On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every
single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the >"advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
...
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every
single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the "advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in the
SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead" goes
... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every
single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the
"advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
...
No! Not if you consider the casino to have infinite funds and
each gambler to have finite funds. That's probably a reasonable
assumption for the thought problem because any real-world analysis
would have to include cheating by the house.
--bks
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every
single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the
"advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in the
SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead" goes
... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.
WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who is trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has this special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are simply 100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims that gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are claiming to have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even talking about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say red game - or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than the gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all of your repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit when you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an “advantage”. That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding probability, and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house can’t quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times when they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any reason. You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have written in this thread.
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 3:19:47 PM UTC-5, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4...@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who is
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>> Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every >>>>> single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the
"advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in the
SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead" goes
... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.
trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has this
special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are simply >> 100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims that >> gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are claiming to
have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even talking
about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say red game
- or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than the
gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all of your
repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit when >> you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an “advantage”. >> That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding probability, >> and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start
thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house can’t >> quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times when
they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any reason.
You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have written in >> this thread.
Surprisingly correct
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 2:19:47 PM UTC-6, Bill Vanek wrote:feature of some vp. If you won a hand you could draw for high card at no disadvantage. Double or nothing. And you could continue to double up after your double up. I saw people wagering hundreds on what started out as a $1.25 bet. Ironically the 50/
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4...@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who is
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>> Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every >>>>> single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the
"advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in the
SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead" goes
... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.
trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has this
special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are simply >> 100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims that >> gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are claiming to
have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even talking
about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say red game
- or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than the
gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all of your
repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit when >> you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an “advantage”. >> That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding probability, >> and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start
thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house can’t >> quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times when
they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any reason.
You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have written in >> this thread.
Threads go on and on and I ignore. SOS. SOSS. Extra S for "stupid". I guess I could claim to have an advantage in negative expectation games also. I'm likely to be ahead at some point, if I just quit then... I'm reminded of the old double up
C
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 2:19:47 PM UTC-6, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4...@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the "advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in the SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead" goes ... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who is trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has this special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are simply 100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims that gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are claiming to
have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even talking about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say red game
- or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than the gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all of your
repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit when you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an “advantage”. That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding probability,
and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house can’t quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times when they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any reason.
You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have written in
this thread.
Threads go on and on and I ignore. SOS. SOSS. Extra S for "stupid". I guess I could claim to have an advantage in negative expectation games also. I'm likely to be ahead at some point, if I just quit then... I'm reminded of the old double up feature of some vp. If you won a hand you could draw for high card at no disadvantage. Double or nothing. And you could continue to double up after your double up. I saw people wagering hundreds on what started out as a $1.25 bet. Ironically the 50/50 double up feature erased a sharp players advantage on the game as the wager did not accumulate club benefits. Several years ago at a local my wife accidentally touched the button to make the bet. She called a tech over to try to cancel it. One card was drawn as I recall. She had to proceed with the bet. Luck was with her and she won.
C
On 12/12/2023 2:19 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the "advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in the SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead" goes ... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.
WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who is trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has this special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are simply 100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims that gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are claiming to
have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even talking about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say red game
- or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than the gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all of your
repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit when you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an “advantage”. That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding probability,
and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house can’t quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times when they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any reason.
You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have written in
this thread.
Hi, Bill ... welcome back. We are not talking Martingale here.
Have you, Bill, ever seen a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
If you were the manager of any casino in the world, would you ever allow
a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
Do you think that it takes an infinite bankroll to not lose one bet
(net) on that wheel without a 0?
On Dec 13, 2023, C Mayhem wrote
(in article<3bd34f51-091a-4399-9ce5-beafdefcfe42n@googlegroups.com>):
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 2:19:47 PM UTC-6, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4...@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who is >>> trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has this >>> special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are simply >>> 100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims that >>> gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are claiming >>> to
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every >>>>>> single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. >>>>>> www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the
"advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in the >>>> SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead" goes >>>> ... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.
have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even talking >>> about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say red >>> game
- or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than the >>> gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all of >>> your
repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit when >>> you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an “advantage”. >>> That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding probability,
and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start
thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house can’t >>> quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times when >>> they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any
reason.
You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have written in
this thread.
