WASHINGTON POST
Bankman-Fried convicted on all charges after weeks-long criminal trial
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:20:50 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:.
WASHINGTON POST
Bankman-Fried convicted on all charges after weeks-long criminal trial
Yet another crooked left-wing Democrat bites the dust.
Fake Irish Mick
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-7, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:20:50 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
WASHINGTON POST
.Bankman-Fried convicted on all charges after weeks-long criminal trial
Yet another crooked left-wing Democrat bites the dust.See how stupid Stolen Valor Mick is?
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 2:48:41 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-7, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:20:50 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
WASHINGTON POST
LOL! "Stolen Valor". Seriously Gas Bag? This coming from a dishonest,.Bankman-Fried convicted on all charges after weeks-long criminal trial
Yet another crooked left-wing Democrat bites the dust.See how stupid Stolen Valor Mick is?
lying turd who never served, never fought and has never even heard a shot fired in anger.
Why don't you do this group a huge favor and take a two or three year break? You know it would be greatly appreciated by the vast majority of people here.
Irish Mike
Who did serve, who did fight and who has definitely heard shots fired in anger.
Now run off and hide Gas Bag.
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 6:45:25 PM UTC-4, Irish Ranger wrote:.
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 2:48:41 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-7, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:20:50 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
WASHINGTON POST
LOL! "Stolen Valor". Seriously Gas Bag? This coming from a dishonest, lying turd who never served, never fought and has never even heard a shot fired in anger..Bankman-Fried convicted on all charges after weeks-long criminal trial
Yet another crooked left-wing Democrat bites the dust.See how stupid Stolen Valor Mick is?
Why don't you do this group a huge favor and take a two or three year break?
You know it would be greatly appreciated by the vast majority of people here.
Irish Mike
Who did serve, who did fight and who has definitely heard shots fired in anger.
Now run off and hide Gas Bag.
He's running and hiding as we speak (chortle)..
Sniff, blither n' run Jerr they call 'im.
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 2:48:41 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-7, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:20:50 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
WASHINGTON POST
.Bankman-Fried convicted on all charges after weeks-long criminal trial
Yet another crooked left-wing Democrat bites the dust.See how stupid Stolen Valor Mick is?
LOL! "Stolen Valor". Seriously Gas Bag? This coming from a dishonest,
lying turd who never served, never fought and has never even heard a shot fired in anger. .
Why don't you do this group a huge favor and take a two or three year break?.
You know it would be greatly appreciated by the vast majority of people here.
Who did serve, who did fight and who has definitely heard shots fired in anger..
Now run off and hide Gas Bag.
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 8:31:34 PM UTC-7, Travel wrote:).
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 6:45:25 PM UTC-4, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 2:48:41 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-7, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:20:50 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
WASHINGTON POST
LOL! "Stolen Valor". Seriously Gas Bag? This coming from a dishonest, lying turd who never served, never fought and has never even heard a shot fired in anger..Bankman-Fried convicted on all charges after weeks-long criminal trial
Yet another crooked left-wing Democrat bites the dust.See how stupid Stolen Valor Mick is?
Why don't you do this group a huge favor and take a two or three year break?
You know it would be greatly appreciated by the vast majority of people here.
Irish Mike
.Who did serve, who did fight and who has definitely heard shots fired in anger.
Now run off and hide Gas Bag.
He's running and hiding as we speak (chortle
Sniff, blither n' run Jerr they call 'im..
See there? Travel is another I prove to be a fake liar, and a runner.
WASHINGTON POST
Bankman-Fried convicted on all charges after weeks-long criminal trial
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:20:50 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:.
WASHINGTON POST
Bankman-Fried convicted on all charges after weeks-long criminal trial
And you, Gas Bag, might just once in your .....
miserable dishonest life....
I can't tell the truth....
defund the FBI...
police in their
Every one knows I support Defunding the FBI...
Lying Irish Mick
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 4:07:06 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 8:31:34 PM UTC-7, Travel wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 6:45:25 PM UTC-4, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 2:48:41 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 10:46:17 AM UTC-7, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:20:50 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
WASHINGTON POST
LOL! "Stolen Valor". Seriously Gas Bag? This coming from a dishonest, lying turd who never served, never fought and has never even heard a shot fired in anger..Bankman-Fried convicted on all charges after weeks-long criminal trial
Yet another crooked left-wing Democrat bites the dust.See how stupid Stolen Valor Mick is?
Why don't you do this group a huge favor and take a two or three year break?
You know it would be greatly appreciated by the vast majority of people here.
Irish Mike
)..Who did serve, who did fight and who has definitely heard shots fired in anger.
Now run off and hide Gas Bag.
He's running and hiding as we speak (chortle
Sniff, blither n' run Jerr they call 'im..
See there? Travel is another I prove to be a fake liar, and a runner.
22 hours later..
You were thinking of ....
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 9:41:40 AM UTC-8, Irish Ranger wrote:
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 8:20:50 PM UTC-4, VegasJerry wrote:
WASHINGTON POST
.Bankman-Fried convicted on all charges after weeks-long criminal trial
And you, Gas Bag, might just once in your .....
Stolen Valor Mick; once again Cutting & Pasting his dodge from *** "Defund the FBI" ***
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
miserable dishonest life....
I can't tell the truth....
defund the FBI...
police in their
Every one knows I support Defunding the FBI...
Lying Irish Mick
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
<snip>
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote: <snip>
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.Look who's talking
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote: <snip>
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
Find where I have done so.The very definition of a strawman argument.Look who's talking
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote: <snip>
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
In weekly or monthly calendar format.Find where I have done so.The very definition of a strawman argument.Look who's talking
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:In weekly or monthly calendar format.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote: >>>>> <snip>Find where I have done so.
Look who's talkingAnd here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.
On 11/11/2023 10:54 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:In weekly or monthly calendar format.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote: >>>>> <snip>Find where I have done so.
Look who's talkingAnd here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.So do I have an advantage in the Say Red game if we play for $100 bills? [You only need one!]
Don't keep running, Tim ...
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:57:47 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/11/2023 10:54 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:So do I have an advantage in the Say Red game if we play for $100 bills?
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:
In weekly or monthly calendar format.On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote: >>>>>>> <snip>Find where I have done so.
Look who's talkingAnd here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.
[You only need one!]
Don't keep running, Tim ...
You must be an idiot. Not only do you have an advantage, but I have quantified it for you. However, you are so ignorant that you cannot understand my answer, yet want to bang on about it.
On 11/12/2023 1:13 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:57:47 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/11/2023 10:54 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:So do I have an advantage in the Say Red game if we play for $100 bills? >> [You only need one!]
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote: >>>>>>> <snip>
In weekly or monthly calendar format.Find where I have done so.Look who's talkingAnd here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.
Don't keep running, Tim ...
You must be an idiot. Not only do you have an advantage, but I have quantified it for you. However, you are so ignorant that you cannot understand my answer, yet want to bang on about it.So, you now admit I have an advantage in the Say Red game that you
fought so hard to say I did not. Thank you for finally admitting you
were wrong about something.
Go back to bed.
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:33:15 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/12/2023 1:13 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:57:47 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:So, you now admit I have an advantage in the Say Red game that you
On 11/11/2023 10:54 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:So do I have an advantage in the Say Red game if we play for $100 bills? >>>> [You only need one!]
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote: >>>>>>>>> <snip>
In weekly or monthly calendar format.Find where I have done so.Look who's talkingAnd here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.
Don't keep running, Tim ...
You must be an idiot. Not only do you have an advantage, but I have quantified it for you. However, you are so ignorant that you cannot understand my answer, yet want to bang on about it.
fought so hard to say I did not. Thank you for finally admitting you
were wrong about something.
Go back to bed.
Read my responses for the past few weeks, then have someone competent explain them to you. You have done nothing but embarrass yourself.
On 11/12/2023 8:44 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:33:15 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/12/2023 1:13 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:57:47 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/11/2023 10:54 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you now admit I have an advantage in the Say Red game that you
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:So do I have an advantage in the Say Red game if we play for $100 bills?
In weekly or monthly calendar format.Find where I have done so.On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:Look who's talking
<snip>
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.
[You only need one!]
Don't keep running, Tim ...
You must be an idiot. Not only do you have an advantage, but I have quantified it for you. However, you are so ignorant that you cannot understand my answer, yet want to bang on about it.
fought so hard to say I did not. Thank you for finally admitting you
were wrong about something.
Go back to bed.
Read my responses for the past few weeks, then have someone competent explain them to you.
You have done nothing but embarrass yourself.
Thank you again for admitting I have an advantage....
said I did not have. Confession is good for the soul.
On 11/12/2023 8:44 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:33:15 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/12/2023 1:13 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:57:47 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/11/2023 10:54 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you now admit I have an advantage in the Say Red game that you
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:So do I have an advantage in the Say Red game if we play for $100 bills?
In weekly or monthly calendar format.Find where I have done so.On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:Look who's talking
<snip>
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.
[You only need one!]
Don't keep running, Tim ...
You must be an idiot. Not only do you have an advantage, but I have quantified it for you. However, you are so ignorant that you cannot understand my answer, yet want to bang on about it.
fought so hard to say I did not. Thank you for finally admitting you
were wrong about something.
Go back to bed.
