ...
Within an infinite number of plays there can be an infinite sequence
of losses.
--bks
On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.Just like coin tosses.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a
"winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"?
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:Just like coin tosses.
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a
"winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"?
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:Just like coin tosses.
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a
"winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"?
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too.
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a
perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:Just like coin tosses.
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a
"winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"?
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too.
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a
perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you. >>
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually, >> a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:Just like coin tosses.
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge. >>>>>>>> ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time. >>>>>>>> All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a
"winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"?
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too.
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a
perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ...
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is
NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being
discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses
... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ...
On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually, >>>> a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>> On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:Just like coin tosses.
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>> ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time. >>>>>>>>>> All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a
"winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"?
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too.
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a
perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you. >>>>
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is
NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being
discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses
... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means.
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ... >>
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>> On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:Just like coin tosses.
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>> ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time. >>>>>>>>>> All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a >>>>>> "winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"? >>>>>
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too. >>>>
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a
perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is >> NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being
discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses
... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means.
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.Still not willing to bet, eh?
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 10:52:06 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ... >>>>
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually, >>>>>> a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:Just like coin tosses.
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>> ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>> All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a >>>>>>>> "winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"? >>>>>>>
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too. >>>>>>
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a
perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is >>>> NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being
discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses >>>> ... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means.
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
Yea. And it you doing the dodging... Again....
On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ... >>
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>> On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:Just like coin tosses.
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>> ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time. >>>>>>>>>> All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a >>>>>> "winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"? >>>>>
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too. >>>>
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a
perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is >> NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being
discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses
... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means.
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.Still not willing to bet, eh?
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 1:52:06 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ... >>>>
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually, >>>>>> a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:Just like coin tosses.
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>> ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge.
(ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>> All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a >>>>>>>> "winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"? >>>>>>>
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too. >>>>>>
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a
perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is >>>> NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being
discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses >>>> ... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means.
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
I will happily bet on your original proposition - that you would never lose, and win every single trial.
On 10/16/2023 10:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 1:52:06 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ...
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:Just like coin tosses.
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>> ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge. >>>>>>>>>>>> (ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>> All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a >>>>>>>> "winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"? >>>>>>>
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too. >>>>>>
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a >>>>>> perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is >>>> NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being
discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses >>>> ... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means.
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
I will happily bet on your original proposition - that you would never lose, and win every single trial.One more change, eh. I am not going to win "every single trial" ... I
am going to leave a winner every single time. You sure are "clever", Tim.
But you have figured it out and now just want to pretend. You know that
I can leave a "winner" even if it is only one play.
Just ignore the thread or if you are a real boy, admit I "got you".
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/16/2023 10:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 1:52:06 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:One more change, eh. I am not going to win "every single trial" ... I
On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ... >>>>>>
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:Just like coin tosses.
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a >>>>>>>>>> "winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"? >>>>>>>>>
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too. >>>>>>>>
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a >>>>>>>> perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is >>>>>> NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being
discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses >>>>>> ... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means.
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
I will happily bet on your original proposition - that you would never lose, and win every single trial.
am going to leave a winner every single time. You sure are "clever", Tim.
But you have figured it out and now just want to pretend. You know that
I can leave a "winner" even if it is only one play.
Just ignore the thread or if you are a real boy, admit I "got you".
Your original claim was that you would never lose. Being one unit ahead, which will indeed eventually happen, lots of the time, is not the same thing.
Hypothetically, suppose that the 'house' can choose to stop the game after any trial.
On 10/15/2023 4:13 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 10:52:06 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ...
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:Just like coin tosses.
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>> ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge. >>>>>>>>>>>> (ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>> All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a >>>>>>>> "winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"? >>>>>>>
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too. >>>>>>
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a >>>>>> perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is >>>> NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being
discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses >>>> ... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means.
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
.Yea. And it you doing the dodging... Again....
See, Tim ... right on schedule.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 2:48:35 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 10/15/2023 4:13 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 10:52:06 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ... >>>>>>
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:Just like coin tosses.
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a >>>>>>>>>> "winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"? >>>>>>>>>
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too. >>>>>>>>
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a >>>>>>>> perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is >>>>>> NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being
discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses >>>>>> ... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means.
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
.Yea. And it you doing the dodging... Again....
See, Tim ... right on schedule.
Yea, 'see?' "Dodging yet Again..."
On 10/17/2023 12:35 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 2:48:35 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 10/15/2023 4:13 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 10:52:06 AM UTC-7, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ...
On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:Just like coin tosses.
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a >>>>>>>>>> "winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"? >>>>>>>>>
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too. >>>>>>>>
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a >>>>>>>> perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is
NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being >>>>>> discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses
... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means.
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
.Yea. And it you doing the dodging... Again....
See, Tim ... right on schedule.
Yea, 'see?' "Dodging yet Again..."
Try to keep up, Jerry
On 10/17/2023 11:45 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/16/2023 10:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 1:52:06 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:One more change, eh. I am not going to win "every single trial" ... I
On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ...
On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:Just like coin tosses.
Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All other sequences occur at rate less than 50%
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition.
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a >>>>>>>>>> "winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"? >>>>>>>>>
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too. >>>>>>>>
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a >>>>>>>> perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is
NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being >>>>>> discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses
... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means.
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
I will happily bet on your original proposition - that you would never lose, and win every single trial.
am going to leave a winner every single time. You sure are "clever", Tim. >>
But you have figured it out and now just want to pretend. You know that >> I can leave a "winner" even if it is only one play.
Just ignore the thread or if you are a real boy, admit I "got you".
Your original claim was that you would never lose. Being one unit ahead, which will indeed eventually happen, lots of the time, is not the same thing.
Hypothetically, suppose that the 'house' can choose to stop the game after any trial.Another dodge ...
------
"You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will
choose the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100)
that I will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an
infinite time.
Are you in?"
-----
I will leave a winner. I even explained how.
[That is some "house" that you propose. Are you really that stupid?
Ahead a dollar (or so) ... behind a dollar (or so) ... ad infinitum.]
[You owe me an apology or $100 ... you choose.]
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 1:19:26 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:problem.
On 10/17/2023 11:45 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Another dodge ...
On 10/16/2023 10:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 1:52:06 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:One more change, eh. I am not going to win "every single trial" ... I
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ...
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:Just like coin tosses.
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All other sequences occur at rate less than 50% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a >>>>>>>>>>>> "winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"? >>>>>>>>>>>
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too. >>>>>>>>>>
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a >>>>>>>>>> perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is
NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being >>>>>>>> discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses >>>>>>>> ... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means.
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
I will happily bet on your original proposition - that you would never lose, and win every single trial.
am going to leave a winner every single time. You sure are "clever", Tim. >>>>
But you have figured it out and now just want to pretend. You know that >>>> I can leave a "winner" even if it is only one play.
Just ignore the thread or if you are a real boy, admit I "got you".
Your original claim was that you would never lose. Being one unit ahead, which will indeed eventually happen, lots of the time, is not the same thing.
Hypothetically, suppose that the 'house' can choose to stop the game after any trial.
------
"You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will
choose the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100)
that I will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an
infinite time.
Are you in?"
-----
I will leave a winner. I even explained how.
[That is some "house" that you propose. Are you really that stupid?
Ahead a dollar (or so) ... behind a dollar (or so) ... ad infinitum.]
[You owe me an apology or $100 ... you choose.]
I am not dodging at all. I am refusing your sucker bet. Even though it is not a sure thing, the probability of being one unit ahead with an infinite bankroll is 1. The situation is far more interesting with a finite bankroll and the "Gambler's Ruin"
On 10/18/2023 4:10 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:problem.
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 1:19:26 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/17/2023 11:45 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/16/2023 10:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Another dodge ...
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 1:52:06 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:One more change, eh. I am not going to win "every single trial" ... I >>>> am going to leave a winner every single time. You sure are "clever", Tim.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ...
On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:Just like coin tosses.
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a
"winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"?
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too.
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a >>>>>>>>>> perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is
NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being >>>>>>>> discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses
... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means.
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
I will happily bet on your original proposition - that you would never lose, and win every single trial.
But you have figured it out and now just want to pretend. You know that >>>> I can leave a "winner" even if it is only one play.
Just ignore the thread or if you are a real boy, admit I "got you".
Your original claim was that you would never lose. Being one unit ahead, which will indeed eventually happen, lots of the time, is not the same thing.
Hypothetically, suppose that the 'house' can choose to stop the game after any trial.
------
"You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will
choose the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100)
that I will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an
infinite time.
Are you in?"
-----
I will leave a winner. I even explained how.
[That is some "house" that you propose. Are you really that stupid?
Ahead a dollar (or so) ... behind a dollar (or so) ... ad infinitum.]
[You owe me an apology or $100 ... you choose.]
I am not dodging at all. I am refusing your sucker bet. Even though it is not a sure thing, the probability of being one unit ahead with an infinite bankroll is 1. The situation is far more interesting with a finite bankroll and the "Gambler's Ruin"
Thanks for the apology.
[Do you really think it takes an "infinite bankroll?]
I do not have an infinite bankroll. I will limit my bankroll to $100
and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it. Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank roll
is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?
On 10/14/2023 10:14 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
...
I don't think you understand that I do not care how long it takes at all >>> ... I can "always leave a winner" ...
Within an infinite number of plays there can be an infinite sequence
of losses.