Threads go on and on and I ignore. SOS. SOSS. Extra S for "stupid". I guess I
could claim to have an advantage in negative expectation games also. I'm
likely to be ahead at some point, if I just quit then... I'm reminded of the >> old double up feature of some vp. If you won a hand you could draw for high >> card at no disadvantage. Double or nothing. And you could continue to double >> up after your double up. I saw people wagering hundreds on what started out >> as a $1.25 bet. Ironically the 50/50 double up feature erased a sharp players
advantage on the game as the wager did not accumulate club benefits. Several >> years ago at a local my wife accidentally touched the button to make the bet.
She called a tech over to try to cancel it. One card was drawn as I recall. >> She had to proceed with the bet. Luck was with her and she won.
C
Caro addressed this long ago. Quitting while ahead is 100% effective, as long as you quit forever. It’s related to that thing about all of your individual sessions just being one long session.
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<P8OcnRU8KPTZQuT4nZ2dnZfqlJ_-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 2:19 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>> Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every >>>>>> single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. >>>>>> www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the
"advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in the >>>> SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead" goes >>>> ... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.
WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who is >>> trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has this >>> special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are simply >>> 100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims that >>> gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are claiming >>> to
have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even talking >>> about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say red >>> game
- or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than the >>> gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all of >>> your
repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit when >>> you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an “advantage”. >>> That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding probability,
and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start
thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house can’t >>> quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times when >>> they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any
reason.
You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have written in
this thread.
Hi, Bill ... welcome back. We are not talking Martingale here.
But you are talking about that general principle. The purpose of the small martingale is to win lots and lots and lots of small bets without losing. The drawback you are forgetting is that occasional very large loss that offsets all of those wins. You are simply denying reality. You are acting like you cannot possibly lose in your stupid proposed bet, but your stupid bet is a zero ev bet, period. We talk about real life when we talk about gambling bets, and infinity, despite what you like to think, has no place in this discussion. You really don’t seem to grasp that “approaches zero” is not at all the same thing as “reaches zero”. You are either ahead one bet, or you are not. Close doesn’t have any meaning at all.
You can ask AI (Bard, openAI...) anything you want about this. It will give the same answer - “effectively zero”, "approaches zero”, but that is not real life. We all have limited lifetimes. It will also generate python code - or I suppose any programming language you choose, and you can run Monte Carlo simulations, and you can modify the code to answer any of the other pointless questions you’ve asked Tim here. I can even the post the python code from Bard I modified. Anyone can run it and modify it. Just do some googling.
Have you, Bill, ever seen a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
Why wouldn’t there be one? They are not all in casinos, and there are other ways to set a house advantage anyway.
If you were the manager of any casino in the world, would you ever allow
a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
See above.
Do you think that it takes an infinite bankroll to not lose one bet
(net) on that wheel without a 0?
See above about that infinity thing. And run a simulation for some perspective.
On 12/13/2023 11:20 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<P8OcnRU8KPTZQuT4nZ2dnZfqlJ_-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 2:19 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every
single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the "advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in the
SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead" goes
... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.
WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who is
trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has this
special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are simply
100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims that
gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are claiming
to
have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even talking
about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say red
game
- or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than the
gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all of
your
repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit when
you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an “advantage”.
That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding probability,
and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house can’t
quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times when
they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any reason.
You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have written
in
this thread.
Hi, Bill ... welcome back. We are not talking Martingale here.
But you are talking about that general principle. The purpose of the small martingale is to win lots and lots and lots of small bets without losing. The
drawback you are forgetting is that occasional very large loss that offsets all of those wins. You are simply denying reality. You are acting like you cannot possibly lose in your stupid proposed bet, but your stupid bet is a zero ev bet, period. We talk about real life when we talk about gambling bets, and infinity, despite what you like to think, has no place in this discussion. You really don’t seem to grasp that “approaches zero” is not at all the same thing as “reaches zero”. You are either ahead one bet, or you are not. Close doesn’t have any meaning at all.
You can ask AI (Bard, openAI...) anything you want about this. It will give the same answer - “effectively zero”, "approaches zero”, but that is not real life. We all have limited lifetimes. It will also generate python code - or I suppose any programming language you choose, and you can run Monte Carlo simulations, and you can modify the code to answer any of the other pointless questions you’ve asked Tim here. I can even the post the python code from Bard I modified. Anyone can run it and modify it. Just do some googling.
Have you, Bill, ever seen a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
Why wouldn’t there be one? They are not all in casinos, and there are other
ways to set a house advantage anyway.
If you were the manager of any casino in the world, would you ever allow a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
See above.
Do you think that it takes an infinite bankroll to not lose one bet
(net) on that wheel without a 0?
See above about that infinity thing. And run a simulation for some perspective.
I am not worried about "infinity" because that is too "religious" for me.