Read my responses for the past few weeks, then have someone competent explain them to you. You have done nothing but embarrass yourself.Thank you again for admitting I have an advantage that you initially
said I did not have. Confession is good for the soul.
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/12/2023 8:44 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:33:15 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/12/2023 1:13 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:57:47 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/11/2023 10:54 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you now admit I have an advantage in the Say Red game that you
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:So do I have an advantage in the Say Red game if we play for $100 bills?
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:In weekly or monthly calendar format.
Find where I have done so.On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:Look who's talking
<snip>
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.
[You only need one!]
Don't keep running, Tim ...
You must be an idiot. Not only do you have an advantage, but I have quantified it for you. However, you are so ignorant that you cannot understand my answer, yet want to bang on about it.
fought so hard to say I did not. Thank you for finally admitting you
were wrong about something.
Go back to bed.
Prove that I ever said that you did not have an advantage in the game that you proposed.Read my responses for the past few weeks, then have someone competent explain them to you. You have done nothing but embarrass yourself.Thank you again for admitting I have an advantage that you initially
said I did not have. Confession is good for the soul.
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'. If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:04:42 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/12/2023 8:44 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Prove that I ever said that you did not have an advantage in the game that you proposed.
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:33:15 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Thank you again for admitting I have an advantage that you initially
On 11/12/2023 1:13 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:57:47 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/11/2023 10:54 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you now admit I have an advantage in the Say Red game that you
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:So do I have an advantage in the Say Red game if we play for $100 bills?
In weekly or monthly calendar format.Find where I have done so.On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:Look who's talking
<snip>
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.
[You only need one!]
Don't keep running, Tim ...
You must be an idiot. Not only do you have an advantage, but I have quantified it for you. However, you are so ignorant that you cannot understand my answer, yet want to bang on about it.
fought so hard to say I did not. Thank you for finally admitting you >>>>> were wrong about something.
Go back to bed.
Read my responses for the past few weeks, then have someone competent explain them to you. You have done nothing but embarrass yourself.
said I did not have. Confession is good for the soul.
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'. If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial. Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
On 11/13/2023 8:11 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:04:42 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/12/2023 8:44 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Prove that I ever said that you did not have an advantage in the game that you proposed.
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:33:15 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>> On 11/12/2023 1:13 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Thank you again for admitting I have an advantage that you initially
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:57:47 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/11/2023 10:54 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you now admit I have an advantage in the Say Red game that you >>>>> fought so hard to say I did not. Thank you for finally admitting you >>>>> were wrong about something.
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:So do I have an advantage in the Say Red game if we play for $100 bills?
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:In weekly or monthly calendar format.
Find where I have done so.On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:Look who's talking
<snip>
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.
[You only need one!]
Don't keep running, Tim ...
You must be an idiot. Not only do you have an advantage, but I have quantified it for you. However, you are so ignorant that you cannot understand my answer, yet want to bang on about it.
Go back to bed.
Read my responses for the past few weeks, then have someone competent explain them to you. You have done nothing but embarrass yourself.
said I did not have. Confession is good for the soul.
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'. If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial. Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0The game is Say Red and I win if I say the last card is Red and it is
Red. Repeat for the next play. Repeat for the next play. I said I had
an advantage in the game and you said no.
I said I would bet you that if we played for X a play, I would leave a winner of X after a time and that was my advantage. You said that was
not an advantage. [You admit now that I do have "that" advantage.]
When X became my "bet" and the "bet" was a $100 chip, you would not play because I would eventually win. The "odds" were too much in my favor
... because I had an advantage. [Odds in my favor is an "advantage".]
[Originally, I did not limit my "advantage" to me only having a hundred hundreds ... but you said even that advantage was way too much for you. Actually, you said only a fool would take that bet.]
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 8:17:31 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/13/2023 8:11 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:04:42 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:The game is Say Red and I win if I say the last card is Red and it is
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/12/2023 8:44 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Prove that I ever said that you did not have an advantage in the game that you proposed.
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:33:15 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/12/2023 1:13 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Thank you again for admitting I have an advantage that you initially >>>>> said I did not have. Confession is good for the soul.
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:57:47 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2023 10:54 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you now admit I have an advantage in the Say Red game that you >>>>>>> fought so hard to say I did not. Thank you for finally admitting you >>>>>>> were wrong about something.
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:So do I have an advantage in the Say Red game if we play for $100 bills?
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:In weekly or monthly calendar format.
Find where I have done so.On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:Look who's talking
<snip>
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.
[You only need one!]
Don't keep running, Tim ...
You must be an idiot. Not only do you have an advantage, but I have quantified it for you. However, you are so ignorant that you cannot understand my answer, yet want to bang on about it.
Go back to bed.
Read my responses for the past few weeks, then have someone competent explain them to you. You have done nothing but embarrass yourself.
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'. If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial. Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
Red. Repeat for the next play. Repeat for the next play. I said I had
an advantage in the game and you said no.
I said I would bet you that if we played for X a play, I would leave a
winner of X after a time and that was my advantage. You said that was
not an advantage. [You admit now that I do have "that" advantage.]
When X became my "bet" and the "bet" was a $100 chip, you would not play
because I would eventually win. The "odds" were too much in my favor
... because I had an advantage. [Odds in my favor is an "advantage".]
[Originally, I did not limit my "advantage" to me only having a hundred
hundreds ... but you said even that advantage was way too much for you.
Actually, you said only a fool would take that bet.]
Let me try one more time.
The probability that you will eventually win $1 with a bankroll of $100 at 'Say Red' (or the equivalent, a fair coin toss) is exactly 100/101. That means you have a huge advantage in playing a single time.
Try this enough times, and you will find that your expectation is exactly 0. It is a fairly simple example of the Gambler's Ruin problem.
On 11/14/2023 1:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 8:17:31 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/13/2023 8:11 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:04:42 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>> On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>> On 11/12/2023 8:44 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:The game is Say Red and I win if I say the last card is Red and it is
Prove that I ever said that you did not have an advantage in the game that you proposed.On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:33:15 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/12/2023 1:13 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Thank you again for admitting I have an advantage that you initially >>>>> said I did not have. Confession is good for the soul.
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:57:47 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:So, you now admit I have an advantage in the Say Red game that you >>>>>>> fought so hard to say I did not. Thank you for finally admitting you >>>>>>> were wrong about something.
On 11/11/2023 10:54 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:So do I have an advantage in the Say Red game if we play for $100 bills?
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:In weekly or monthly calendar format.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:Find where I have done so.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:Look who's talking
<snip>
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.
[You only need one!]
Don't keep running, Tim ...
You must be an idiot. Not only do you have an advantage, but I have quantified it for you. However, you are so ignorant that you cannot understand my answer, yet want to bang on about it.
Go back to bed.
Read my responses for the past few weeks, then have someone competent explain them to you. You have done nothing but embarrass yourself.
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'. If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial. Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
Red. Repeat for the next play. Repeat for the next play. I said I had
an advantage in the game and you said no.
I said I would bet you that if we played for X a play, I would leave a
winner of X after a time and that was my advantage. You said that was
not an advantage. [You admit now that I do have "that" advantage.]
When X became my "bet" and the "bet" was a $100 chip, you would not play >> because I would eventually win. The "odds" were too much in my favor
... because I had an advantage. [Odds in my favor is an "advantage".]
[Originally, I did not limit my "advantage" to me only having a hundred >> hundreds ... but you said even that advantage was way too much for you. >> Actually, you said only a fool would take that bet.]
Let me try one more time.
The probability that you will eventually win $1 with a bankroll of $100 at 'Say Red' (or the equivalent, a fair coin toss) is exactly 100/101. That means you have a huge advantage in playing a single time.
Try this enough times, and you will find that your expectation is exactly 0. It is a fairly simple example of the Gambler's Ruin problem.Obviously ... but originally, you said I had no advantage. I do if my
goal is one bet. The size of the "bet" matters. I am not limited to
100 units. But I do have the advantage, no matter what the limit.
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 4:55:33 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/14/2023 1:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 8:17:31 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Obviously ... but originally, you said I had no advantage. I do if my
On 11/13/2023 8:11 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:04:42 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/12/2023 8:44 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:The game is Say Red and I win if I say the last card is Red and it is
Prove that I ever said that you did not have an advantage in the game that you proposed.On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:33:15 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2023 1:13 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Thank you again for admitting I have an advantage that you initially >>>>>>> said I did not have. Confession is good for the soul.
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:57:47 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2023 10:54 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:So, you now admit I have an advantage in the Say Red game that you >>>>>>>>> fought so hard to say I did not. Thank you for finally admitting you >>>>>>>>> were wrong about something.
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:So do I have an advantage in the Say Red game if we play for $100 bills?
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:In weekly or monthly calendar format.
Find where I have done so.On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:Look who's talking
<snip>
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.
[You only need one!]
Don't keep running, Tim ...
You must be an idiot. Not only do you have an advantage, but I have quantified it for you. However, you are so ignorant that you cannot understand my answer, yet want to bang on about it.
Go back to bed.
Read my responses for the past few weeks, then have someone competent explain them to you. You have done nothing but embarrass yourself.
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'. If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial. Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
Red. Repeat for the next play. Repeat for the next play. I said I had
an advantage in the game and you said no.