--bks
You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will choose
the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100) that I
will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an infinite time.
Are you in?
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 5:46:38 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:problem.
On 10/18/2023 4:10 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 1:19:26 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/17/2023 11:45 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/16/2023 10:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Another dodge ...
Your original claim was that you would never lose. Being one unit ahead, which will indeed eventually happen, lots of the time, is not the same thing.On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 1:52:06 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:One more change, eh. I am not going to win "every single trial" ... I >>>>>> am going to leave a winner every single time. You sure are "clever", Tim.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ...
On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:Just like coin tosses.
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All other sequences occur at rate less than 50% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a
"winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too.
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a >>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is
NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being >>>>>>>>>> discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses
... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means. >>>>>>>>>
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
I will happily bet on your original proposition - that you would never lose, and win every single trial.
But you have figured it out and now just want to pretend. You know that >>>>>> I can leave a "winner" even if it is only one play.
Just ignore the thread or if you are a real boy, admit I "got you". >>>>>
Hypothetically, suppose that the 'house' can choose to stop the game after any trial.
------
"You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will
choose the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100)
that I will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an
infinite time.
Are you in?"
-----
I will leave a winner. I even explained how.
[That is some "house" that you propose. Are you really that stupid?
Ahead a dollar (or so) ... behind a dollar (or so) ... ad infinitum.]
[You owe me an apology or $100 ... you choose.]
I am not dodging at all. I am refusing your sucker bet. Even though it is not a sure thing, the probability of being one unit ahead with an infinite bankroll is 1. The situation is far more interesting with a finite bankroll and the "Gambler's Ruin"
Thanks for the apology.
[Do you really think it takes an "infinite bankroll?]
I do not have an infinite bankroll. I will limit my bankroll to $100
and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank roll
is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?
Because it isn't quite that simple.
With the underlying fair game, the probability of eventually being 1 unit ahead with a 100 unit bankroll is 100/101, which will give you rather a lot of wins.
How about this?
You start with 100 units and try to get to 101 units, or go bust. You could use a random number generator producing 0's and 1's for the purpose, to make it faster.
Repeat the experiment 70 times. The probability that you never go broke in any of the trials is (100/101)^70 = 0.498, or as close to even money as is possible.
On 10/14/2023 10:54 AM, da pickle wrote:
On 10/14/2023 10:14 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
...
I don't think you understand that I do not care how long it takes at all >>>> ... I can "always leave a winner" ...
Within an infinite number of plays there can be an infinite sequence
of losses.
--bks
You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will choose
the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100) that I
will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an infinite time. >>
Are you in?
Brad ... you run away just like Tim.
On 10/20/2023 3:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:problem.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 5:46:38 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/18/2023 4:10 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 1:19:26 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/17/2023 11:45 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/16/2023 10:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Another dodge ...
Your original claim was that you would never lose. Being one unit ahead, which will indeed eventually happen, lots of the time, is not the same thing.On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 1:52:06 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:One more change, eh. I am not going to win "every single trial" ... I >>>>>> am going to leave a winner every single time. You sure are "clever", Tim.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ...
On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:Just like coin tosses.
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card:
1. if it's black, pass the third card:
i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a
"winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"?
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too.
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a >>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is
NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being >>>>>>>>>> discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses
... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means. >>>>>>>>>
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
I will happily bet on your original proposition - that you would never lose, and win every single trial.
But you have figured it out and now just want to pretend. You know that
I can leave a "winner" even if it is only one play.
Just ignore the thread or if you are a real boy, admit I "got you". >>>>>
Hypothetically, suppose that the 'house' can choose to stop the game after any trial.
------
"You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will
choose the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100) >>>> that I will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an
infinite time.
Are you in?"
-----
I will leave a winner. I even explained how.
[That is some "house" that you propose. Are you really that stupid? >>>> Ahead a dollar (or so) ... behind a dollar (or so) ... ad infinitum.] >>>>
[You owe me an apology or $100 ... you choose.]
I am not dodging at all. I am refusing your sucker bet. Even though it is not a sure thing, the probability of being one unit ahead with an infinite bankroll is 1. The situation is far more interesting with a finite bankroll and the "Gambler's Ruin"
Thanks for the apology.
[Do you really think it takes an "infinite bankroll?]
I do not have an infinite bankroll. I will limit my bankroll to $100
and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank roll
is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?
Because it isn't quite that simple.
With the underlying fair game, the probability of eventually being 1 unit ahead with a 100 unit bankroll is 100/101, which will give you rather a lot of wins.
How about this?
You start with 100 units and try to get to 101 units, or go bust. You could use a random number generator producing 0's and 1's for the purpose, to make it faster.
Repeat the experiment 70 times. The probability that you never go broke in any of the trials is (100/101)^70 = 0.498, or as close to even money as is possible.I am only trying to get "one" net win, Tim ... not a hundred and one. I never go "broke". [When did you think I was limited in my bankroll?]
You keep moving the goalposts ... just admit, I will win. And apologize.
If the last card is red, I win and leave with your $100. If I the last
card is black, you have one of my dollars. If after the next shuffle
the bottom card is black again, you have two of my dollars. If after
the next shuffle, the card is black again, you have three of my dollars.
But if the next try yields red, you have only two of my dollars. Keep playing ... and playing.
Do you really think I do not get ahead one dollar after a less than
forever time? [I have an infinite amount of money and time.]
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:.
On 10/14/2023 10:54 AM, da pickle wrote:
On 10/14/2023 10:14 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
...
I don't think you understand that I do not care how long it takes at all
... I can "always leave a winner" ...
Within an infinite number of plays there can be an infinite sequence
of losses.
--bks
You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will choose >> the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100) that I
will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an infinite time.
Are you in?
Brad ... you run away just like Tim.I'm still here. Your proposition is looneytoon.
--bks
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On 10/14/2023 10:54 AM, da pickle wrote:
On 10/14/2023 10:14 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
...
I don't think you understand that I do not care how long it takes at all >>>>> ... I can "always leave a winner" ...
Within an infinite number of plays there can be an infinite sequence
of losses.
--bks
You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will choose >>> the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100) that I
will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an infinite time. >>>
Are you in?
Brad ... you run away just like Tim.
I'm still here. Your proposition is looneytoon.
--bks
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 11:57:31 AM UTC-7, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:.
On 10/14/2023 10:54 AM, da pickle wrote:I'm still here. Your proposition is looneytoon.
On 10/14/2023 10:14 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
...
I don't think you understand that I do not care how long it takes at all >>>>>> ... I can "always leave a winner" ...
Within an infinite number of plays there can be an infinite sequence >>>>> of losses.
--bks
You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will choose >>>> the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100) that I
will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an infinite time. >>>>
Are you in?
Brad ... you run away just like Tim.
--bks
It's his way of dodging another of his embarrassments...
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 1:19:28 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:problem.
On 10/20/2023 3:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 5:46:38 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/18/2023 4:10 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 1:19:26 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/2023 11:45 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/16/2023 10:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Another dodge ...
Your original claim was that you would never lose. Being one unit ahead, which will indeed eventually happen, lots of the time, is not the same thing.On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 1:52:06 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:One more change, eh. I am not going to win "every single trial" ... I >>>>>>>> am going to leave a winner every single time. You sure are "clever", Tim.
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ...
On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:Just like coin tosses.
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. if it's black, pass the third card: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time.
Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a
"winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"?
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too.
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is
NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being >>>>>>>>>>>> discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses
... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means. >>>>>>>>>>>
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
I will happily bet on your original proposition - that you would never lose, and win every single trial.
But you have figured it out and now just want to pretend. You know that
I can leave a "winner" even if it is only one play.
Just ignore the thread or if you are a real boy, admit I "got you". >>>>>>>
Hypothetically, suppose that the 'house' can choose to stop the game after any trial.
------
"You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will >>>>>> choose the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100) >>>>>> that I will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an >>>>>> infinite time.
Are you in?"
-----
I will leave a winner. I even explained how.
[That is some "house" that you propose. Are you really that stupid? >>>>>> Ahead a dollar (or so) ... behind a dollar (or so) ... ad infinitum.] >>>>>>
[You owe me an apology or $100 ... you choose.]
I am not dodging at all. I am refusing your sucker bet. Even though it is not a sure thing, the probability of being one unit ahead with an infinite bankroll is 1. The situation is far more interesting with a finite bankroll and the "Gambler's Ruin"
your own proposition.I am only trying to get "one" net win, Tim ... not a hundred and one. IThanks for the apology.
[Do you really think it takes an "infinite bankroll?]
I do not have an infinite bankroll. I will limit my bankroll to $100
and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank roll >>>> is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?
Because it isn't quite that simple.
With the underlying fair game, the probability of eventually being 1 unit ahead with a 100 unit bankroll is 100/101, which will give you rather a lot of wins.
How about this?
You start with 100 units and try to get to 101 units, or go bust. You could use a random number generator producing 0's and 1's for the purpose, to make it faster.
Repeat the experiment 70 times. The probability that you never go broke in any of the trials is (100/101)^70 = 0.498, or as close to even money as is possible.
never go "broke". [When did you think I was limited in my bankroll?]
You keep moving the goalposts ... just admit, I will win. And apologize.
If the last card is red, I win and leave with your $100. If I the last
card is black, you have one of my dollars. If after the next shuffle
the bottom card is black again, you have two of my dollars. If after
the next shuffle, the card is black again, you have three of my dollars.