The truth of the matter is that 50/50 odds repeated over and over and
over eventually work out to 50/50 odds. The correct answer is just that
... I need not wait for infinity to get my one result.
That is why neither you nor anyone else would take a 50/50 bet repeated
over and over until "I" stopped after one "win". You would be the one
waiting for "infinity" ... which is a long time.
On 12/13/2023 11:22 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, C Mayhem wrote
(in article<3bd34f51-091a-4399-9ce5-beafdefcfe42n@googlegroups.com>):
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 2:19:47 PM UTC-6, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4...@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every
single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the "advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in the
SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead" goes
... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who is
trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has this
special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are simply
100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims that
gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are claiming
to
have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even talking
about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say red
game
- or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than the
gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all of
your
repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit when
you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an “advantage”.
That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding probability,
and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house can’t
quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times when
they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any reason.
You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have written
in
this thread.
Threads go on and on and I ignore. SOS. SOSS. Extra S for "stupid". I guess I
could claim to have an advantage in negative expectation games also. I'm likely to be ahead at some point, if I just quit then... I'm reminded of the
old double up feature of some vp. If you won a hand you could draw for high
card at no disadvantage. Double or nothing. And you could continue to double
up after your double up. I saw people wagering hundreds on what started out
as a $1.25 bet. Ironically the 50/50 double up feature erased a sharp players
advantage on the game as the wager did not accumulate club benefits. Several
years ago at a local my wife accidentally touched the button to make the bet.
She called a tech over to try to cancel it. One card was drawn as I recall.
She had to proceed with the bet. Luck was with her and she won.
C
Caro addressed this long ago. Quitting while ahead is 100% effective, as long
as you quit forever. It’s related to that thing about all of your individual sessions just being one long session.
If "you" accept my bet offer, you need only one $100 chip ... you will
have two if you win the first try ... I will leave if I win your $100
... it is you that must wait for infinity to get all the money in the
world since you imply that I will "never" get ahead one bet during that period.
...
Have you, Bradley, ever seen a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
If you were the manager of any casino in the world, would you ever allow
a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
...
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Have you, Bradley, ever seen a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
If you were the manager of any casino in the world, would you ever allow
a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
...
I could see a low-limit roulette table as a come-on for tyros, sure.
But there would be no way to cover overhead on a game like that. It
would be like a poker room with no rake.
--bks
On 12/13/2023 11:56 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Have you, Bradley, ever seen a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
If you were the manager of any casino in the world, would you ever allow >>> a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
...
I could see a low-limit roulette table as a come-on for tyros, sure.
But there would be no way to cover overhead on a game like that. It
would be like a poker room with no rake.
You will not take the $100 bet either ... even though you "might" make >thousands ... you could win a fortune. It is so "unlikely" that you
would run from such a bet. Just like Tim.
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<2-SdnUtiE7GQc-T4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/13/2023 11:20 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<P8OcnRU8KPTZQuT4nZ2dnZfqlJ_-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 2:19 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>>> Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every >>>>>>>> single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. >>>>>>>> www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the >>>>>> "advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead". >>>>>>
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in the >>>>>> SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead" goes >>>>>> ... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.
WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who is >>>>> trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has this >>>>> special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are simply
100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims that
gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are claiming
to
have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even talking >>>>> about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say red >>>>> game
- or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than the >>>>> gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all of >>>>> your
repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit when
you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an
“advantage”.
That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding
probability,
and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start >>>>> thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house
can’t
quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times when >>>>> they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any >>>>> reason.
You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have written >>>>> in
this thread.
Hi, Bill ... welcome back. We are not talking Martingale here.
But you are talking about that general principle. The purpose of the small >>> martingale is to win lots and lots and lots of small bets without losing. >>> The
drawback you are forgetting is that occasional very large loss that offsets >>> all of those wins. You are simply denying reality. You are acting like you >>> cannot possibly lose in your stupid proposed bet, but your stupid bet is a >>> zero ev bet, period. We talk about real life when we talk about gambling >>> bets, and infinity, despite what you like to think, has no place in this >>> discussion. You really don’t seem to grasp that “approaches zero” is >>> not at all the same thing as “reaches zero”. You are either ahead one >>> bet, or you are not. Close doesn’t have any meaning at all.
You can ask AI (Bard, openAI...) anything you want about this. It will give >>> the same answer - “effectively zero”, "approaches zero”, but that is >>> not real life. We all have limited lifetimes. It will also generate python >>> code - or I suppose any programming language you choose, and you can run >>> Monte Carlo simulations, and you can modify the code to answer any of the >>> other pointless questions you’ve asked Tim here. I can even the post the >>> python code from Bard I modified. Anyone can run it and modify it. Just do >>> some googling.