I said I would bet you that if we played for X a play, I would leave a >>>> winner of X after a time and that was my advantage. You said that was
not an advantage. [You admit now that I do have "that" advantage.]
When X became my "bet" and the "bet" was a $100 chip, you would not play >>>> because I would eventually win. The "odds" were too much in my favor
... because I had an advantage. [Odds in my favor is an "advantage".]
[Originally, I did not limit my "advantage" to me only having a hundred >>>> hundreds ... but you said even that advantage was way too much for you. >>>> Actually, you said only a fool would take that bet.]
Let me try one more time.
The probability that you will eventually win $1 with a bankroll of $100 at 'Say Red' (or the equivalent, a fair coin toss) is exactly 100/101. That means you have a huge advantage in playing a single time.
Try this enough times, and you will find that your expectation is exactly 0. It is a fairly simple example of the Gambler's Ruin problem.
goal is one bet. The size of the "bet" matters. I am not limited to
100 units. But I do have the advantage, no matter what the limit.
You were the one who said that you would bet $1 per time with a bankroll of $100. I never said that you would not have an advantage in a single trial. In fact, if I recall correctly, you would have an advantage, on average, up to 69 trials.
On 11/14/2023 9:14 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 4:55:33 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/14/2023 1:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 8:17:31 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/13/2023 8:11 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Obviously ... but originally, you said I had no advantage. I do if my
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:04:42 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/12/2023 8:44 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:The game is Say Red and I win if I say the last card is Red and it is >>>> Red. Repeat for the next play. Repeat for the next play. I said I had >>>> an advantage in the game and you said no.
Prove that I ever said that you did not have an advantage in the game that you proposed.On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:33:15 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Thank you again for admitting I have an advantage that you initially >>>>>>> said I did not have. Confession is good for the soul.
On 11/12/2023 1:13 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:57:47 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:So, you now admit I have an advantage in the Say Red game that you >>>>>>>>> fought so hard to say I did not. Thank you for finally admitting you
On 11/11/2023 10:54 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:So do I have an advantage in the Say Red game if we play for $100 bills?
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:In weekly or monthly calendar format.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:Find where I have done so.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:Look who's talking
<snip>
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument.
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.
[You only need one!]
Don't keep running, Tim ...
You must be an idiot. Not only do you have an advantage, but I have quantified it for you. However, you are so ignorant that you cannot understand my answer, yet want to bang on about it.
were wrong about something.
Go back to bed.
Read my responses for the past few weeks, then have someone competent explain them to you. You have done nothing but embarrass yourself.
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'. If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial. Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
I said I would bet you that if we played for X a play, I would leave a >>>> winner of X after a time and that was my advantage. You said that was >>>> not an advantage. [You admit now that I do have "that" advantage.]
When X became my "bet" and the "bet" was a $100 chip, you would not play
because I would eventually win. The "odds" were too much in my favor >>>> ... because I had an advantage. [Odds in my favor is an "advantage".] >>>>
[Originally, I did not limit my "advantage" to me only having a hundred >>>> hundreds ... but you said even that advantage was way too much for you. >>>> Actually, you said only a fool would take that bet.]
Let me try one more time.
The probability that you will eventually win $1 with a bankroll of $100 at 'Say Red' (or the equivalent, a fair coin toss) is exactly 100/101. That means you have a huge advantage in playing a single time.
Try this enough times, and you will find that your expectation is exactly 0. It is a fairly simple example of the Gambler's Ruin problem.
goal is one bet. The size of the "bet" matters. I am not limited to
100 units. But I do have the advantage, no matter what the limit.
You were the one who said that you would bet $1 per time with a bankroll of $100. I never said that you would not have an advantage in a single trial. In fact, if I recall correctly, you would have an advantage, on average, up to 69 trials.Liar ... I said I had an advantage in the game. I said I would win the
one bet you had in front of you. Later I added that I had a hundred
bets bankroll and I would play for your $100 chip ... you said I had too much "advantage" for that bet ... so you ran.
Start again ... you have one chip ... I have as many chips as I want to
have ... thousands ... do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
Well? Simple question ... simple answer? Yes or No ...
On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 9:44:49 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/14/2023 9:14 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 4:55:33 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Liar ... I said I had an advantage in the game. I said I would win the
On 11/14/2023 1:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 8:17:31 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/13/2023 8:11 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Obviously ... but originally, you said I had no advantage. I do if my
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:04:42 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2023 8:44 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:The game is Say Red and I win if I say the last card is Red and it is >>>>>> Red. Repeat for the next play. Repeat for the next play. I said I had >>>>>> an advantage in the game and you said no.
Prove that I ever said that you did not have an advantage in the game that you proposed.On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:33:15 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2023 1:13 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Thank you again for admitting I have an advantage that you initially >>>>>>>>> said I did not have. Confession is good for the soul.
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:57:47 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:So, you now admit I have an advantage in the Say Red game that you >>>>>>>>>>> fought so hard to say I did not. Thank you for finally admitting you
On 11/11/2023 10:54 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:So do I have an advantage in the Say Red game if we play for $100 bills?
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:In weekly or monthly calendar format.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:Find where I have done so.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
<snip>
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look who's talking
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.
[You only need one!]
Don't keep running, Tim ...
You must be an idiot. Not only do you have an advantage, but I have quantified it for you. However, you are so ignorant that you cannot understand my answer, yet want to bang on about it.
were wrong about something.
Go back to bed.
Read my responses for the past few weeks, then have someone competent explain them to you. You have done nothing but embarrass yourself.
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'. If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial. Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
I said I would bet you that if we played for X a play, I would leave a >>>>>> winner of X after a time and that was my advantage. You said that was >>>>>> not an advantage. [You admit now that I do have "that" advantage.] >>>>>>
When X became my "bet" and the "bet" was a $100 chip, you would not play >>>>>> because I would eventually win. The "odds" were too much in my favor >>>>>> ... because I had an advantage. [Odds in my favor is an "advantage".] >>>>>>
[Originally, I did not limit my "advantage" to me only having a hundred >>>>>> hundreds ... but you said even that advantage was way too much for you. >>>>>> Actually, you said only a fool would take that bet.]
Let me try one more time.
The probability that you will eventually win $1 with a bankroll of $100 at 'Say Red' (or the equivalent, a fair coin toss) is exactly 100/101. That means you have a huge advantage in playing a single time.
Try this enough times, and you will find that your expectation is exactly 0. It is a fairly simple example of the Gambler's Ruin problem.
goal is one bet. The size of the "bet" matters. I am not limited to
100 units. But I do have the advantage, no matter what the limit.
You were the one who said that you would bet $1 per time with a bankroll of $100. I never said that you would not have an advantage in a single trial. In fact, if I recall correctly, you would have an advantage, on average, up to 69 trials.
one bet you had in front of you. Later I added that I had a hundred
bets bankroll and I would play for your $100 chip ... you said I had too
much "advantage" for that bet ... so you ran.
Start again ... you have one chip ... I have as many chips as I want to
have ... thousands ... do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
Well? Simple question ... simple answer? Yes or No ...
You clearly understand nothing about this subject.
Go and find a competent programmer who can run this as a simulation, and find out how often you gain $1, and how often you lose $100
Try 1 million trials or so. The win/loss ration should be very close to 100.
On 11/16/2023 7:42 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Wednesday, November 15, 2023 at 9:44:49 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/14/2023 9:14 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 4:55:33 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/14/2023 1:39 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Liar ... I said I had an advantage in the game. I said I would win the
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 8:17:31 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/13/2023 8:11 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Obviously ... but originally, you said I had no advantage. I do if my >>>> goal is one bet. The size of the "bet" matters. I am not limited to >>>> 100 units. But I do have the advantage, no matter what the limit.
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:04:42 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:The game is Say Red and I win if I say the last card is Red and it is >>>>>> Red. Repeat for the next play. Repeat for the next play. I said I had >>>>>> an advantage in the game and you said no.
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 9:17:18 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/12/2023 8:44 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Prove that I ever said that you did not have an advantage in the game that you proposed.
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:33:15 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Thank you again for admitting I have an advantage that you initially
On 11/12/2023 1:13 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 7:57:47 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:So, you now admit I have an advantage in the Say Red game that you
On 11/11/2023 10:54 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 10:40:45 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:So do I have an advantage in the Say Red game if we play for $100 bills?
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:21:19 PM UTC-5, Travel wrote:In weekly or monthly calendar format.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 4:16:46 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:Find where I have done so.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:51:39 PM UTC-5, VegasJerry wrote:
<snip>
And here he goes again. "Make up a fake position for me, then argue that made up position." (R)<snip>
The very definition of a strawman argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look who's talking
Either one. First, I would suggest that you look up the definition. We wouldn't want you to look stupid again.
[You only need one!]
Don't keep running, Tim ...
You must be an idiot. Not only do you have an advantage, but I have quantified it for you. However, you are so ignorant that you cannot understand my answer, yet want to bang on about it.
fought so hard to say I did not. Thank you for finally admitting you
were wrong about something.
Go back to bed.
Read my responses for the past few weeks, then have someone competent explain them to you. You have done nothing but embarrass yourself.
said I did not have. Confession is good for the soul.