But if the next try yields red, you have only two of my dollars. Keep
playing ... and playing.
Do you really think I do not get ahead one dollar after a less than
forever time? [I have an infinite amount of money and time.]
Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll. I will limit my bankroll to $100
and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it. Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank roll
is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. The correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if you lose. It would appear that you do not understand
On 10/21/2023 3:07 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Ruin" problem.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 1:19:28 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/20/2023 3:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 5:46:38 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/18/2023 4:10 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 1:19:26 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/2023 11:45 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/16/2023 10:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Another dodge ...
Your original claim was that you would never lose. Being one unit ahead, which will indeed eventually happen, lots of the time, is not the same thing.On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 1:52:06 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:One more change, eh. I am not going to win "every single trial" ... I
On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ...
On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:Just like coin tosses.
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. if it's black, pass the third card: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a
"winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"?
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
a good coin flipper can flip what is required.
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too.
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a
perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is
NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being >>>>>>>>>>>> discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses
... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means. >>>>>>>>>>>
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
I will happily bet on your original proposition - that you would never lose, and win every single trial.
am going to leave a winner every single time. You sure are "clever", Tim.
But you have figured it out and now just want to pretend. You know that
I can leave a "winner" even if it is only one play.
Just ignore the thread or if you are a real boy, admit I "got you". >>>>>>>
Hypothetically, suppose that the 'house' can choose to stop the game after any trial.
------
"You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will >>>>>> choose the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100) >>>>>> that I will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an >>>>>> infinite time.
Are you in?"
-----
I will leave a winner. I even explained how.
[That is some "house" that you propose. Are you really that stupid? >>>>>> Ahead a dollar (or so) ... behind a dollar (or so) ... ad infinitum.] >>>>>>
[You owe me an apology or $100 ... you choose.]
I am not dodging at all. I am refusing your sucker bet. Even though it is not a sure thing, the probability of being one unit ahead with an infinite bankroll is 1. The situation is far more interesting with a finite bankroll and the "Gambler's
understand your own proposition.I am only trying to get "one" net win, Tim ... not a hundred and one. I >> never go "broke". [When did you think I was limited in my bankroll?]Thanks for the apology.
[Do you really think it takes an "infinite bankroll?]
I do not have an infinite bankroll. I will limit my bankroll to $100 >>>> and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it. >>>> Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank roll >>>> is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?
Because it isn't quite that simple.
With the underlying fair game, the probability of eventually being 1 unit ahead with a 100 unit bankroll is 100/101, which will give you rather a lot of wins.
How about this?
You start with 100 units and try to get to 101 units, or go bust. You could use a random number generator producing 0's and 1's for the purpose, to make it faster.
Repeat the experiment 70 times. The probability that you never go broke in any of the trials is (100/101)^70 = 0.498, or as close to even money as is possible.
You keep moving the goalposts ... just admit, I will win. And apologize. >>
If the last card is red, I win and leave with your $100. If I the last
card is black, you have one of my dollars. If after the next shuffle
the bottom card is black again, you have two of my dollars. If after
the next shuffle, the card is black again, you have three of my dollars. >> But if the next try yields red, you have only two of my dollars. Keep
playing ... and playing.
Do you really think I do not get ahead one dollar after a less than
forever time? [I have an infinite amount of money and time.]
Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll. I will limit my bankroll to $100
and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it. Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank roll
is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. The correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if you lose. It would appear that you do not
So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
On 10/21/2023 2:17 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 11:57:31 AM UTC-7, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:.
On 10/14/2023 10:54 AM, da pickle wrote:I'm still here. Your proposition is looneytoon.
On 10/14/2023 10:14 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
...
I don't think you understand that I do not care how long it takes at all
... I can "always leave a winner" ...
Within an infinite number of plays there can be an infinite sequence >>>>> of losses.
--bks
You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will choose
the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100) that I >>>> will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an infinite time.
Are you in?
Brad ... you run away just like Tim.
--bks
It's his way of dodging another of his embarrassments...
Another fraidy cat !!!!.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:44:41 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Ruin" problem.
On 10/21/2023 3:07 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 1:19:28 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/20/2023 3:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 5:46:38 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/18/2023 4:10 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 1:19:26 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/17/2023 11:45 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2023 10:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Another dodge ...
Your original claim was that you would never lose. Being one unit ahead, which will indeed eventually happen, lots of the time, is not the same thing.On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 1:52:06 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:One more change, eh. I am not going to win "every single trial" ... I
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ...
On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,
On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
Just like coin tosses.On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red:
Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. if it's black, pass the third card: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a
"winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"?
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
a good coin flipper can flip what is required. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too.
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a
perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is
NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being >>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses
... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
I will happily bet on your original proposition - that you would never lose, and win every single trial.
am going to leave a winner every single time. You sure are "clever", Tim.
But you have figured it out and now just want to pretend. You know that
I can leave a "winner" even if it is only one play.
Just ignore the thread or if you are a real boy, admit I "got you". >>>>>>>>>
Hypothetically, suppose that the 'house' can choose to stop the game after any trial.
------
"You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will >>>>>>>> choose the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100) >>>>>>>> that I will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an >>>>>>>> infinite time.
Are you in?"
-----
I will leave a winner. I even explained how.
[That is some "house" that you propose. Are you really that stupid? >>>>>>>> Ahead a dollar (or so) ... behind a dollar (or so) ... ad infinitum.] >>>>>>>>
[You owe me an apology or $100 ... you choose.]
I am not dodging at all. I am refusing your sucker bet. Even though it is not a sure thing, the probability of being one unit ahead with an infinite bankroll is 1. The situation is far more interesting with a finite bankroll and the "Gambler's
understand your own proposition.I am only trying to get "one" net win, Tim ... not a hundred and one. I >>>> never go "broke". [When did you think I was limited in my bankroll?]Thanks for the apology.
[Do you really think it takes an "infinite bankroll?]
I do not have an infinite bankroll. I will limit my bankroll to $100 >>>>>> and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it. >>>>>> Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank roll >>>>>> is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?
Because it isn't quite that simple.
With the underlying fair game, the probability of eventually being 1 unit ahead with a 100 unit bankroll is 100/101, which will give you rather a lot of wins.
How about this?
You start with 100 units and try to get to 101 units, or go bust. You could use a random number generator producing 0's and 1's for the purpose, to make it faster.
Repeat the experiment 70 times. The probability that you never go broke in any of the trials is (100/101)^70 = 0.498, or as close to even money as is possible.
You keep moving the goalposts ... just admit, I will win. And apologize. >>>>
If the last card is red, I win and leave with your $100. If I the last >>>> card is black, you have one of my dollars. If after the next shuffle
the bottom card is black again, you have two of my dollars. If after
the next shuffle, the card is black again, you have three of my dollars. >>>> But if the next try yields red, you have only two of my dollars. Keep
playing ... and playing.
Do you really think I do not get ahead one dollar after a less than
forever time? [I have an infinite amount of money and time.]
Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll. I will limit my bankroll to $100
and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank roll
is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. The correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if you lose. It would appear that you do not
So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be this stupid.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:34:52 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 10/21/2023 2:17 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 11:57:31 AM UTC-7, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:.
On 10/14/2023 10:54 AM, da pickle wrote:I'm still here. Your proposition is looneytoon.
On 10/14/2023 10:14 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
...
I don't think you understand that I do not care how long it takes at all
... I can "always leave a winner" ...
Within an infinite number of plays there can be an infinite sequence >>>>>>> of losses.
--bks
You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will choose >>>>>> the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100) that I >>>>>> will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an infinite time.
Are you in?
Brad ... you run away just like Tim.
--bks
It's his way of dodging another of his embarrassments...
Another fraidy cat !!!!.
Either way. You dodge or run BECAUSE you're a fraidy cat...
On 10/22/2023 10:58 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Ruin" problem.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:44:41 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/21/2023 3:07 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 1:19:28 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/20/2023 3:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 5:46:38 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/18/2023 4:10 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 1:19:26 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/17/2023 11:45 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Another dodge ...
On 10/16/2023 10:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 1:52:06 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:One more change, eh. I am not going to win "every single trial" ... I
On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ...
On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. if it's black, pass the third card: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like coin tosses.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a
"winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"?
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
a good coin flipper can flip what is required. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too.
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a
perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is
NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being
discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses
... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
I will happily bet on your original proposition - that you would never lose, and win every single trial.
am going to leave a winner every single time. You sure are "clever", Tim.
But you have figured it out and now just want to pretend. You know that
I can leave a "winner" even if it is only one play.
Just ignore the thread or if you are a real boy, admit I "got you".
Your original claim was that you would never lose. Being one unit ahead, which will indeed eventually happen, lots of the time, is not the same thing.
Hypothetically, suppose that the 'house' can choose to stop the game after any trial.
------
"You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will >>>>>>>> choose the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100)
that I will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an >>>>>>>> infinite time.
Are you in?"
-----
I will leave a winner. I even explained how.
[That is some "house" that you propose. Are you really that stupid? >>>>>>>> Ahead a dollar (or so) ... behind a dollar (or so) ... ad infinitum.]
[You owe me an apology or $100 ... you choose.]
I am not dodging at all. I am refusing your sucker bet. Even though it is not a sure thing, the probability of being one unit ahead with an infinite bankroll is 1. The situation is far more interesting with a finite bankroll and the "Gambler's
understand your own proposition.I am only trying to get "one" net win, Tim ... not a hundred and one. I >>>> never go "broke". [When did you think I was limited in my bankroll?] >>>> You keep moving the goalposts ... just admit, I will win. And apologize.Thanks for the apology.