Have you, Bill, ever seen a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
Why wouldn’t there be one? They are not all in casinos, and there are
other
ways to set a house advantage anyway.
If you were the manager of any casino in the world, would you ever allow >>>> a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
See above.
Do you think that it takes an infinite bankroll to not lose one bet
(net) on that wheel without a 0?
See above about that infinity thing. And run a simulation for some
perspective.
I am not worried about "infinity" because that is too "religious" for me.
The truth of the matter is that 50/50 odds repeated over and over and
over eventually work out to 50/50 odds. The correct answer is just that
... I need not wait for infinity to get my one result.
Prove it. Show the math. And odds don’t “work out” to anything. They just are.
That is why neither you nor anyone else would take a 50/50 bet repeated
over and over until "I" stopped after one "win". You would be the one
waiting for "infinity" ... which is a long time.
I will not take your bet because it is 0 EV. In other words, an utter waste of time. I’m pretty sure that’s also Tim’s reason, and the reason of anyone who understands probability.
On 12/13/2023 12:13 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<2-SdnUtiE7GQc-T4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/13/2023 11:20 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<P8OcnRU8KPTZQuT4nZ2dnZfqlJ_-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 2:19 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every
single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the
"advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in the
SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead" goes
... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.
WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who is
trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has
this
special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are simply
100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims
that
gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are claiming
to
have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even talking
about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say red
game
- or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than the
gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all of
your
repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit
when
you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an “advantage”.
That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding probability,
and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start
thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house can’t
quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times
when
they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any
reason.
You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have written
in
this thread.
Hi, Bill ... welcome back. We are not talking Martingale here.
But you are talking about that general principle. The purpose of the small
martingale is to win lots and lots and lots of small bets without losing.
The
drawback you are forgetting is that occasional very large loss that offsets
all of those wins. You are simply denying reality. You are acting like you
cannot possibly lose in your stupid proposed bet, but your stupid bet is a
zero ev bet, period. We talk about real life when we talk about gambling
bets, and infinity, despite what you like to think, has no place in this
discussion. You really don’t seem to grasp that “approaches zero” is
not at all the same thing as “reaches zero”. You are either ahead one
bet, or you are not. Close doesn’t have any meaning at all.
You can ask AI (Bard, openAI...) anything you want about this. It will give
the same answer - “effectively zero”, "approaches zero”, but that is
not real life. We all have limited lifetimes. It will also generate python
code - or I suppose any programming language you choose, and you can run
Monte Carlo simulations, and you can modify the code to answer any of the
other pointless questions you’ve asked Tim here. I can even the post the
python code from Bard I modified. Anyone can run it and modify it. Just do
some googling.
Have you, Bill, ever seen a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
Why wouldn’t there be one? They are not all in casinos, and there are other
ways to set a house advantage anyway.
If you were the manager of any casino in the world, would you ever allow
a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
See above.
Do you think that it takes an infinite bankroll to not lose one bet (net) on that wheel without a 0?
See above about that infinity thing. And run a simulation for some perspective.
I am not worried about "infinity" because that is too "religious" for me.
The truth of the matter is that 50/50 odds repeated over and over and over eventually work out to 50/50 odds. The correct answer is just that ... I need not wait for infinity to get my one result.
Prove it. Show the math. And odds don’t “work out” to anything. They just are.
That is why neither you nor anyone else would take a 50/50 bet repeated over and over until "I" stopped after one "win". You would be the one waiting for "infinity" ... which is a long time.
I will not take your bet because it is 0 EV. In other words, an utter waste of time. I’m pretty sure that’s also Tim’s reason, and the reason of anyone who understands probability.
0 EV for you ... $100 for me
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On 12/13/2023 11:56 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Have you, Bradley, ever seen a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
If you were the manager of any casino in the world, would you ever allow >>>> a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
...
I could see a low-limit roulette table as a come-on for tyros, sure.
But there would be no way to cover overhead on a game like that. It
would be like a poker room with no rake.
You will not take the $100 bet either ... even though you "might" make
thousands ... you could win a fortune. It is so "unlikely" that you
would run from such a bet. Just like Tim.
Let's say I run a roulette table with no 0 and no 00. You
can bet red or black at even money. You walk in with a
bankroll of $10. Table minimum is $5. Table maximum is
$10. Sketch out your winning strategy for me.