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'. If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial. Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
I said I would bet you that if we played for X a play, I would leave a
winner of X after a time and that was my advantage. You said that was >>>>>> not an advantage. [You admit now that I do have "that" advantage.] >>>>>>
When X became my "bet" and the "bet" was a $100 chip, you would not play
because I would eventually win. The "odds" were too much in my favor >>>>>> ... because I had an advantage. [Odds in my favor is an "advantage".] >>>>>>
[Originally, I did not limit my "advantage" to me only having a hundred
hundreds ... but you said even that advantage was way too much for you.
Actually, you said only a fool would take that bet.]
Let me try one more time.
The probability that you will eventually win $1 with a bankroll of $100 at 'Say Red' (or the equivalent, a fair coin toss) is exactly 100/101. That means you have a huge advantage in playing a single time.
Try this enough times, and you will find that your expectation is exactly 0. It is a fairly simple example of the Gambler's Ruin problem.
You were the one who said that you would bet $1 per time with a bankroll of $100. I never said that you would not have an advantage in a single trial. In fact, if I recall correctly, you would have an advantage, on average, up to 69 trials.
one bet you had in front of you. Later I added that I had a hundred
bets bankroll and I would play for your $100 chip ... you said I had too >> much "advantage" for that bet ... so you ran.
Start again ... you have one chip ... I have as many chips as I want to >> have ... thousands ... do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
Well? Simple question ... simple answer? Yes or No ...
You clearly understand nothing about this subject.
Go and find a competent programmer who can run this as a simulation, and find out how often you gain $1, and how often you lose $100
Try 1 million trials or so. The win/loss ration should be very close to 100.Simple answer requested ... dodge received.
Start again ... you have one chip ... I have as many chips as I want to
have ... thousands ... do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:47:02 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
Simple answer requested ... dodge received.
Start again ... you have one chip ... I have as many chips as I want to
have ... thousands ... do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
Are you really an idiot, or are you afraid of the answer?
On 11/17/2023 7:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:47:02 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
Simple answer requested ... dodge received.
Start again ... you have one chip ... I have as many chips as I want to >> have ... thousands ... do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
Are you really an idiot, or are you afraid of the answer?
Neither ....
I want a "yes" or "no" "answer".
Do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
[If the answer is "no", you can provide an "explanation" of your "answer".]
On 11/17/2023 7:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:47:02 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
Simple answer requested ... dodge received.
Start again ... you have one chip ... I have as many chips as I want to >> have ... thousands ... do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
Are you really an idiot, or are you afraid of the answer?Neither ... I want a "yes" or "no" "answer".
Do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
[If the answer is "no", you can provide an "explanation" of your "answer".]
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 10:26:16 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/17/2023 7:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:47:02 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Neither ... I want a "yes" or "no" "answer".
Simple answer requested ... dodge received.
Start again ... you have one chip ... I have as many chips as I want to >>>> have ... thousands ... do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
Are you really an idiot, or are you afraid of the answer?
Do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
[If the answer is "no", you can provide an "explanation" of your "answer".]
You have simply refused to answer simple questions for weeks.
When you say "I have an advantage in this game", do you mean that you win every single time? If not, how often do you win that $1 on a $100 bankroll?
On 11/18/2023 9:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 10:26:16 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/17/2023 7:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:47:02 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> Simple answer requested ... dodge received.Neither ... I want a "yes" or "no" "answer".
Start again ... you have one chip ... I have as many chips as I want to >>>> have ... thousands ... do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip? >>>Are you really an idiot, or are you afraid of the answer?
Do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
[If the answer is "no", you can provide an "explanation" of your "answer".]
You have simply refused to answer simple questions for weeks.
When you say "I have an advantage in this game", do you mean that you win every single time? If not, how often do you win that $1 on a $100 bankroll?Keep dodging, Tim.
Original Say Red thread ... original game. I said I had an "advantage"
and you said I did not. I did not say nor did I limit my bankroll. There
was no specification of the size of the "bet".
When I offered a different "bet" and limited my bankroll ... you said
anyone who took that bet was stupid. Why would you say that unless you understood that I had the advantage?
Original game ... I said I had an "advantage" ... admit that I do.
I say I will win every single time we play when I only want one chip and
I have "lots" of bankroll. Do I need an infinite bankroll, Tim? How
much is "enough". 50/50 on each trial.
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 8:49:05 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/18/2023 9:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 10:26:16 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2023 7:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Keep dodging, Tim.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:47:02 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> Simple answer requested ... dodge received.Neither ... I want a "yes" or "no" "answer".
Start again ... you have one chip ... I have as many chips as I want to >>>>>> have ... thousands ... do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip? >>>>>Are you really an idiot, or are you afraid of the answer?
Do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
[If the answer is "no", you can provide an "explanation" of your "answer".]
You have simply refused to answer simple questions for weeks.
When you say "I have an advantage in this game", do you mean that you win every single time? If not, how often do you win that $1 on a $100 bankroll?
Original Say Red thread ... original game. I said I had an "advantage"
and you said I did not. I did not say nor did I limit my bankroll. There
was no specification of the size of the "bet".
When I offered a different "bet" and limited my bankroll ... you said
anyone who took that bet was stupid. Why would you say that unless you
understood that I had the advantage?
Original game ... I said I had an "advantage" ... admit that I do.
I say I will win every single time we play when I only want one chip and
I have "lots" of bankroll. Do I need an infinite bankroll, Tim? How
much is "enough". 50/50 on each trial.
Thank you. That is an answer. With a bankroll of $B, betting $1 each time, you will win $1 with a probability of B/(1+B), and lose your bankroll with a probability of 1/(1+B). That is some fairly simple probability theory.
On 11/19/2023 12:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 8:49:05 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/18/2023 9:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 10:26:16 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2023 7:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Keep dodging, Tim.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:47:02 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> Simple answer requested ... dodge received.Neither ... I want a "yes" or "no" "answer".
Start again ... you have one chip ... I have as many chips as I want to
have ... thousands ... do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
Are you really an idiot, or are you afraid of the answer?
Do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
[If the answer is "no", you can provide an "explanation" of your "answer".]
You have simply refused to answer simple questions for weeks.
When you say "I have an advantage in this game", do you mean that you win every single time? If not, how often do you win that $1 on a $100 bankroll?
Original Say Red thread ... original game. I said I had an "advantage"
and you said I did not. I did not say nor did I limit my bankroll. There >> was no specification of the size of the "bet".
When I offered a different "bet" and limited my bankroll ... you said
anyone who took that bet was stupid. Why would you say that unless you
understood that I had the advantage?
Original game ... I said I had an "advantage" ... admit that I do.
I say I will win every single time we play when I only want one chip and >> I have "lots" of bankroll. Do I need an infinite bankroll, Tim? How
much is "enough". 50/50 on each trial.
Thank you. That is an answer. With a bankroll of $B, betting $1 each time, you will win $1 with a probability of B/(1+B),
and lose your bankroll with a probability of 1/(1+B). That is some fairly simple probability theory.
You are a fraud, Tim.
You will not play Say Red with me because I have an "advantage" ... I.
only want one chip ... admit it.
Or run away again ...
or just change the subject.
[You only ran when I said lets play for a single black chip ... that is
when you realized I had the advantage. My "advantage" was too great. How
did you put it, only a fool would play me!]
On 11/19/2023 12:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 8:49:05 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/18/2023 9:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 10:26:16 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2023 7:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Keep dodging, Tim.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:47:02 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> Simple answer requested ... dodge received.Neither ... I want a "yes" or "no" "answer".
Start again ... you have one chip ... I have as many chips as I want to
have ... thousands ... do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
Are you really an idiot, or are you afraid of the answer?
Do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
[If the answer is "no", you can provide an "explanation" of your "answer".]
You have simply refused to answer simple questions for weeks.
When you say "I have an advantage in this game", do you mean that you win every single time? If not, how often do you win that $1 on a $100 bankroll?
Original Say Red thread ... original game. I said I had an "advantage"
and you said I did not. I did not say nor did I limit my bankroll. There >> was no specification of the size of the "bet".
When I offered a different "bet" and limited my bankroll ... you said
anyone who took that bet was stupid. Why would you say that unless you
understood that I had the advantage?
Original game ... I said I had an "advantage" ... admit that I do.
I say I will win every single time we play when I only want one chip and >> I have "lots" of bankroll. Do I need an infinite bankroll, Tim? How
much is "enough". 50/50 on each trial.
Thank you. That is an answer. With a bankroll of $B, betting $1 each time, you will win $1 with a probability of B/(1+B), and lose your bankroll with a probability of 1/(1+B). That is some fairly simple probability theory.You are a fraud, Tim.
You will not play Say Red with me because I have an "advantage" ... I
only want one chip ... admit it. Or run away again ... or just change
the subject.
[You only ran when I said lets play for a single black chip ... that is
when you realized I had the advantage. My "advantage" was too great. How
did you put it, only a fool would play me!]
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:13:49 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:.
On 11/19/2023 12:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 8:49:05 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/18/2023 9:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 10:26:16 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Keep dodging, Tim.
On 11/17/2023 7:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:47:02 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> Simple answer requested ... dodge received.Neither ... I want a "yes" or "no" "answer".
Start again ... you have one chip ... I have as many chips as I want to
have ... thousands ... do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
Are you really an idiot, or are you afraid of the answer?
Do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
[If the answer is "no", you can provide an "explanation" of your "answer".]
You have simply refused to answer simple questions for weeks.