[Do you really think it takes an "infinite bankroll?]
I do not have an infinite bankroll. I will limit my bankroll to $100 >>>>>> and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it. >>>>>> Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank roll
is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?
Because it isn't quite that simple.
With the underlying fair game, the probability of eventually being 1 unit ahead with a 100 unit bankroll is 100/101, which will give you rather a lot of wins.
How about this?
You start with 100 units and try to get to 101 units, or go bust. You could use a random number generator producing 0's and 1's for the purpose, to make it faster.
Repeat the experiment 70 times. The probability that you never go broke in any of the trials is (100/101)^70 = 0.498, or as close to even money as is possible.
If the last card is red, I win and leave with your $100. If I the last >>>> card is black, you have one of my dollars. If after the next shuffle >>>> the bottom card is black again, you have two of my dollars. If after >>>> the next shuffle, the card is black again, you have three of my dollars.
But if the next try yields red, you have only two of my dollars. Keep >>>> playing ... and playing.
Do you really think I do not get ahead one dollar after a less than >>>> forever time? [I have an infinite amount of money and time.]
Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll. I will limit my bankroll to $100
and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank roll >>> is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. The correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if you lose. It would appear that you do not
So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be this stupid.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101the experiment 70 times.
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the betYou say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it. >>>>> Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition. >>>> So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change >>>> the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why >>>> won't you just take the bet?
this stupid.
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black >> chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don'tunderstand any probability.
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to dothe experiment 70 times.
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it. >>>>>>> Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition. >>>>>> So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change >>>>>> the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why >>>>>> won't you just take the bet?
this stupid.
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black >>>> chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or >>>> we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip >>>> back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money >>>> at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100. >>>
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101the experiment 70 times.
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet >>> If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. TheLet's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll. >>>> I will limit my bankroll to $100
and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it. >>>>>>>>> Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank >>>> roll
is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?" >>>>>>>>>
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if >>>> you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition. >>>>>>>> So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change >>>>>>>> the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why >>>>>>>> won't you just take the bet?
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be >>>> this stupid.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an >>>>>> automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black >>>>>> chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or >>>>>> we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip >>>>>> back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money >>>>>> at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to >>>>>> understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.the experiment 70 times.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50, >>>> you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100. >>>>>
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the >>>> bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that >>>> makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet >>>>> If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I >>>> said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double >>>> talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it. >>>>>>> Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?" >>>>>>>
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if >> you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change >>>>>> the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why >>>>>> won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an >>>> automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black >>>> chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or >>>> we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip >>>> back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money >>>> at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to >>>> understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that >> makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I >> said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double >> talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
Cut to the meat
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. TheLet's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll. >>>> I will limit my bankroll to $100
and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank >>>> roll
is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?" >>>>>>>>>
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be >>>> this stupid.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an >>>>>> automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to >>>>>> understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the >>>> bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50, >>>> you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do >>>> the experiment 70 times.
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000 >>>> times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely >>>> you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one >>>> chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit. >>>
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
Cut to the meat
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. TheLet's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll. >>>>>> I will limit my bankroll to $100
and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it. >>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank >>>>>> roll
is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?" >>>>>>>>>>>
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if >>>>>> you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be >>>>>> this stupid.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an >>>>>>>> automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or >>>>>>>> we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip >>>>>>>> back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money >>>>>>>> at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to >>>>>>>> understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the >>>>>> bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that >>>>>> makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50, >>>>>> you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do >>>>>> the experiment 70 times.
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000 >>>>>> times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I >>>>>> said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double >>>>>> talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely >>>>>> you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one >>>>>> chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit. >>>>>
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:.
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theand if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it. >>>>> Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank roll
is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?" >>>>>
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition. >>>> So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change >>>> the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why >>>> won't you just take the bet?
WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be this stupid.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black >> chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or >> we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip >> back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money >> at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don'tunderstand any probability.
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to dothe experiment 70 times.
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikelyI will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it. >>>>>>> Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?" >>>>>>>
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if >> you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change >>>>>> the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why >>>>>> won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an >>>> automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black >>>> chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or >>>> we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip >>>> back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money >>>> at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to >>>> understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that >> makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I >> said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double >> talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 8:49:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:s Ruin" problem.
On 10/22/2023 10:58 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:44:41 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/21/2023 3:07 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 1:19:28 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/20/2023 3:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 5:46:38 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/18/2023 4:10 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 1:19:26 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/17/2023 11:45 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:39:28 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Another dodge ...
On 10/16/2023 10:09 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 1:52:06 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:One more change, eh. I am not going to win "every single trial" ... I
On 10/15/2023 12:36 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2023 at 9:15:16 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Still not willing to bet, eh?
On 10/14/2023 7:45 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 1:54:32 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Cool, Tim ... will you take the bet with Brad ... the "Say Red" game ...
On 10/14/2023 11:41 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
Glad you caught that the coin flips are not truly "random" ... actually,On 10/13/2023 4:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 1:41:14 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
On October 13, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the statement "Will you agree that to "gain an advantage" in the game means that
Sorry, but it is still an even money proposition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.in the long run, people cannot wind up with more winnings than losing?" is false.
How to gain advantage in Say Red: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dealer turns the first card:
i) if it's black, call red on the second card, with an edge.
ii) if it's red, pass the second card: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. if it's black, pass the third card: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i) if it's black, call red on the 4th card, with an edge.
(i) occurs 50% of the time, with an immediate edge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (ii) (1) (i) occurs 1/8 of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, the player has an edge more than 50% of the time.
All other sequences occur at rate less than 50% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--
Rich
No matter what cards have been turned over, the probability that the next card is red is equal to the probability that the last card in the deck is red.
Therefore, there is nothing to be lost by waiting until the last card, every time.
Hence, you win exactly 1/2 of the time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like coin tosses.
Tim, if you call "heads" every single time ... will you ever be a
"winner" of "one bet" if you play until you are ahead "one bet"?
Not quite. With the 'Say Red' game, you know that there are exactly the same number of reds and blacks. That is not necessarily true for a sequence of coin tosses.
a good coin flipper can flip what is required. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And we must rule out the "expert" shuffler in the Say Red game too.
However, the Say Red game we were "discussing" does "presume" a
perfectly honest "shuffle" ... or maybe that is the missing piece for you.
So, will you take the bet with Brad?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether coin flips are random. It has to do with things such as the Central Limit Theorem.
Or are you saying the Say Red game ... "that we were discussing" ... is
NOT a random game?
[Sorry about the coin tosses ... I thought when they were being
discussed, there was an assumption that they were "honest" coin tosses
... i.e. random ... my bad ... ]
There is so much misunderstanding as to what 'random' means. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have talked with people who consider every random event as 50/50, in that it either happens, or does not. How much this contributes to bad decision making is anyone's guess.
I too meant honest coin tosses. What I had in mind was calling the colour of the next card in a shuffled deck, versus tossing a balanced coin fairly 52 times. The difference in the former case is that you know exactly 26 cards are red.
[And you know that a coin only has two sides.]
As Jerry would say ... dodge again.
I will happily bet on your original proposition - that you would never lose, and win every single trial.
am going to leave a winner every single time. You sure are "clever", Tim.
But you have figured it out and now just want to pretend. You know that
I can leave a "winner" even if it is only one play.
Just ignore the thread or if you are a real boy, admit I "got you".
Your original claim was that you would never lose. Being one unit ahead, which will indeed eventually happen, lots of the time, is not the same thing.
Hypothetically, suppose that the 'house' can choose to stop the game after any trial.
------
"You are funny ... we will play Say Red (dollar a deal) and I will
choose the bottom card on the deck and I will make a side bet ($100)
that I will leave when I have one dollar ... and it will not be an
infinite time.
Are you in?"
-----
I will leave a winner. I even explained how.
[That is some "house" that you propose. Are you really that stupid?
Ahead a dollar (or so) ... behind a dollar (or so) ... ad infinitum.]
[You owe me an apology or $100 ... you choose.]
I am not dodging at all. I am refusing your sucker bet. Even though it is not a sure thing, the probability of being one unit ahead with an infinite bankroll is 1. The situation is far more interesting with a finite bankroll and the "Gambler'
understand your own proposition.I am only trying to get "one" net win, Tim ... not a hundred and one. IThanks for the apology.Because it isn't quite that simple.
[Do you really think it takes an "infinite bankroll?]
I do not have an infinite bankroll. I will limit my bankroll to $100
and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it. >>>>>> Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank roll
is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet? >>>>>
With the underlying fair game, the probability of eventually being 1 unit ahead with a 100 unit bankroll is 100/101, which will give you rather a lot of wins.
How about this?
You start with 100 units and try to get to 101 units, or go bust. You could use a random number generator producing 0's and 1's for the purpose, to make it faster.
Repeat the experiment 70 times. The probability that you never go broke in any of the trials is (100/101)^70 = 0.498, or as close to even money as is possible.
never go "broke". [When did you think I was limited in my bankroll?] >>>> You keep moving the goalposts ... just admit, I will win. And apologize.