--bks
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<VN2dnWEapJoEaOT4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/13/2023 12:13 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<2-SdnUtiE7GQc-T4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/13/2023 11:20 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<P8OcnRU8KPTZQuT4nZ2dnZfqlJ_-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 2:19 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every >>>>>>>>>> single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. >>>>>>>>>> www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the >>>>>>>> "advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead". >>>>>>>>
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in the >>>>>>>> SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead" goes
... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.
WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who is
trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has >>>>>>> this
special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are >>>>>>> simply
100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims >>>>>>> that
gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are >>>>>>> claiming
to
have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even >>>>>>> talking
about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say red
game
- or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than the
gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all of
your
repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit >>>>>>> when
you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an
“advantage”.
That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding
probability,
and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start >>>>>>> thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house >>>>>>> can’t
quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times >>>>>>> when
they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any >>>>>>> reason.
You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have >>>>>>> written
in
this thread.
Hi, Bill ... welcome back. We are not talking Martingale here.
But you are talking about that general principle. The purpose of the small
martingale is to win lots and lots and lots of small bets without losing. >>>>> The
drawback you are forgetting is that occasional very large loss that
offsets
all of those wins. You are simply denying reality. You are acting like you
cannot possibly lose in your stupid proposed bet, but your stupid bet is a
zero ev bet, period. We talk about real life when we talk about gambling >>>>> bets, and infinity, despite what you like to think, has no place in this >>>>> discussion. You really don’t seem to grasp that “approaches zero” is
not at all the same thing as “reaches zero”. You are either ahead one >>>>> bet, or you are not. Close doesn’t have any meaning at all.
You can ask AI (Bard, openAI...) anything you want about this. It will >>>>> give
the same answer - “effectively zero”, "approaches zero”, but that is
not real life. We all have limited lifetimes. It will also generate python
code - or I suppose any programming language you choose, and you can run >>>>> Monte Carlo simulations, and you can modify the code to answer any of the >>>>> other pointless questions you’ve asked Tim here. I can even the post the
python code from Bard I modified. Anyone can run it and modify it. Just do
some googling.
Have you, Bill, ever seen a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
Why wouldn’t there be one? They are not all in casinos, and there are >>>>> other
ways to set a house advantage anyway.
If you were the manager of any casino in the world, would you ever allow >>>>>> a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
See above.
Do you think that it takes an infinite bankroll to not lose one bet >>>>>> (net) on that wheel without a 0?
See above about that infinity thing. And run a simulation for some
perspective.
I am not worried about "infinity" because that is too "religious" for me. >>>>
The truth of the matter is that 50/50 odds repeated over and over and
over eventually work out to 50/50 odds. The correct answer is just that >>>> ... I need not wait for infinity to get my one result.
Prove it. Show the math. And odds don’t “work out” to anything. They >>> just are.
That is why neither you nor anyone else would take a 50/50 bet repeated >>>> over and over until "I" stopped after one "win". You would be the one
waiting for "infinity" ... which is a long time.
I will not take your bet because it is 0 EV. In other words, an utter waste >>> of time. I’m pretty sure that’s also Tim’s reason, and the reason of >>> anyone who understands probability.
0 EV for you ... $100 for me
You have already redefined Say Red, and the word “advantage”, so you might as well redefine EV to whatever you want.
You can’t have this both ways. You can’t say that in real life you will always get ahead one bet within some reasonable time - like long before you go broke, and then talk about infinity, too. Bankrolls are finite, and human lifetimes are finite.
On 12/13/2023 12:28 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<VN2dnWEapJoEaOT4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/13/2023 12:13 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<2-SdnUtiE7GQc-T4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/13/2023 11:20 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<P8OcnRU8KPTZQuT4nZ2dnZfqlJ_-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 2:19 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle
wrote:
Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on
every
single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the
"advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in
the
SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead"
goes
... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.
WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who
is
trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has
this
special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are
simply
100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims
that
gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are
claiming
to
have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even
talking
about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say
red
game
- or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than
the
gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all
of
your
repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit
when
you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an “advantage”.
That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding probability,
and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start
thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house
can’t
quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times
when
they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any
reason.
You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have
written
in
this thread.
Hi, Bill ... welcome back. We are not talking Martingale here.
But you are talking about that general principle. The purpose of the
small
martingale is to win lots and lots and lots of small bets without losing.
The
drawback you are forgetting is that occasional very large loss that offsets
all of those wins. You are simply denying reality. You are acting like
you
cannot possibly lose in your stupid proposed bet, but your stupid bet
is a
zero ev bet, period. We talk about real life when we talk about gambling
bets, and infinity, despite what you like to think, has no place in this
discussion. You really don’t seem to grasp that “approaches zero”
is
not at all the same thing as “reaches zero”. You are either ahead
one
bet, or you are not. Close doesn’t have any meaning at all.