When you say "I have an advantage in this game", do you mean that you win every single time? If not, how often do you win that $1 on a $100 bankroll?
Original Say Red thread ... original game. I said I had an "advantage" >> and you said I did not. I did not say nor did I limit my bankroll. There
was no specification of the size of the "bet".
When I offered a different "bet" and limited my bankroll ... you said >> anyone who took that bet was stupid. Why would you say that unless you >> understood that I had the advantage?
Original game ... I said I had an "advantage" ... admit that I do.
I say I will win every single time we play when I only want one chip and
I have "lots" of bankroll. Do I need an infinite bankroll, Tim? How
much is "enough". 50/50 on each trial.
Thank you. That is an answer. With a bankroll of $B, betting $1 each time, you will win $1 with a probability of B/(1+B), and lose your bankroll with a probability of 1/(1+B). That is some fairly simple probability theory.You are a fraud, Tim.
You will not play Say Red with me because I have an "advantage" ... I
only want one chip ... admit it. Or run away again ... or just change
the subject.
[You only ran when I said lets play for a single black chip ... that is when you realized I had the advantage. My "advantage" was too great. How did you put it, only a fool would play me!]
Dear God. You really are that stupid..
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:13:49 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
[You only ran when I said lets play for a single black chip ... that is
when you realized I had the advantage. My "advantage" was too great. How
did you put it, only a fool would play me!]
Dear God. You really are that stupid.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:28:23 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:13:49 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:.
On 11/19/2023 12:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 8:49:05 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:You are a fraud, Tim.
On 11/18/2023 9:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 10:26:16 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/17/2023 7:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Keep dodging, Tim.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:47:02 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>> Simple answer requested ... dodge received.Neither ... I want a "yes" or "no" "answer".
Start again ... you have one chip ... I have as many chips as I want to
have ... thousands ... do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
Are you really an idiot, or are you afraid of the answer?
Do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
[If the answer is "no", you can provide an "explanation" of your "answer".]
You have simply refused to answer simple questions for weeks.
When you say "I have an advantage in this game", do you mean that you win every single time? If not, how often do you win that $1 on a $100 bankroll?
Original Say Red thread ... original game. I said I had an "advantage" >>>>> and you said I did not. I did not say nor did I limit my bankroll. There >>>>> was no specification of the size of the "bet".
When I offered a different "bet" and limited my bankroll ... you said >>>>> anyone who took that bet was stupid. Why would you say that unless you >>>>> understood that I had the advantage?
Original game ... I said I had an "advantage" ... admit that I do.
I say I will win every single time we play when I only want one chip and >>>>> I have "lots" of bankroll. Do I need an infinite bankroll, Tim? How
much is "enough". 50/50 on each trial.
Thank you. That is an answer. With a bankroll of $B, betting $1 each time, you will win $1 with a probability of B/(1+B), and lose your bankroll with a probability of 1/(1+B). That is some fairly simple probability theory.
You will not play Say Red with me because I have an "advantage" ... I
only want one chip ... admit it. Or run away again ... or just change
the subject.
[You only ran when I said lets play for a single black chip ... that is
when you realized I had the advantage. My "advantage" was too great. How >>> did you put it, only a fool would play me!]
Dear God. You really are that stupid..
Of course not. It's just that, like the rest of the right-wingers, they've gone so far down the rabbit hole it's
too great an embarrassment to admit to having been wrong. They consider it Terminal Shame.
On 11/20/2023 6:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:13:49 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
[You only ran when I said lets play for a single black chip ... that is >> when you realized I had the advantage. My "advantage" was too great. How >> did you put it, only a fool would play me!]
Dear God. You really are that stupid.Why won't you play Say Red with me for black chips?
Is my "advantage" too much for you?
I don't think you are that stupid.
On 11/20/2023 7:07 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 4:28:23 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:13:49 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:.
On 11/19/2023 12:27 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 19, 2023 at 8:49:05 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>> On 11/18/2023 9:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:You are a fraud, Tim.
On Saturday, November 18, 2023 at 10:26:16 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Keep dodging, Tim.
On 11/17/2023 7:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:47:02 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Neither ... I want a "yes" or "no" "answer".
Simple answer requested ... dodge received.
Start again ... you have one chip ... I have as many chips as I want to
have ... thousands ... do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
Are you really an idiot, or are you afraid of the answer?
Do I have the "advantage" in winning your chip?
[If the answer is "no", you can provide an "explanation" of your "answer".]
You have simply refused to answer simple questions for weeks.
When you say "I have an advantage in this game", do you mean that you win every single time? If not, how often do you win that $1 on a $100 bankroll?
Original Say Red thread ... original game. I said I had an "advantage" >>>>> and you said I did not. I did not say nor did I limit my bankroll. There
was no specification of the size of the "bet".
When I offered a different "bet" and limited my bankroll ... you said >>>>> anyone who took that bet was stupid. Why would you say that unless you >>>>> understood that I had the advantage?
Original game ... I said I had an "advantage" ... admit that I do. >>>>>
I say I will win every single time we play when I only want one chip and
I have "lots" of bankroll. Do I need an infinite bankroll, Tim? How >>>>> much is "enough". 50/50 on each trial.
Thank you. That is an answer. With a bankroll of $B, betting $1 each time, you will win $1 with a probability of B/(1+B), and lose your bankroll with a probability of 1/(1+B). That is some fairly simple probability theory.
You will not play Say Red with me because I have an "advantage" ... I >>> only want one chip ... admit it. Or run away again ... or just change >>> the subject.
[You only ran when I said lets play for a single black chip ... that is >>> when you realized I had the advantage. My "advantage" was too great. How >>> did you put it, only a fool would play me!]
Dear God. You really are that stupid.
.Of course not. It's just that, like the rest of the right-wingers, they've gone so far down the rabbit hole it's
too great an embarrassment to admit to having been wrong. They consider it Terminal Shame.
Jerry, will you play Say Red with me for black chips?.
I think I have an "advantage" over you (and Tim) ... and Tim knows that
I do think I will leave a winner. How about it, Jerry ... are you too embarrassed to play?
On 11/20/2023 6:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:13:49 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
[You only ran when I said lets play for a single black chip ... that is >> when you realized I had the advantage. My "advantage" was too great. How >> did you put it, only a fool would play me!]
.Dear God. You really are that stupid..
Why won't you play Say Red with me for black chips?.
Is my "advantage" too much for you?
I don't think you are that stupid.
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 8:57:52 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/20/2023 6:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:13:49 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Why won't you play Say Red with me for black chips?
[You only ran when I said lets play for a single black chip ... that is >>>> when you realized I had the advantage. My "advantage" was too great. How >>>> did you put it, only a fool would play me!]
Dear God. You really are that stupid.
Is my "advantage" too much for you?
I don't think you are that stupid.
I told you, and you appear to lack the ability to understand.
I quantified the chance of your win with any particular finite bankroll.
Your claim that you would win 'every time' with a finite bankroll is simply incorrect, but cannot be settled by a single trial.
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 6:06:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
Jerry, will you play Say Red with me for black chips?.
See? Still too embarrassed to admit being wrong...
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 8:57:52 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/20/2023 6:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:13:49 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Why won't you play Say Red with me for black chips?
[You only ran when I said lets play for a single black chip ... that is >>>> when you realized I had the advantage. My "advantage" was too great. How >>>> did you put it, only a fool would play me!]
Dear God. You really are that stupid.
Is my "advantage" too much for you?
I don't think you are that stupid.
I told you, and you appear to lack the ability to understand.
I quantified the chance of your win with any particular finite bankroll.
Your claim that you would win 'every time' with a finite bankroll is simply incorrect, but cannot be settled by a single trial.
On 11/21/2023 12:17 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 6:06:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
Jerry, will you play Say Red with me for black chips?.
See? Still too embarrassed to admit being wrong...
Jerry, will you play Say Red with me for black chips?
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 10:51:46 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 11/21/2023 12:17 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 6:06:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
Jerry, will you play Say Red with me for black chips?.
See? Still too embarrassed to admit being wrong...
Jerry, will you play Say Red with me for black chips?
See?
On 11/22/2023 9:43 AM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 10:51:46 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
On 11/21/2023 12:17 PM, VegasJerry wrote:.
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 6:06:58 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
Jerry, will you play Say Red with me for black chips?.
See? Still too embarrassed to admit being wrong...
Jerry, will you play Say Red with me for black chips?
See?
We all see.
... still too embarrassed to answer a simple question..
On 11/21/2023 11:06 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 8:57:52 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/20/2023 6:28 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:13:49 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Why won't you play Say Red with me for black chips?
[You only ran when I said lets play for a single black chip ... that is >>>> when you realized I had the advantage. My "advantage" was too great. How
did you put it, only a fool would play me!]
Dear God. You really are that stupid.
Is my "advantage" too much for you?
I don't think you are that stupid.
I told you, and you appear to lack the ability to understand.With you I will bet I will win every single time ... even if it is only
I quantified the chance of your win with any particular finite bankroll. Your claim that you would win 'every time' with a finite bankroll is simply incorrect, but cannot be settled by a single trial.
a single time. That was the bet you are still running from.
I have an advantage in the Say Red game if I quit while I am ahead. And
I will get ahead, won't I Tim?