If the last card is red, I win and leave with your $100. If I the last
card is black, you have one of my dollars. If after the next shuffle >>>> the bottom card is black again, you have two of my dollars. If after >>>> the next shuffle, the card is black again, you have three of my dollars.
But if the next try yields red, you have only two of my dollars. Keep >>>> playing ... and playing.
Do you really think I do not get ahead one dollar after a less than >>>> forever time? [I have an infinite amount of money and time.]
Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll. I will limit my bankroll to $100
and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it. >>> Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank roll >>> is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. The correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if you lose. It would appear that you do not
.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change >> the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why >> won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be this stupid.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't understand any probability..
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50, you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do the experiment 70 times.
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?" >>>>>>>>>>>
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single >>>>>> dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. The >>>>>> correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet. >>>>>>>>
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't >>>>>> understand any probability.
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do >>>>>> the experiment 70 times.
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000 >>>>>> times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely >>>>>> you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one >>>>>> chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
Cut to the meat
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll. >>>>>>>> I will limit my bankroll to $100
and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank >>>>>>>> roll
is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single >>>>>>>> dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. The >>>>>>>> correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the >>>>>>>> bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one thatWOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>>>So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be >>>>>>>> this stupid.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet. >>>>>>>>>>
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an >>>>>>>>>> automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to >>>>>>>>>> understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't >>>>>>>> understand any probability.
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50, >>>>>>>> you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do >>>>>>>> the experiment 70 times.
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000 >>>>>>>> times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely >>>>>>>> you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one >>>>>>>> chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit. >>>>>>>
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101. >>>
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single >>>>>>>> dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. The >>>>>>>> correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>>>
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet. >>>>>>>>>>
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't >>>>>>>> understand any probability.
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000 >>>>>>>> times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one >>>>>>>> chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win. >>>>
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one >> proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single >>>>>>>> dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. The >>>>>>>> correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>>>
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet. >>>>>>>>>>
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't >>>>>>>> understand any probability.
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000 >>>>>>>> times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one >>>>>>>> chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win. >>>>
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one >> proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single >>>>>>>>>> dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. The >>>>>>>>>> correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet. >>>>>>>>>>>>
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't >>>>>>>>>> understand any probability.
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do >>>>>>>>>> the experiment 70 times.
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000 >>>>>>>>>> times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one >>>>>>>>>> chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win. >>>>>>
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one >>>> proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the >>>>>> advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win. >>>>>>
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single >>>>>>>>>> dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. The >>>>>>>>>> correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet. >>>>>>>>>>>>
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't >>>>>>>>>> understand any probability.
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game. >>>>>
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me >>>> win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only >>>> play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling. >>>>
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet >>>> and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one >>>> proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
.I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit..
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said.
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a scared animal. Same old same old
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:47:11 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually >>>>>> proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me >>>>>> win one dollar.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the >>>>>>>> advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win. >>>>>>>>
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single >>>>>>>>>>>> dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. The >>>>>>>>>>>> correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't >>>>>>>>>>>> understand any probability.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away. >>>>>>>
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game. >>>>>>>
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only >>>>>> play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling. >>>>>>
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet >>>>>> and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one >>>>>> proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
.I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit..
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said.
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I'll take that as a, "No, I clearly did not understand any part of the question."
On 11/2/2023 7:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:47:11 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>> On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about >>>>> you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probabilityOn Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually >>>>>>> proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather >>>>>>>> than the troll that I suspect you are being.On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle >>>>>>>>>> wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the >>>>>>>>> advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning >>>>>>>>>>>>> $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me >>>>>>>>>>>>> winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your >>>>>>>>>>>>> own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot be
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you >>>>>>>>>>>>> have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed >>>>>>>>>>>>> bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then >>>>>>>>>>>>> you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 >>>>>>>>>>>>> or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was >>>>>>>>>>>>> the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it >>>>>>>>>>>>> with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it >>>>>>>>>>>>> is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in >>>>>>>>>>>>> winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or >>>>>>>>>>>>> just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't
understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, >>>>>>>>>> that doesn't seem optimal.
chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away. >>>>>>>>
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent >>>>>>>> to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in
which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time,
until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100
times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that >>>>>>>> you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game. >>>>>>>>
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then
you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely >>>>>>>> that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at >>>>>>>> least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several >>>>>>>> thousand trials.
have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an >>>>>>> advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only >>>>>>> play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling. >>>>>>>
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one >>>>>>> bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than
the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.] >>>>>>
at all. Thanks for verifying that.
.I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of
probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question
that I asked.
Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit..
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said.
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a >>> scared animal. Same old same old
I'll take that as a, "No, I clearly did not understand any part of the
question."
take it and stuff it
On 11/2/2023 7:14 PM, da pickle wrote:.
On 11/2/2023 7:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 4:47:11 PM UTC-7, da pickle wrote:
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>> On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually >>>>>>> proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to >>>>>>> have me
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather >>>>>>>> than the troll that I suspect you are being.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle >>>>>>>>>> wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the >>>>>>>>> advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one >>>>>>>>> chip win.
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't >>>>>>>>>> understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, >>>>>>>>>> that doesn't seem optimal.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning >>>>>>>>>>>>> $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me >>>>>>>>>>>>> winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your >>>>>>>>>>>>> own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot be
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you >>>>>>>>>>>>> have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed >>>>>>>>>>>>> bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then >>>>>>>>>>>>> you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 >>>>>>>>>>>>> or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was >>>>>>>>>>>>> the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it >>>>>>>>>>>>> with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it >>>>>>>>>>>>> is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in >>>>>>>>>>>>> winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or >>>>>>>>>>>>> just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>>
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away. >>>>>>>>
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent >>>>>>>> to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in >>>>>>>> which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, >>>>>>>> until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 >>>>>>>> times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that >>>>>>>> you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game. >>>>>>>>
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then >>>>>>>> you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely >>>>>>>> that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at >>>>>>>> least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several >>>>>>>> thousand trials.
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an >>>>>>> advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only >>>>>>> play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling. >>>>>>>
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one >>>>>>> bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than >>>>>>> the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.] >>>>>
at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
.I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
.Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit.
.I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a >> scared animal. Same old same old
I'll take that as a, "No, I clearly did not understand any part of the question."
take it and stuff it
I see Tim still runs. [And you, jerr-tard would not take the bet either.]
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the >>>>>> advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win. >>>>>>
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single >>>>>>>>>> dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. The >>>>>>>>>> correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet. >>>>>>>>>>>>
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't >>>>>>>>>> understand any probability.
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game. >>>>>
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me >>>> win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only >>>> play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling. >>>>
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet >>>> and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one >>>> proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit.
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a scared animal. Same old same old
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit.
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually >>>>>> proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me >>>>>> win one dollar.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the >>>>>>>> advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win. >>>>>>>>
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.is only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single >>>>>>>>>>>> dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. The >>>>>>>>>>>> correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't >>>>>>>>>>>> understand any probability.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away. >>>>>>>
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game. >>>>>>>
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only >>>>>> play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling. >>>>>>
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet >>>>>> and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one >>>>>> proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about >>>> you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually >>>>>> proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me >>>>>> win one dollar.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the >>>>>>>> advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't >>>>>>>>>>>> understand any probability.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away. >>>>>>>
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game. >>>>>>>
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an >>>>>> advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only >>>>>> play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling. >>>>>>
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet >>>>>> and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.] >>>>>
I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a >> scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for
only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct
and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ...
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about >>>> you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually >>>>>> proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me >>>>>> win one dollar.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the >>>>>>>> advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't >>>>>>>>>>>> understand any probability.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away. >>>>>>>
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game. >>>>>>>
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an >>>>>> advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only >>>>>> play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling. >>>>>>
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet >>>>>> and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.] >>>>>
I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a >> scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for
only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct
and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about >>>>>> you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually >>>>>>>> proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me >>>>>>>> win one dollar.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the >>>>>>>>>> advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand any probability.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away. >>>>>>>>>
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game. >>>>>>>>>
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an >>>>>>>> advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only >>>>>>>> play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling. >>>>>>>>
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet >>>>>>>> and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.] >>>>>>>
I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a >>>> scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for
only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct
and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an
advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I >> agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about >>>>>> you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually >>>>>>>> proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the >>>>>>>>>> advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>>>
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away. >>>>>>>>>
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game. >>>>>>>>>
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an >>>>>>>> advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only >>>>>>>> play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.] >>>>>>>
I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said >>>> could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct >> and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an
advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you] >>
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want >> to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.And that is an advantage.
Go back to just being Jerry.
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And that is an advantage.
On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I >>>> agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about >>>>>>>> you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually >>>>>>>>>> proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the >>>>>>>>>>>> advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge.
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away. >>>>>>>>>>>
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game.
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an >>>>>>>>>> advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only >>>>>>>>>> play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling. >>>>>>>>>>
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.] >>>>>>>>>
I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said >>>>>> could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a >>>>>> scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct >>>> and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an >>>> advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you] >>>>
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want >>>> to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
Go back to just being Jerry.
And your original claim was that you would win 'every time'. You will not.
On 11/4/2023 8:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And that is an advantage.
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit.