You can ask AI (Bard, openAI...) anything you want about this. It will
give
the same answer - “effectively zero”, "approaches zero”, but that
is
not real life. We all have limited lifetimes. It will also generate python
code - or I suppose any programming language you choose, and you can run
Monte Carlo simulations, and you can modify the code to answer any of
the
other pointless questions you’ve asked Tim here. I can even the post
the
python code from Bard I modified. Anyone can run it and modify it. Just
do
some googling.
Have you, Bill, ever seen a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
Why wouldn’t there be one? They are not all in casinos, and there are
other
ways to set a house advantage anyway.
If you were the manager of any casino in the world, would you ever
allow
a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
See above.
Do you think that it takes an infinite bankroll to not lose one bet
(net) on that wheel without a 0?
See above about that infinity thing. And run a simulation for some perspective.
I am not worried about "infinity" because that is too "religious" for me.
The truth of the matter is that 50/50 odds repeated over and over and over eventually work out to 50/50 odds. The correct answer is just that
... I need not wait for infinity to get my one result.
Prove it. Show the math. And odds don’t “work out” to anything. They
just are.
That is why neither you nor anyone else would take a 50/50 bet repeated
over and over until "I" stopped after one "win". You would be the one waiting for "infinity" ... which is a long time.
I will not take your bet because it is 0 EV. In other words, an utter waste
of time. I’m pretty sure that’s also Tim’s reason, and the reason of
anyone who understands probability.
0 EV for you ... $100 for me
You have already redefined Say Red, and the word “advantage”, so you might as well redefine EV to whatever you want.
You can’t have this both ways. You can’t say that in real life you will always get ahead one bet within some reasonable time - like long before you go broke, and then talk about infinity, too. Bankrolls are finite, and human
lifetimes are finite.
You are so correct ... are you in for my offer to play. You only need
one hundred. You could win my entire net worth.
On 12/13/2023 12:57 PM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
...
Let's say I run a roulette table with no 0 and no 00. You
can bet red or black at even money. You walk in with a
bankroll of $10. Table minimum is $5. Table maximum is
$10. Sketch out your winning strategy for me.
I would have to have a LOT more money before I attempted to win $5 with
a ten dollar bankroll.
...
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
You are so correct ... are you in for my offer to play. You only need
one hundred. You could win my entire net worth.
Why do you repeatedly ask everyone here that question that you think is some sort of gotcha? It’s not a gotcha by any means. It’s a waste of time. It’s an even money bet inside of a risk of ruin wrapper that you have arbitrarily structured at 100:1. BTW, I really believe that you have very little concept of your risk. I have run the simulations, so I know the answer, but what do you think is the chance that you will never get ahead one bet in a series of 1,000 even money bets? I ran 1000 simulations of that. How many of those 1,000 do you suppose left you less than one bet ahead? You can do that calculation with math, too, but I doubt you bothered.
da pickle <jcpickels@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On 12/13/2023 12:57 PM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
...
Let's say I run a roulette table with no 0 and no 00. You
can bet red or black at even money. You walk in with a
bankroll of $10. Table minimum is $5. Table maximum is
$10. Sketch out your winning strategy for me.
I would have to have a LOT more money before I attempted to win $5 with
a ten dollar bankroll.
...
Case closed!
--bks
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:22:47 AM UTC-6, Bill Vanek wrote:and quickly saw a tiny fitty cent play, but at good numbers. I fast tapped to the bonus and it did not go well even at good numbers. I netted an entire 10 cents. I guess I could have stopped there and called myself a sharp gambler.
On Dec 13, 2023, C Mayhem wrote
(in article<3bd34f51-091a-4399...@googlegroups.com>):
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 2:19:47 PM UTC-6, Bill Vanek wrote:Caro addressed this long ago. Quitting while ahead is 100% effective, as long
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4...@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who is >>>> trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has this >>>> special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are simply >>>> 100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims that >>>> gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are claiming >>>> to
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every >>>>>>> single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. >>>>>>> www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the >>>>> "advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in the >>>>> SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead" goes >>>>> ... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.
have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even talking >>>> about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say red >>>> game
- or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than the >>>> gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all of >>>> your
repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit when >>>> you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an “advantage”.
That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding probability,
and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start
thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house can’t
quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times when >>>> they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any
reason.
You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have written in
this thread.