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 1:55:19 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
I have an advantage in the Say Red game if I quit while I am ahead. And
I will get ahead, won't I Tim?
Can you read for content?
You have claimed that you can win a single bet EVERY TIME, and also said above (or in the other thread) that a bankroll of $100 would suffice.
That statement is simply false.
That you continue to argue this point just makes you a crank.
That you refuse to actually test the claim via a very simple program makes you a coward.
On 11/23/2023 1:57 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 1:55:19 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
I have an advantage in the Say Red game if I quit while I am ahead. And >> I will get ahead, won't I Tim?
Can you read for content?
You have claimed that you can win a single bet EVERY TIME, and also said above (or in the other thread) that a bankroll of $100 would suffice.
That statement is simply false.
That you continue to argue this point just makes you a crank.
That you refuse to actually test the claim via a very simple program makes you a coward.
Still going all Jerry, eh?.
On 11/23/2023 1:57 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 1:55:19 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
I have an advantage in the Say Red game if I quit while I am ahead. And >> I will get ahead, won't I Tim?
Can you read for content?
You have claimed that you can win a single bet EVERY TIME, and also said above (or in the other thread) that a bankroll of $100 would suffice.
That statement is simply false.
That you continue to argue this point just makes you a crank.
That you refuse to actually test the claim via a very simple program makes you a coward.Still going all Jerry, eh?
I said I had an "advantage" in the Say Red game. You said I did not. I
said I would play until I won one bet ... and you ran from the game.
I then proposed something different ... an actual bet where we would
play where you had one bet and I had 100 bets but if I won your one bet,
I would get $100 additional from you. You said only a fool (you?) would
take that bet. Second run. [I had too much "advantage" for you.]
Since you will not take an "actual" bet on whether I will indeed win
your one dollar, you will try to redefine the word "advantage" or run
away again.
I have an "advantage" in the Say Red game if I quit when I win one chip.
Yes or no, Tim ... [we all know the answer is yes.]
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/23/2023 1:57 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 1:55:19 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Still going all Jerry, eh?
I have an advantage in the Say Red game if I quit while I am ahead. And >>>> I will get ahead, won't I Tim?
Can you read for content?
You have claimed that you can win a single bet EVERY TIME, and also said above (or in the other thread) that a bankroll of $100 would suffice.
That statement is simply false.
That you continue to argue this point just makes you a crank.
That you refuse to actually test the claim via a very simple program makes you a coward.
I said I had an "advantage" in the Say Red game. You said I did not. I
said I would play until I won one bet ... and you ran from the game.
I then proposed something different ... an actual bet where we would
play where you had one bet and I had 100 bets but if I won your one bet,
I would get $100 additional from you. You said only a fool (you?) would
take that bet. Second run. [I had too much "advantage" for you.]
Since you will not take an "actual" bet on whether I will indeed win
your one dollar, you will try to redefine the word "advantage" or run
away again.
I have an "advantage" in the Say Red game if I quit when I win one chip.
Yes or no, Tim ... [we all know the answer is yes.]
Are you mentally ill?
You made a specific claim which is wrong.
In summary, you have claimed that, betting $1 per trial with a $100 bankroll, you can get to $101 EVERY time.
Is that still your claim?
On 11/23/2023 1:16 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/23/2023 1:57 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 1:55:19 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Still going all Jerry, eh?
I have an advantage in the Say Red game if I quit while I am ahead. And >>>> I will get ahead, won't I Tim?
Can you read for content?
You have claimed that you can win a single bet EVERY TIME, and also said above (or in the other thread) that a bankroll of $100 would suffice.
That statement is simply false.
That you continue to argue this point just makes you a crank.
That you refuse to actually test the claim via a very simple program makes you a coward.
I said I had an "advantage" in the Say Red game. You said I did not. I
said I would play until I won one bet ... and you ran from the game.
I then proposed something different ... an actual bet where we would
play where you had one bet and I had 100 bets but if I won your one bet, >> I would get $100 additional from you. You said only a fool (you?) would >> take that bet. Second run. [I had too much "advantage" for you.]
Since you will not take an "actual" bet on whether I will indeed win
your one dollar, you will try to redefine the word "advantage" or run
away again.
I have an "advantage" in the Say Red game if I quit when I win one chip. >>
Yes or no, Tim ... [we all know the answer is yes.]
Are you mentally ill?
You made a specific claim which is wrong.
In summary, you have claimed that, betting $1 per trial with a $100 bankroll, you can get to $101 EVERY time.
Is that still your claim?
Well, more Jerry like every dodge..
Well?
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'.Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
On November 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'.Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length
of a trial?
--
Rich
On 11/23/2023 1:16 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/23/2023 1:57 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 1:55:19 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Still going all Jerry, eh?
I have an advantage in the Say Red game if I quit while I am ahead. And >>>> I will get ahead, won't I Tim?
Can you read for content?
You have claimed that you can win a single bet EVERY TIME, and also said above (or in the other thread) that a bankroll of $100 would suffice.
That statement is simply false.
That you continue to argue this point just makes you a crank.
That you refuse to actually test the claim via a very simple program makes you a coward.
I said I had an "advantage" in the Say Red game. You said I did not. I
said I would play until I won one bet ... and you ran from the game.
I then proposed something different ... an actual bet where we would
play where you had one bet and I had 100 bets but if I won your one bet, >> I would get $100 additional from you. You said only a fool (you?) would >> take that bet. Second run. [I had too much "advantage" for you.]
Since you will not take an "actual" bet on whether I will indeed win
your one dollar, you will try to redefine the word "advantage" or run
away again.
I have an "advantage" in the Say Red game if I quit when I win one chip. >>
Yes or no, Tim ... [we all know the answer is yes.]
Are you mentally ill?
You made a specific claim which is wrong.
In summary, you have claimed that, betting $1 per trial with a $100 bankroll, you can get to $101 EVERY time.
Is that still your claim?Well, more Jerry like every dodge. I first said I would win every time
if I quit when I won one bet ... no limit on my bankroll. You continue
to dodge that original claim of an "advantage". Why not just answer
that original claim as "correct".
While you are at it ... how about that easy calculation of just how long
it is likely for me to get ahead one bet in a 50/50 game? Half the time
it is only one play!
My second offer was an actual bet ... I bet you $100 I would win one bet from you with only 100 bets on my side ... you finally figured out I was correct ... my "advantage" was just too much for you. [I did not claim
I would win every single time ... I said I had enough to make a really
good bet. You tripped running from that simple bet.]
Well?
On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 8:17:56 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/23/2023 1:16 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Well, more Jerry like every dodge. I first said I would win every time
On 11/23/2023 1:57 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 1:55:19 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>Still going all Jerry, eh?
I have an advantage in the Say Red game if I quit while I am ahead. And >>>>>> I will get ahead, won't I Tim?
Can you read for content?
You have claimed that you can win a single bet EVERY TIME, and also said above (or in the other thread) that a bankroll of $100 would suffice.
That statement is simply false.
That you continue to argue this point just makes you a crank.
That you refuse to actually test the claim via a very simple program makes you a coward.
I said I had an "advantage" in the Say Red game. You said I did not. I >>>> said I would play until I won one bet ... and you ran from the game.
I then proposed something different ... an actual bet where we would
play where you had one bet and I had 100 bets but if I won your one bet, >>>> I would get $100 additional from you. You said only a fool (you?) would >>>> take that bet. Second run. [I had too much "advantage" for you.]
Since you will not take an "actual" bet on whether I will indeed win
your one dollar, you will try to redefine the word "advantage" or run
away again.
I have an "advantage" in the Say Red game if I quit when I win one chip. >>>>
Yes or no, Tim ... [we all know the answer is yes.]
Are you mentally ill?
You made a specific claim which is wrong.
In summary, you have claimed that, betting $1 per trial with a $100 bankroll, you can get to $101 EVERY time.
Is that still your claim?
if I quit when I won one bet ... no limit on my bankroll. You continue
to dodge that original claim of an "advantage". Why not just answer
that original claim as "correct".
While you are at it ... how about that easy calculation of just how long
it is likely for me to get ahead one bet in a 50/50 game? Half the time
it is only one play!
My second offer was an actual bet ... I bet you $100 I would win one bet
from you with only 100 bets on my side ... you finally figured out I was
correct ... my "advantage" was just too much for you. [I did not claim
I would win every single time ... I said I had enough to make a really
good bet. You tripped running from that simple bet.]
Well?
Because I bloody well answered you. It was YOU who said that a bankroll of $100 was sufficient. Yammering on doesn't change that fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin
On 11/25/2023 4:58 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 8:17:56 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/23/2023 1:16 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/23/2023 1:57 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Well, more Jerry like every dodge. I first said I would win every time
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 1:55:19 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>Still going all Jerry, eh?
I have an advantage in the Say Red game if I quit while I am ahead. And
I will get ahead, won't I Tim?
Can you read for content?
You have claimed that you can win a single bet EVERY TIME, and also said above (or in the other thread) that a bankroll of $100 would suffice.
That statement is simply false.
That you continue to argue this point just makes you a crank.
That you refuse to actually test the claim via a very simple program makes you a coward.
I said I had an "advantage" in the Say Red game. You said I did not. I >>>> said I would play until I won one bet ... and you ran from the game. >>>>
I then proposed something different ... an actual bet where we would >>>> play where you had one bet and I had 100 bets but if I won your one bet,
I would get $100 additional from you. You said only a fool (you?) would >>>> take that bet. Second run. [I had too much "advantage" for you.]