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away. >>>>>>>>>>>
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an >>>>>>>>>> advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.] >>>>>>>>>
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said >>>>>> could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for >>>> only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct >>>> and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an >>>> advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
Go back to just being Jerry.
.And your original claim was that you would win 'every time'. You will not.
And I also said ..
winner never to return. You lose. But you never admit to an error ...
but even if I did return for another winning day ... would you play for
your one black chip?
On 11/4/2023 8:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And that is an advantage.
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit.
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away. >>>>>>>>>>>
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an >>>>>>>>>> advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.] >>>>>>>>>
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said >>>>>> could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for >>>> only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct >>>> and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an >>>> advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
Go back to just being Jerry.
And your original claim was that you would win 'every time'. You will not.And I also said I only would play until I was ahead one bet. I leave a winner never to return. You lose. But you never admit to an error ...
but even if I did return for another winning day ... would you play for
your one black chip?
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:00:54 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:false.
On 11/4/2023 8:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:winner never to return. You lose. But you never admit to an error ...
On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And that is an advantage.
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I >>>>>> agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for >>>>>> only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct >>>>>> and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an >>>>>> advantage] in the bet.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit.
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually >>>>>>>>>>>> proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an >>>>>>>>>>>> advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.] >>>>>>>>>>>
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest.
I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said >>>>>>>> could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want >>>>>> to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
Go back to just being Jerry.
And your original claim was that you would win 'every time'. You will not. >> And I also said I only would play until I was ahead one bet. I leave a
but even if I did return for another winning day ... would you play for
your one black chip?
You apparently cannot read. If you play it your way, starting with $100, betting $1 per time, you will get $1 ahead 100 times in 101, on average. I cannot think of a simpler way to explain it. Your original claim was that you would never fail. That is
On 11/5/2023 3:20 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:is false.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:00:54 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/4/2023 8:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I also said I only would play until I was ahead one bet. I leave a
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And that is an advantage.
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit.
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest. >>>>>>>>>
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for >>>>>> only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct
and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an
advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
Go back to just being Jerry.
And your original claim was that you would win 'every time'. You will not.
winner never to return. You lose. But you never admit to an error ...
but even if I did return for another winning day ... would you play for >> your one black chip?
You apparently cannot read. If you play it your way, starting with $100, betting $1 per time, you will get $1 ahead 100 times in 101, on average. I cannot think of a simpler way to explain it. Your original claim was that you would never fail. That
Moved the goal again, eh ... I said I would play until I was one bet
ahead ... that was the original comment. No limit.
My net offer is for you to have one black chip and I play until I win
that one black chip. I leave a winner. That is the bet you are running
from. Still running I see.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:14:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:is false.
On 11/5/2023 3:20 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:00:54 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/4/2023 8:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I also said I only would play until I was ahead one bet. I leave a >>>> winner never to return. You lose. But you never admit to an error ...
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And that is an advantage.
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit. >>>>>>>>>>
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rolland if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.
Otherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll.
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't change
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet?
You are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said >>>>>>>>>> could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for >>>>>>>> only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct
and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an >>>>>>>> advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
Go back to just being Jerry.
And your original claim was that you would win 'every time'. You will not.
but even if I did return for another winning day ... would you play for >>>> your one black chip?
You apparently cannot read. If you play it your way, starting with $100, betting $1 per time, you will get $1 ahead 100 times in 101, on average. I cannot think of a simpler way to explain it. Your original claim was that you would never fail. That
Moved the goal again, eh ... I said I would play until I was one bet
ahead ... that was the original comment. No limit.
My net offer is for you to have one black chip and I play until I win
that one black chip. I leave a winner. That is the bet you are running
from. Still running I see.
Read the top of this very comment. You are the one who set your bankroll at $100 and set your goal as winning $1.
I have repeatedly explained patiently to you what the probability of that is, and that offering an even money bet is just stupid.
You have made it quite clear that you cannot understand my explanation, which means that you understand less than nothing about probability.
I will try a different tack:
If you started with $1, and bet on fair coin flips until you either lost or won $1, would you always win? If not, how often?
How about if you started with $2, betting $1 per try, until you either had $3 or nothing? Would you always win? If not, how often?
What is significant about your proposed $100?
On 11/6/2023 6:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:is false.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:14:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/5/2023 3:20 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:00:54 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/4/2023 8:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I also said I only would play until I was ahead one bet. I leave a >>>> winner never to return. You lose. But you never admit to an error ... >>>> but even if I did return for another winning day ... would you play for >>>> your one black chip?
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And that is an advantage.
On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit. >>>>>>>>>>
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rollOtherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't changeYou are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for
only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct
and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an
advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
Go back to just being Jerry.
And your original claim was that you would win 'every time'. You will not.
You apparently cannot read. If you play it your way, starting with $100, betting $1 per time, you will get $1 ahead 100 times in 101, on average. I cannot think of a simpler way to explain it. Your original claim was that you would never fail. That
.Moved the goal again, eh ... I said I would play until I was one bet
ahead ... that was the original comment. No limit.
My net offer is for you to have one black chip and I play until I win
that one black chip. I leave a winner. That is the bet you are running
from. Still running I see.
Read the top of this very comment. You are the one who set your bankroll at $100 and set your goal as winning $1.
I have repeatedly explained patiently to you what the probability of that is, and that offering an even money bet is just stupid.
You have made it quite clear that you cannot understand my explanation, which means that you understand less than nothing about probability.
I will try a different tack:
If you started with $1, and bet on fair coin flips until you either lost or won $1, would you always win? If not, how often?
How about if you started with $2, betting $1 per try, until you either had $3 or nothing? Would you always win? If not, how often?
What is significant about your proposed $100?
Nice try ... the bet is I have an "advantage" which ......
On 11/6/2023 6:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:is false.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:14:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/5/2023 3:20 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:00:54 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/4/2023 8:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I also said I only would play until I was ahead one bet. I leave a >>>> winner never to return. You lose. But you never admit to an error ... >>>> but even if I did return for another winning day ... would you play for >>>> your one black chip?
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And that is an advantage.
On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit. >>>>>>>>>>
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have the
On 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rollOtherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't changeYou are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for
only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct
and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an
advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
Go back to just being Jerry.
And your original claim was that you would win 'every time'. You will not.
You apparently cannot read. If you play it your way, starting with $100, betting $1 per time, you will get $1 ahead 100 times in 101, on average. I cannot think of a simpler way to explain it. Your original claim was that you would never fail. That
Moved the goal again, eh ... I said I would play until I was one bet
ahead ... that was the original comment. No limit.
My net offer is for you to have one black chip and I play until I win
that one black chip. I leave a winner. That is the bet you are running
from. Still running I see.
Read the top of this very comment. You are the one who set your bankroll at $100 and set your goal as winning $1.
I have repeatedly explained patiently to you what the probability of that is, and that offering an even money bet is just stupid.
You have made it quite clear that you cannot understand my explanation, which means that you understand less than nothing about probability.
I will try a different tack:
If you started with $1, and bet on fair coin flips until you either lost or won $1, would you always win? If not, how often?
How about if you started with $2, betting $1 per try, until you either had $3 or nothing? Would you always win? If not, how often?
What is significant about your proposed $100?Nice try ... the bet is I have an "advantage" which you said I did not.
All the dodging from there is just that.
I will leave a winner. Admit it.
Let us start with your one black chip.
We play until I win your black chip. I win ... it will not take long.
I win, Tim ... just admit it or go away.
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 6:06:06 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:is false.
On 11/6/2023 6:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:14:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/5/2023 3:20 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:00:54 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/4/2023 8:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I also said I only would play until I was ahead one bet. I leave a >>>>>> winner never to return. You lose. But you never admit to an error ... >>>>>> but even if I did return for another winning day ... would you play for >>>>>> your one black chip?
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And that is an advantage.
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit. >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have theOn 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.Let's take this slowly.
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rollOtherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't changeYou are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for >>>>>>>>>> only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct
and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an
advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
Go back to just being Jerry.
And your original claim was that you would win 'every time'. You will not.
You apparently cannot read. If you play it your way, starting with $100, betting $1 per time, you will get $1 ahead 100 times in 101, on average. I cannot think of a simpler way to explain it. Your original claim was that you would never fail. That
Nice try ... the bet is I have an "advantage" which you said I did not.Moved the goal again, eh ... I said I would play until I was one bet
ahead ... that was the original comment. No limit.
My net offer is for you to have one black chip and I play until I win
that one black chip. I leave a winner. That is the bet you are running >>>> from. Still running I see.
Read the top of this very comment. You are the one who set your bankroll at $100 and set your goal as winning $1.
I have repeatedly explained patiently to you what the probability of that is, and that offering an even money bet is just stupid.
You have made it quite clear that you cannot understand my explanation, which means that you understand less than nothing about probability.
I will try a different tack:
If you started with $1, and bet on fair coin flips until you either lost or won $1, would you always win? If not, how often?
How about if you started with $2, betting $1 per try, until you either had $3 or nothing? Would you always win? If not, how often?
What is significant about your proposed $100?
All the dodging from there is just that.
I will leave a winner. Admit it.
Let us start with your one black chip.
We play until I win your black chip. I win ... it will not take long.
I win, Tim ... just admit it or go away.
You cannot be this dense, can you?
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 6:06:06 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:That is false.
On 11/6/2023 6:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:14:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/5/2023 3:20 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:00:54 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/4/2023 8:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I also said I only would play until I was ahead one bet. I leave a
On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And that is an advantage.