Threads go on and on and I ignore. SOS. SOSS. Extra S for "stupid". I guess I
could claim to have an advantage in negative expectation games also. I'm >>> likely to be ahead at some point, if I just quit then... I'm reminded of the
old double up feature of some vp. If you won a hand you could draw for high >>> card at no disadvantage. Double or nothing. And you could continue to double
up after your double up. I saw people wagering hundreds on what started out >>> as a $1.25 bet. Ironically the 50/50 double up feature erased a sharp players
advantage on the game as the wager did not accumulate club benefits. Several
years ago at a local my wife accidentally touched the button to make the bet.
She called a tech over to try to cancel it. One card was drawn as I recall. >>> She had to proceed with the bet. Luck was with her and she won.
C
as you quit forever. It’s related to that thing about all of your
individual sessions just being one long session.
Yeah, I don't think I need an expert to tell me if I don't play a game I can't lose.... after all, I have the geniuses at RGP for nuggets of wisdom like that.
The wife was going to the local casino yesterday afternoon to pick up free crap. I was back from work. I had no interest in free crap but she was driving. I tagged along to do a quick scout of opportunities and take home a free dinner. I walked in
C
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 1:28:15 PM UTC-5, Bill Vanek wrote:
You can’t have this both ways. You can’t say that in real life you will >> always get ahead one bet within some reasonable time - like long before you >> go broke, and then talk about infinity, too. Bankrolls are finite, and human >> lifetimes are finite.
More than that. If his strategy actually 'always' worked, then it would equally apply to millions of punters, rather than one person playing by themself. The casinos would never make money.
But Pickle seems to think that no one else has ever thought of this, and that he is the only one with this special insight. That’s why he is keeping it secret...
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 1:28:15 PM UTC-5, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<VN2dnWEapJoEaOT4...@giganews.com>):
On 12/13/2023 12:13 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<2-SdnUtiE7GQc-T4...@giganews.com>):
On 12/13/2023 11:20 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<P8OcnRU8KPTZQuT4...@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 2:19 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4...@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle
wrote:
Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on
every
single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the
"advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in
the
SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead"
goes
... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.
WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who
is
trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has
this
special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are
simply
100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims
that
gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are
claiming
to
have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even
talking
about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say
red
game
- or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than
the
gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all
of
your
repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit
when
you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an “advantage”.
That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding probability,
and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start
thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house
can’t
quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times
when
they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any
reason.
You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have
written
in
this thread.
Hi, Bill ... welcome back. We are not talking Martingale here.
But you are talking about that general principle. The purpose of the
small
martingale is to win lots and lots and lots of small bets without losing.
The
drawback you are forgetting is that occasional very large loss that offsets
all of those wins. You are simply denying reality. You are acting like
you
cannot possibly lose in your stupid proposed bet, but your stupid bet
is a
zero ev bet, period. We talk about real life when we talk about gambling
bets, and infinity, despite what you like to think, has no place in this
discussion. You really don’t seem to grasp that “approaches zero”
is
not at all the same thing as “reaches zero”. You are either ahead
one
bet, or you are not. Close doesn’t have any meaning at all.
You can ask AI (Bard, openAI...) anything you want about this. It will
give
the same answer - “effectively zero”, "approaches zero”, but that
is
not real life. We all have limited lifetimes. It will also generate python
code - or I suppose any programming language you choose, and you can run
Monte Carlo simulations, and you can modify the code to answer any of
the
other pointless questions you’ve asked Tim here. I can even the post
the
python code from Bard I modified. Anyone can run it and modify it. Just
do
some googling.
Have you, Bill, ever seen a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
Why wouldn’t there be one? They are not all in casinos, and there are
other
ways to set a house advantage anyway.
If you were the manager of any casino in the world, would you ever
allow
a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
See above.
Do you think that it takes an infinite bankroll to not lose one bet
(net) on that wheel without a 0?
See above about that infinity thing. And run a simulation for some perspective.
I am not worried about "infinity" because that is too "religious" for me.
The truth of the matter is that 50/50 odds repeated over and over and over eventually work out to 50/50 odds. The correct answer is just that
... I need not wait for infinity to get my one result.
Prove it. Show the math. And odds don’t “work out” to anything. They
just are.
That is why neither you nor anyone else would take a 50/50 bet repeated
over and over until "I" stopped after one "win". You would be the one waiting for "infinity" ... which is a long time.
I will not take your bet because it is 0 EV. In other words, an utter waste
of time. I’m pretty sure that’s also Tim’s reason, and the reason of
anyone who understands probability.
0 EV for you ... $100 for meYou have already redefined Say Red, and the word “advantage”, so you might as well redefine EV to whatever you want.