Since you will not take an "actual" bet on whether I will indeed win >>>> your one dollar, you will try to redefine the word "advantage" or run >>>> away again.
I have an "advantage" in the Say Red game if I quit when I win one chip.
Yes or no, Tim ... [we all know the answer is yes.]
Are you mentally ill?
You made a specific claim which is wrong.
In summary, you have claimed that, betting $1 per trial with a $100 bankroll, you can get to $101 EVERY time.
Is that still your claim?
if I quit when I won one bet ... no limit on my bankroll. You continue
to dodge that original claim of an "advantage". Why not just answer
that original claim as "correct".
While you are at it ... how about that easy calculation of just how long >> it is likely for me to get ahead one bet in a 50/50 game? Half the time >> it is only one play!
My second offer was an actual bet ... I bet you $100 I would win one bet >> from you with only 100 bets on my side ... you finally figured out I was >> correct ... my "advantage" was just too much for you. [I did not claim
I would win every single time ... I said I had enough to make a really
good bet. You tripped running from that simple bet.]
Well?
Because I bloody well answered you. It was YOU who said that a bankroll of $100 was sufficient. Yammering on doesn't change that fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruinNo, you did not bloody well do anything but dodge.
You finally admitted you would NOT play Say Red with me for $100 chips. Because only a fool would play ... I had too much advantage for a $100
loss. That is when you realized that I was the one that could quit
while being "one chip" ahead.
You still will not just admit that if I only want one chip, I have the advantage in the game. Why not?
You dodged my request for that easy calculation/program that would show
how long it would take me to get ahead one bet in any 50/50 game like
Say Red ... why? Coin flips type programs? Gamblers Ruin is not for
50/50 games.
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'.
If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length
of a trial?
I never calculated that. I would guess that it is about 3.
On November 25, Tim Norfolk wrote:
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'.
If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length >> of a trial?
I never calculated that. I would guess that it is about 3.The underdog will reach +100 after 3 guesses, on average?
--
Rich
On November 25, Tim Norfolk wrote:
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'.
If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length >> of a trial?
I never calculated that. I would guess that it is about 3.The underdog will reach +100 after 3 guesses, on average?
--
Rich
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on >>>>> any particular trial.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length >>>> of a trial?
I never calculated that. I would guess that it is about 3.
Just to clarify, you want the average number of coin flips (equivalent to the say red game)
for the player to lose all $100?
I will have to ponder that.
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:38:32 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/25/2023 4:58 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 8:17:56 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:No, you did not bloody well do anything but dodge.
On 11/23/2023 1:16 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/23/2023 1:57 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Well, more Jerry like every dodge. I first said I would win every time >>>> if I quit when I won one bet ... no limit on my bankroll. You continue >>>> to dodge that original claim of an "advantage". Why not just answer
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 1:55:19 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>Still going all Jerry, eh?
I have an advantage in the Say Red game if I quit while I am ahead. And
I will get ahead, won't I Tim?
Can you read for content?
You have claimed that you can win a single bet EVERY TIME, and also said above (or in the other thread) that a bankroll of $100 would suffice.
That statement is simply false.
That you continue to argue this point just makes you a crank.
That you refuse to actually test the claim via a very simple program makes you a coward.
I said I had an "advantage" in the Say Red game. You said I did not. I >>>>>> said I would play until I won one bet ... and you ran from the game. >>>>>>
I then proposed something different ... an actual bet where we would >>>>>> play where you had one bet and I had 100 bets but if I won your one bet, >>>>>> I would get $100 additional from you. You said only a fool (you?) would >>>>>> take that bet. Second run. [I had too much "advantage" for you.]
Since you will not take an "actual" bet on whether I will indeed win >>>>>> your one dollar, you will try to redefine the word "advantage" or run >>>>>> away again.
I have an "advantage" in the Say Red game if I quit when I win one chip. >>>>>>
Yes or no, Tim ... [we all know the answer is yes.]
Are you mentally ill?
You made a specific claim which is wrong.
In summary, you have claimed that, betting $1 per trial with a $100 bankroll, you can get to $101 EVERY time.
Is that still your claim?
that original claim as "correct".
While you are at it ... how about that easy calculation of just how long >>>> it is likely for me to get ahead one bet in a 50/50 game? Half the time >>>> it is only one play!
My second offer was an actual bet ... I bet you $100 I would win one bet >>>> from you with only 100 bets on my side ... you finally figured out I was >>>> correct ... my "advantage" was just too much for you. [I did not claim >>>> I would win every single time ... I said I had enough to make a really >>>> good bet. You tripped running from that simple bet.]
Well?
Because I bloody well answered you. It was YOU who said that a bankroll of $100 was sufficient. Yammering on doesn't change that fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin
You finally admitted you would NOT play Say Red with me for $100 chips.
Because only a fool would play ... I had too much advantage for a $100
loss. That is when you realized that I was the one that could quit
while being "one chip" ahead.
You still will not just admit that if I only want one chip, I have the
advantage in the game. Why not?
You dodged my request for that easy calculation/program that would show
how long it would take me to get ahead one bet in any 50/50 game like
Say Red ... why? Coin flips type programs? Gamblers Ruin is not for
50/50 games.
I sent you the necessary information.
What are you talking about? Your level of ignorance continues to expand. The link that I sent above is specifically about that case.
On November 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'.Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length
of a trial?
--
Rich
On 11/26/2023 2:23 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:38:32 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/25/2023 4:58 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 8:17:56 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>> On 11/23/2023 1:16 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:No, you did not bloody well do anything but dodge.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/23/2023 1:57 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Well, more Jerry like every dodge. I first said I would win every time >>>> if I quit when I won one bet ... no limit on my bankroll. You continue >>>> to dodge that original claim of an "advantage". Why not just answer >>>> that original claim as "correct".
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 1:55:19 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:Still going all Jerry, eh?
I have an advantage in the Say Red game if I quit while I am ahead. And
I will get ahead, won't I Tim?
Can you read for content?
You have claimed that you can win a single bet EVERY TIME, and also said above (or in the other thread) that a bankroll of $100 would suffice.
That statement is simply false.
That you continue to argue this point just makes you a crank. >>>>>>>
That you refuse to actually test the claim via a very simple program makes you a coward.
I said I had an "advantage" in the Say Red game. You said I did not. I
said I would play until I won one bet ... and you ran from the game. >>>>>>
I then proposed something different ... an actual bet where we would >>>>>> play where you had one bet and I had 100 bets but if I won your one bet,
I would get $100 additional from you. You said only a fool (you?) would
take that bet. Second run. [I had too much "advantage" for you.] >>>>>>
Since you will not take an "actual" bet on whether I will indeed win >>>>>> your one dollar, you will try to redefine the word "advantage" or run >>>>>> away again.
I have an "advantage" in the Say Red game if I quit when I win one chip.
Yes or no, Tim ... [we all know the answer is yes.]
Are you mentally ill?
You made a specific claim which is wrong.
In summary, you have claimed that, betting $1 per trial with a $100 bankroll, you can get to $101 EVERY time.
Is that still your claim?
While you are at it ... how about that easy calculation of just how long
it is likely for me to get ahead one bet in a 50/50 game? Half the time >>>> it is only one play!
My second offer was an actual bet ... I bet you $100 I would win one bet
from you with only 100 bets on my side ... you finally figured out I was
correct ... my "advantage" was just too much for you. [I did not claim >>>> I would win every single time ... I said I had enough to make a really >>>> good bet. You tripped running from that simple bet.]
Well?
Because I bloody well answered you. It was YOU who said that a bankroll of $100 was sufficient. Yammering on doesn't change that fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin
You finally admitted you would NOT play Say Red with me for $100 chips. >> Because only a fool would play ... I had too much advantage for a $100
loss. That is when you realized that I was the one that could quit
while being "one chip" ahead.
You still will not just admit that if I only want one chip, I have the
advantage in the game. Why not?
You dodged my request for that easy calculation/program that would show >> how long it would take me to get ahead one bet in any 50/50 game like
Say Red ... why? Coin flips type programs? Gamblers Ruin is not for
50/50 games.
I sent you the necessary information.
What are you talking about? Your level of ignorance continues to expand. The link that I sent above is specifically about that case.No, you dodged again.
50/50 game ... you have one bet ... I have as many as required to get
your one bet. How long does it take for me to get your one bet?
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length
of a trial?
What I have computed is
$ (B+1) \sum_{w=0}^\infty \left\{ binomial(2w+B,w)-binomial(2w-2+B,w-1)\right\} (1+2w) \left \frac{B}{B+1} \right)^w \left( \frac{1}{B+1} \right^{w+B} $
On November 27, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length
of a trial?
What I have computed is
$ (B+1) \sum_{w=0}^\infty \left\{ binomial(2w+B,w)-binomial(2w-2+B,w-1)\right\} (1+2w) \left \frac{B}{B+1} \right)^w \left( \frac{1}{B+1} \right^{w+B} $
um, can you translate that into human, or suggest a tool to translate it?
--
Rich
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 9:04:58 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 11/26/2023 2:23 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 12:38:32 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:No, you dodged again.