On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit. >>>>>>>>>>
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have theOn 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.Let's take this slowly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rollOtherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't changeYou are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for
only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct
and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an
advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
Go back to just being Jerry.
And your original claim was that you would win 'every time'. You will not.
winner never to return. You lose. But you never admit to an error ... >>>> but even if I did return for another winning day ... would you play for
your one black chip?
You apparently cannot read. If you play it your way, starting with $100, betting $1 per time, you will get $1 ahead 100 times in 101, on average. I cannot think of a simpler way to explain it. Your original claim was that you would never fail.
.Moved the goal again, eh ... I said I would play until I was one bet
ahead ... that was the original comment. No limit.
My net offer is for you to have one black chip and I play until I win >> that one black chip. I leave a winner. That is the bet you are running >> from. Still running I see.
Read the top of this very comment. You are the one who set your bankroll at $100 and set your goal as winning $1.
I have repeatedly explained patiently to you what the probability of that is, and that offering an even money bet is just stupid.
You have made it quite clear that you cannot understand my explanation, which means that you understand less than nothing about probability.
I will try a different tack:
If you started with $1, and bet on fair coin flips until you either lost or won $1, would you always win? If not, how often?
How about if you started with $2, betting $1 per try, until you either had $3 or nothing? Would you always win? If not, how often?
What is significant about your proposed $100?Nice try ... the bet is I have an "advantage" which you said I did not.
All the dodging from there is just that.
I will leave a winner. Admit it.
Let us start with your one black chip.
We play until I win your black chip. I win ... it will not take long.
I win, Tim ... just admit it or go away.You cannot be this dense, can you?
On 11/7/2023 8:44 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:That is false.
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 6:06:06 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/6/2023 6:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:14:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/5/2023 3:20 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:00:54 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/4/2023 8:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I also said I only would play until I was ahead one bet. I leave a
On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And that is an advantage.
On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit. >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have theOn 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.Let's take this slowly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rollOtherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't changeYou are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for
only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct
and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an
advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
Go back to just being Jerry.
And your original claim was that you would win 'every time'. You will not.
winner never to return. You lose. But you never admit to an error ... >>>>>> but even if I did return for another winning day ... would you play for
your one black chip?
You apparently cannot read. If you play it your way, starting with $100, betting $1 per time, you will get $1 ahead 100 times in 101, on average. I cannot think of a simpler way to explain it. Your original claim was that you would never fail.
.Nice try ... the bet is I have an "advantage" which you said I did not. >>Moved the goal again, eh ... I said I would play until I was one bet >>>> ahead ... that was the original comment. No limit.
My net offer is for you to have one black chip and I play until I win >>>> that one black chip. I leave a winner. That is the bet you are running >>>> from. Still running I see.
Read the top of this very comment. You are the one who set your bankroll at $100 and set your goal as winning $1.
I have repeatedly explained patiently to you what the probability of that is, and that offering an even money bet is just stupid.
You have made it quite clear that you cannot understand my explanation, which means that you understand less than nothing about probability.
I will try a different tack:
If you started with $1, and bet on fair coin flips until you either lost or won $1, would you always win? If not, how often?
How about if you started with $2, betting $1 per try, until you either had $3 or nothing? Would you always win? If not, how often?
What is significant about your proposed $100?
All the dodging from there is just that.
I will leave a winner. Admit it.
Let us start with your one black chip.
We play until I win your black chip. I win ... it will not take long.
I win, Tim ... just admit it or go away.
You cannot be this dense, can you?Jerry did a better job that you, Tim ... he just cut the out and said "win"!
You have one black chip ... I have lots of black chips. I play until
you have no black chips. Will you play with me?
No you will not ... let Jerry cut the bet again. Or you can just ignore it.
[Do you need MORE money to start, Tim? You know that will not work either.]
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 6:44:57 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:That is false.
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 6:06:06 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/6/2023 6:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:14:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/5/2023 3:20 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:00:54 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/4/2023 8:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I also said I only would play until I was ahead one bet. I leave a >>>>>>> winner never to return. You lose. But you never admit to an error ... >>>>>>> but even if I did return for another winning day ... would you play for >>>>>>> your one black chip?
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And that is an advantage.
On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actually
On 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have theOn 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.Let's take this slowly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rollOtherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't changeYou are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling.
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for
only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct
and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an
advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
Go back to just being Jerry.
And your original claim was that you would win 'every time'. You will not.
You apparently cannot read. If you play it your way, starting with $100, betting $1 per time, you will get $1 ahead 100 times in 101, on average. I cannot think of a simpler way to explain it. Your original claim was that you would never fail.
.You cannot be this dense, can you?Nice try ... the bet is I have an "advantage" which you said I did not.Moved the goal again, eh ... I said I would play until I was one bet >>>>> ahead ... that was the original comment. No limit.
My net offer is for you to have one black chip and I play until I win >>>>> that one black chip. I leave a winner. That is the bet you are running >>>>> from. Still running I see.
Read the top of this very comment. You are the one who set your bankroll at $100 and set your goal as winning $1.
I have repeatedly explained patiently to you what the probability of that is, and that offering an even money bet is just stupid.
You have made it quite clear that you cannot understand my explanation, which means that you understand less than nothing about probability.
I will try a different tack:
If you started with $1, and bet on fair coin flips until you either lost or won $1, would you always win? If not, how often?
How about if you started with $2, betting $1 per try, until you either had $3 or nothing? Would you always win? If not, how often?
What is significant about your proposed $100?
All the dodging from there is just that.
I will leave a winner. Admit it.
Let us start with your one black chip.
We play until I win your black chip. I win ... it will not take long.
I win, Tim ... just admit it or go away.
Like I said before, he's just embarrassed. He's famous for dodging, not answering and running.
He's child-like in that he believes if he post's last, he wins. but only in his mine....
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 5:29:37 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:That is false.
On 11/7/2023 8:44 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 6:06:06 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/6/2023 6:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:14:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/5/2023 3:20 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:00:54 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/4/2023 8:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:And I also said I only would play until I was ahead one bet. I leave a >>>>>>>> winner never to return. You lose. But you never admit to an error ... >>>>>>>> but even if I did return for another winning day ... would you play for
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And that is an advantage.
On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actuallyOn 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have theOn 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.Let's take this slowly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rollOtherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't changeYou are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for
only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct
and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an
advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
Go back to just being Jerry.
And your original claim was that you would win 'every time'. You will not.
your one black chip?
You apparently cannot read. If you play it your way, starting with $100, betting $1 per time, you will get $1 ahead 100 times in 101, on average. I cannot think of a simpler way to explain it. Your original claim was that you would never fail.
.Jerry did a better job that you, Tim ... he just cut the out and said "win"! >>Nice try ... the bet is I have an "advantage" which you said I did not. >>>>Moved the goal again, eh ... I said I would play until I was one bet >>>>>> ahead ... that was the original comment. No limit.
My net offer is for you to have one black chip and I play until I win >>>>>> that one black chip. I leave a winner. That is the bet you are running >>>>>> from. Still running I see.
Read the top of this very comment. You are the one who set your bankroll at $100 and set your goal as winning $1.
I have repeatedly explained patiently to you what the probability of that is, and that offering an even money bet is just stupid.
You have made it quite clear that you cannot understand my explanation, which means that you understand less than nothing about probability.
I will try a different tack:
If you started with $1, and bet on fair coin flips until you either lost or won $1, would you always win? If not, how often?
How about if you started with $2, betting $1 per try, until you either had $3 or nothing? Would you always win? If not, how often?
What is significant about your proposed $100?
All the dodging from there is just that.
I will leave a winner. Admit it.
Let us start with your one black chip.
We play until I win your black chip. I win ... it will not take long.
I win, Tim ... just admit it or go away.
You cannot be this dense, can you?
You have one black chip ... I have lots of black chips. I play until
you have no black chips. Will you play with me?
No you will not ... let Jerry cut the bet again. Or you can just ignore it. >>
[Do you need MORE money to start, Tim? You know that will not work either.]
See? Poor whiney fool....
On 11/8/2023 9:44 AM, VegasJerry wrote:That is false.
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 6:44:57 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 6:06:06 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/6/2023 6:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:14:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>> On 11/5/2023 3:20 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:00:54 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/4/2023 8:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I also said I only would play until I was ahead one bet. I leave a
On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And that is an advantage.
On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actuallyOn 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have theOn 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.Let's take this slowly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rollOtherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't changeYou are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
understand any probability.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
I will try one more time to explain reality to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct?
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for
only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct
and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an
advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
Go back to just being Jerry.
And your original claim was that you would win 'every time'. You will not.
winner never to return. You lose. But you never admit to an error ...
but even if I did return for another winning day ... would you play for
your one black chip?
You apparently cannot read. If you play it your way, starting with $100, betting $1 per time, you will get $1 ahead 100 times in 101, on average. I cannot think of a simpler way to explain it. Your original claim was that you would never fail.
..You cannot be this dense, can you?Nice try ... the bet is I have an "advantage" which you said I did not. >>>Moved the goal again, eh ... I said I would play until I was one bet >>>>> ahead ... that was the original comment. No limit.
My net offer is for you to have one black chip and I play until I win >>>>> that one black chip. I leave a winner. That is the bet you are running >>>>> from. Still running I see.
Read the top of this very comment. You are the one who set your bankroll at $100 and set your goal as winning $1.
I have repeatedly explained patiently to you what the probability of that is, and that offering an even money bet is just stupid.
You have made it quite clear that you cannot understand my explanation, which means that you understand less than nothing about probability.
I will try a different tack:
If you started with $1, and bet on fair coin flips until you either lost or won $1, would you always win? If not, how often?
How about if you started with $2, betting $1 per try, until you either had $3 or nothing? Would you always win? If not, how often?
What is significant about your proposed $100?
All the dodging from there is just that.
I will leave a winner. Admit it.
Let us start with your one black chip.
We play until I win your black chip. I win ... it will not take long. >>>
I win, Tim ... just admit it or go away.
Like I said before, he's just embarrassed. He's famous for dodging, not answering and running.
He's child-like in that he believes if he post's last, he wins. but only in his mine....
Will you play Say Red with me for black chips?.
On 11/8/2023 9:45 AM, VegasJerry wrote:That is false.
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 5:29:37 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 11/7/2023 8:44 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 6:06:06 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2023 6:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:14:26 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/5/2023 3:20 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:00:54 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/4/2023 8:31 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 7:23:37 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And I also said I only would play until I was ahead one bet. I leave a
On 11/4/2023 5:43 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:11:25 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:And that is an advantage.
On 11/3/2023 6:46 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 7:47:11 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:You said the odds are 50/50 for each iteration of the Say Red game and I
On 10/27/2023 8:52 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 5:15:24 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:Sorry been gone a week ... come back to the same old shit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/25/2023 4:00 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:I apologize. Not only do you not understand the basics of probability, you clearly do not understand any part of the question that I asked.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:34:47 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:So, you are a dishonest piece of shit. Mav is certainly correct about
On 10/24/2023 9:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 4:59:03 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
You really do try hard to make an easy bet disappear when actuallyOn 10/24/2023 2:33 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 3:31:27 PM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
And I gave you the facts that I am an odds on winner (I have theOn 10/24/2023 12:02 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 8:18:52 AM UTC-4, da pickle wrote:
On 10/23/2023 6:56 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Cut to the meat
I will limit my bankroll to $100 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and if I am not ever ahead a dollar and you have my $100 I lose it.Let's take this slowly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. You said this 3 days ago: "I do not have an infinite bankroll.
rollOtherwise, I get $100 from you if I get ahead a dollar. Your bank
dollar 100 times in 101. I am not talking about winning $101. Theis only a dollar. Mine is $100. Why will you not take the bet?"
That limits your bankroll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2. With a bankroll of $100, you will eventually win a single
correct odds would have you winning $1 if you win and me winning $100 if
you lose. It would appear that you do not understand your own proposition.
this stupid.So, you are in for the bet? Your dodges are not working. Can't changeYou are offering even money for a 100:1 against shot. You cannot be
the odds ... I win $100 when you lose. Hope it is the first deal. Why
won't you just take the bet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
understand any probability. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will try one more time to explain reality to you.WOW ... I am not stupid at all ... you are the one running.
I am just saying I will win and you are running from the bet.
You have one black chip and I have a hundred white chips. We have an
automatic shuffler. We shuffle ... bottom card is red, I get your black
chip ... black, you get one of my white chips. I leave with $100 or or
we shuffle again.
If the bottom card is red on second shuffle, you give me my white chip
back ... we shuffle again ... repeat until I either have no more money
at all and you leave with $200 or I leave with $200 ... difficult to
understand?
I say I have an "advantage" ... won't you admit it?
At this point, I am not sure if you are a troll, or just don't
you stop when you win exactly $1, having $101, or when you have lost $100.
Starting with $100, betting $1 at a time on any event which is 50/50,
the experiment 70 times.
You will win your single $1 on average 100 times in 101
You will lose your $100 on average 1 time in 101 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, the odds in favour of you winning are 100 to 1
Performing this experiment 1 time tells us nothing much.
In order to make it an even money proposition for me, we need to do
You say I do not have an "advantage" in my "bet" and then you skip the
If you win every single trial (gain a total of $70), then you win the bet
If you lose a single trial (all $100), then I win the bet
The probability of these two events is almost exactly 0.50
bet proposed and ADMIT that you must change the proposed bet to one that
makes it even money for YOU ... what a dodge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BET is that I only play until I WIN ... not 100 or 70 or a 1000
times ... only until I win "that black chip" ... that was the bet that I
said gave me an advantage ... and you actually admit it with your double
talk.
I either win $100 or you win $100 ... but you now know it is unlikely
you will win the $100. Because I have an "advantage" in winning one
chip and walking away. Try again to dodge the actual bet or just quit.
I will say it again. You simply cannot be this dumb. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Give up, eh ... I have the "advantage" and you have run.
And I have given you the analysis. I think that you don't understand it. Given that you claim to gamble a great deal, that doesn't seem optimal.
advantage) in the SAY RED game if I leave when I have a one chip win.
Those are the facts ... admit you were wrong or just fade away.
I am going to write this as if you were an honest agent, rather than the troll that I suspect you are being.
I will explain this slowly.
We have the 'Say Red' game, which you have agreed is equivalent to a totally random flip on an unbiased coin.
You have proposed a meta game, as these things are termed, in which you play the original game, betting one unit at a time, until you either win 1 unit, or lose 100.
Your claim is that you will ALWAYS win your meta game. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My claim is that you will win the meta game an average of 100 times in 101.
How do we establish which is correct? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I could show you a Mathematical proof, but I do not believe that you would understand it.
That leaves empirical methods, which means playing the meta game.
Doing it once shows nothing at all. If you were correct, then you could play indefinitely without a loss.
Playing the meta game 70 times means that it is equally likely that, if I am correct, you will win all the trials, or lose at least once.
To properly establish that I am incorrect would require several thousand trials.
proposed. We do not have to play 70 or a hundred or a 1000 to have me
win one dollar.
I play until I am one dollar ahead. THAT IS IT. I think I have an
advantage in the game. You say I do not have an advantage if I only
play for a one bet win. You are wrong and are wiggling and wiggling.
It is a stupid game and you are wrong that I cannot get ahead one bet
and quit. Just admit it and quit wiggling. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[You are correct in your latest version of a different bet than the one
proposed. You are proving that I am correct in the original bet.]
So, you cant' read for content, and don't understand probability at all. Thanks for verifying that.
you. I understand probability ... you are 100% dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I made a bet that I could gain an advantage in Say Red that you said
could not be done ... I proved I could and made a bet and you ran like a
scared animal. Same old same old
I told you what the odds are, and you apparently cannot understand. How you spend so much time and money gambling and yet know nothing about probability is quite sad.
agreed ... but you said I could not gain an advantage by playing for
only "one win" and I made an offer for an actual BET that I was correct
and you were not willing to take the bet. Because I had the "odds" [an
advantage] in the bet.
Don't go all Jerry on us ... [Jerry, can but in now and try and save you]
Just say that I can have an advantage in the Say Red game if I only want
to win one bet.
Man up
Either you cannot read, or you are the most extreme example of the Dunnig-Kruger effect that I have seen in some time.
I will say this the third time (at least): If you play an even money (coin toss) game for one unit with a bankroll of 100 units, you will win 100 times out of 101, on average.
Go back to just being Jerry.
And your original claim was that you would win 'every time'. You will not.
winner never to return. You lose. But you never admit to an error ...
but even if I did return for another winning day ... would you play for
your one black chip?
You apparently cannot read. If you play it your way, starting with $100, betting $1 per time, you will get $1 ahead 100 times in 101, on average. I cannot think of a simpler way to explain it. Your original claim was that you would never fail.
..Jerry did a better job that you, Tim ... he just cut the out and said "win"!Nice try ... the bet is I have an "advantage" which you said I did not. >>>>Moved the goal again, eh ... I said I would play until I was one bet >>>>>> ahead ... that was the original comment. No limit.
My net offer is for you to have one black chip and I play until I win >>>>>> that one black chip. I leave a winner. That is the bet you are running
from. Still running I see.
Read the top of this very comment. You are the one who set your bankroll at $100 and set your goal as winning $1.
I have repeatedly explained patiently to you what the probability of that is, and that offering an even money bet is just stupid.
You have made it quite clear that you cannot understand my explanation, which means that you understand less than nothing about probability.
I will try a different tack:
If you started with $1, and bet on fair coin flips until you either lost or won $1, would you always win? If not, how often?
How about if you started with $2, betting $1 per try, until you either had $3 or nothing? Would you always win? If not, how often?
What is significant about your proposed $100?
All the dodging from there is just that.
I will leave a winner. Admit it.
Let us start with your one black chip.
We play until I win your black chip. I win ... it will not take long. >>>>
I win, Tim ... just admit it or go away.
You cannot be this dense, can you?
You have one black chip ... I have lots of black chips. I play until
you have no black chips. Will you play with me?
No you will not ... let Jerry cut the bet again. Or you can just ignore it.
[Do you need MORE money to start, Tim? You know that will not work either.]
See? Poor whiney fool....
We know he will fun ... how about you ... will you play me for black chips?.
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 8:39:04 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
Will you play Say Red with me for black chips?
See? Poor whiney fool....
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 8:40:03 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
We know he will fun ... how about you ... will you play me for black chips?.
See? Poor whiney fool....
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 361 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 51:31:22 |
| Calls: | 7,710 |
| Files: | 12,843 |
| Messages: | 5,720,936 |