On 11/25/2023 4:58 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 8:17:56 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/23/2023 1:16 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:No, you did not bloody well do anything but dodge.
On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:31:06 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/23/2023 1:57 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:Well, more Jerry like every dodge. I first said I would win every time >>>>>> if I quit when I won one bet ... no limit on my bankroll. You continue >>>>>> to dodge that original claim of an "advantage". Why not just answer >>>>>> that original claim as "correct".
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 1:55:19 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>>Still going all Jerry, eh?
I have an advantage in the Say Red game if I quit while I am ahead. And
I will get ahead, won't I Tim?
Can you read for content?
You have claimed that you can win a single bet EVERY TIME, and also said above (or in the other thread) that a bankroll of $100 would suffice.
That statement is simply false.
That you continue to argue this point just makes you a crank. >>>>>>>>>
That you refuse to actually test the claim via a very simple program makes you a coward.
I said I had an "advantage" in the Say Red game. You said I did not. I >>>>>>>> said I would play until I won one bet ... and you ran from the game. >>>>>>>>
I then proposed something different ... an actual bet where we would >>>>>>>> play where you had one bet and I had 100 bets but if I won your one bet,
I would get $100 additional from you. You said only a fool (you?) would
take that bet. Second run. [I had too much "advantage" for you.] >>>>>>>>
Since you will not take an "actual" bet on whether I will indeed win >>>>>>>> your one dollar, you will try to redefine the word "advantage" or run >>>>>>>> away again.
I have an "advantage" in the Say Red game if I quit when I win one chip.
Yes or no, Tim ... [we all know the answer is yes.]
Are you mentally ill?
You made a specific claim which is wrong.
In summary, you have claimed that, betting $1 per trial with a $100 bankroll, you can get to $101 EVERY time.
Is that still your claim?
While you are at it ... how about that easy calculation of just how long >>>>>> it is likely for me to get ahead one bet in a 50/50 game? Half the time >>>>>> it is only one play!
My second offer was an actual bet ... I bet you $100 I would win one bet >>>>>> from you with only 100 bets on my side ... you finally figured out I was >>>>>> correct ... my "advantage" was just too much for you. [I did not claim >>>>>> I would win every single time ... I said I had enough to make a really >>>>>> good bet. You tripped running from that simple bet.]
Well?
Because I bloody well answered you. It was YOU who said that a bankroll of $100 was sufficient. Yammering on doesn't change that fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin
You finally admitted you would NOT play Say Red with me for $100 chips. >>>> Because only a fool would play ... I had too much advantage for a $100 >>>> loss. That is when you realized that I was the one that could quit
while being "one chip" ahead.
You still will not just admit that if I only want one chip, I have the >>>> advantage in the game. Why not?
You dodged my request for that easy calculation/program that would show >>>> how long it would take me to get ahead one bet in any 50/50 game like
Say Red ... why? Coin flips type programs? Gamblers Ruin is not for
50/50 games.
I sent you the necessary information.
What are you talking about? Your level of ignorance continues to expand. The link that I sent above is specifically about that case.
50/50 game ... you have one bet ... I have as many as required to get
your one bet. How long does it take for me to get your one bet?
You really are an idiot. This was RichD's question.
'I have as many as required..' is useless. What is your bankroll?
If I have it correct, with bankroll $B, the average time to win a net $1 is, in LaTeX,
$ \frac{B+1}{B} \sum_{w=0}^\infty \left\{ binomial(2w+1,w+1)-binomial(2w-1,w)\right\} (1+2w) \left \frac{B}{B+1} \right)^{w+1} \left( \frac{1}{B+1} \right^w $
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 4:52:19 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
On November 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'.Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length
of a trial?
--What I have computed is
Rich
$ (B+1) \sum_{w=0}^\infty \left\{ binomial(2w+B,w)-binomial(2w-2+B,w-1)\right\} (1+2w) \left \frac{B}{B+1} \right)^w \left( \frac{1}{B+1} \right^{w+B} $
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 12:07:46 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 4:52:19 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
On November 13, Tim Norfolk wrote:What I have computed is
As for your basic contention, you seem to equate 'having an advantage' with 'winning every time'.Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
If that is correct, you understand absolutely nothing about probability. >>>> Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length
of a trial?
--
Rich
$ (B+1) \sum_{w=0}^\infty \left\{ binomial(2w+B,w)-binomial(2w-2+B,w-1)\right\} (1+2w) \left \frac{B}{B+1} \right)^w \left( \frac{1}{B+1} \right^{w+B} $
You read my mind.
On November 27, Tim Norfolk wrote:.
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length >> of a trial?
What I have computed is
$ (B+1) \sum_{w=0}^\infty \left\{ binomial(2w+B,w)-binomial(2w-2+B,w-1)\right\} (1+2w) \left \frac{B}{B+1} \right)^w \left( \frac{1}{B+1} \right^{w+B} $um, can you translate that into human, or suggest a tool to translate it?
--
Rich
On November 27, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length >> of a trial?
What I have computed is
$ (B+1) \sum_{w=0}^\infty \left\{ binomial(2w+B,w)-binomial(2w-2+B,w-1)\right\} (1+2w) \left \frac{B}{B+1} \right)^w \left( \frac{1}{B+1} \right^{w+B} $um, can you translate that into human, or suggest a tool to translate it?
--
Rich
On 11/27/2023 3:17 PM, RichD wrote:
On November 27, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length >>> of a trial?
What I have computed is
$ (B+1) \sum_{w=0}^\infty \left\{ binomial(2w+B,w)-binomial(2w-2+B,w-1)\right\} (1+2w) \left \frac{B}{B+1} \right)^w \left( \frac{1}{B+1} \right^{w+B} $
um, can you translate that into human, or suggest a tool to translate it?
--It is just bullshit
Rich
On November 27, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length >> of a trial?
What I have computed is
$ (B+1) \sum_{w=0}^\infty \left\{ binomial(2w+B,w)-binomial(2w-2+B,w-1)\right\} (1+2w) \left \frac{B}{B+1} \right)^w \left( \frac{1}{B+1} \right^{w+B} $um, can you translate that into human, or suggest a tool to translate it?
--
Rich
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:39:32 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:.
On 11/27/2023 3:17 PM, RichD wrote:
On November 27, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length
of a trial?
What I have computed is
$ (B+1) \sum_{w=0}^\infty \left\{ binomial(2w+B,w)-binomial(2w-2+B,w-1)\right\} (1+2w) \left \frac{B}{B+1} \right)^w \left( \frac{1}{B+1} \right^{w+B} $
um, can you translate that into human, or suggest a tool to translate it?
More ignorance from you. You are certain about a great many things that you don't understand at all. Classic Dunning-Kruger effect.--It is just bullshit
Rich
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 4:33:50 PM UTC-8, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 5:39:32 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:.
On 11/27/2023 3:17 PM, RichD wrote:More ignorance from you. You are certain about a great many things that you don't understand at all. Classic Dunning-Kruger effect.
On November 27, Tim Norfolk wrote:It is just bullshit
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length >>>>>> of a trial?
What I have computed is
$ (B+1) \sum_{w=0}^\infty \left\{ binomial(2w+B,w)-binomial(2w-2+B,w-1)\right\} (1+2w) \left \frac{B}{B+1} \right)^w \left( \frac{1}{B+1} \right^{w+B} $
um, can you translate that into human, or suggest a tool to translate it? >>>>
--
Rich
Typical pickle doing his own Frog-March off into the sunset....
(Leaving a trail of tears and blood....)
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 4:17:07 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:The last term (corrected here) is the probability for the event in question.
On November 27, Tim Norfolk wrote:
Now, with the game that you proposed, you will have a huge advantage on any particular trial.
Starting with a bankroll of $100 and trying to win $1, you will do so with probability 100/101
However, you will lose your $100 with probability 1/101, giving the overall expectation as...0
In the set of trials where the underdog wins, what's the average length >> of a trial?
What I have computed is
$ (B+1) \sum_{w=0}^\infty \left\{ binomial(2w+B,w)-binomial(2w-2+B,w-1)\right\} (1+2w) \left \frac{B}{B+1} \right)^w \left( \frac{1}{B+1} \right^{w+B} $um, can you translate that into human, or suggest a tool to translate it?
--Basically, you have the reduced sample space, since you are assuming that the underdog won. That means dividing the raw expected value by the probability of that happening, namely 1/(B+1).
Rich
Then, take w to be the number of individual trials that the other player has won.
'binomial(m,n)' is the binomial coefficient, counting the number of ways that you can select n things from m.
In this case, you are selecting the locations for w wins and w+B losses for the other player.
The first binomial counts the number of ways that this can happen BY the (2w+B)th trial, the second term compensates for the fact that it might have happened earlier. The 1+2w should have been B+2w, the total number of trials, which we are averaging.
Corrected, this should read
$ (B+1) \sum_{w=0}^\infty \left\{ binomial(2w+B,w)-binomial(2w-2+B,w-1)\right\} (B+2w) \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^{2w+B}$
If we flip it and ask for the average length until the other player has an advantage, we get
$ (B+1)/B \sum_{w=0}^\infty \left\{ binomial(2w+1,w+1)-binomial(2w-1,w)\right\} (1+2w) \left \frac{1}{2} \right)^{2w+1} $
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 25:33:03 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,352,399 |