You can’t have this both ways. You can’t say that in real life you will always get ahead one bet within some reasonable time - like long before you go broke, and then talk about infinity, too. Bankrolls are finite, and human
lifetimes are finite.
More than that. If his strategy actually 'always' worked, then it would equally apply to millions of punters, rather than one person playing by themself. The casinos would never make money.
On 12/13/2023 6:15 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
You are so correct ... are you in for my offer to play. You only need
one hundred. You could win my entire net worth.
Why do you repeatedly ask everyone here that question that you think is some
sort of gotcha? It’s not a gotcha by any means. It’s a waste of time. It’s an even money bet inside of a risk of ruin wrapper that you have arbitrarily structured at 100:1. BTW, I really believe that you have very little concept of your risk. I have run the simulations, so I know the answer, but what do you think is the chance that you will never get ahead one
bet in a series of 1,000 even money bets? I ran 1000 simulations of that. How
many of those 1,000 do you suppose left you less than one bet ahead? You can
do that calculation with math, too, but I doubt you bothered.
I cannot "do the math" that "you" did ... you did not show the math so I cannot comment on what you did.
On 12/14/2023 12:51 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
But Pickle seems to think that no one else has ever thought of this, and that
he is the only one with this special insight. That’s why he is keeping it secret...
No secret ... he who quits with one net win in coin flips is the winner.
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:44:16 AM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:
On 12/12/2023 9:34 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 3:19:47 PM UTC-5, Bill Vanek wrote:Have you, Tim, ever seen a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
On Dec 12, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<9tOdnd_1kJjqLOX4...@giganews.com>):
On 12/12/2023 11:15 AM, Tim Norfolk wrote:WTF happened to you? You are sounding like a moderately smart guy who is >>>> trying to convince everyone that he is really, really smart, and has this >>>> special insight into this issue that no one else can grasp. You are simply >>>> 100% wrong, and you are simply repeating all of the simplistic claims that >>>> gamblers have come up with over the years, over and over. You are claiming to
On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:02:10 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote: >>>>>>> Why do casinos put a 0 or even a 00 too or even 000 on some on every >>>>>>> single roulette wheel in every casino in the world?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. >>>>>>> www.avg.com
Because that is where their advantage comes from.
Correct, but if they did NOT have a zero, the players would have the >>>>> "advantage." Because only they could stop while they were "ahead".
Good dodge, Tim. But I still win every "single" time I play you in the >>>>> SAY RED game. We will trade back and forth as far as being "ahead" goes >>>>> ... but only I get to "stop" while I am ahead. My advantage.
Crawl back in your hole.
have a method to win every time in say red, but you aren’t even talking >>>> about say red, you are talking about a bet that wraps around the say red game
- or really any even money game, and that involves nothing more than the >>>> gamblers ruin issue, which Tim has clearly explained to you. What all of your
repetitive posts boil down to is that you think that if you only quit when >>>> you’re ahead, you will win in the long run - you have an “advantage”.
That is like the absolute dumbest thing you can think regarding probability,
and is the first thing dumb people come up with when they first start
thinking about winning at gambling.
And BTW, more of your ignorance shows when you claim that the house can’t
quit when it’s ahead. More nonsense. Casinos quit on me many times when >>>> they were ahead at blackjack. They can quit anytime they want for any reason.
You are divorced from reality regarding every last thing you have written in
this thread.
Surprisingly correct
If you were the manager of any casino in the world, would you ever allow
a roulette wheel without at least one 0?
Do you think that it takes an infinite bankroll to not lose one bet
(net) on that wheel without a 0?
No. For the reason that I gave above. I do suppose that they could have one, and charge some direct amount to play, like a seat charge. However, I recall in Atlantic City, watching people walk past the single 0 wheel to play the double 0 one.
On 12/13/2023 6:15 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
You are so correct ... are you in for my offer to play. You only need
one hundred. You could win my entire net worth.
Why do you repeatedly ask everyone here that question that you think is some
sort of gotcha? It’s not a gotcha by any means. It’s a waste of time. It’s an even money bet inside of a risk of ruin wrapper that you have arbitrarily structured at 100:1. BTW, I really believe that you have very little concept of your risk. I have run the simulations, so I know the answer, but what do you think is the chance that you will never get ahead one
bet in a series of 1,000 even money bets? I ran 1000 simulations of that. How
many of those 1,000 do you suppose left you less than one bet ahead? You can
do that calculation with math, too, but I doubt you bothered.
I cannot "do the math" that "you" did ... you did not show the math so I cannot comment on what you did.
You fail to understand the "bet" (or bets, there have been several).
I will limit my "bankroll" to $100 ... you only need one dollar. I bet
you my hundred that you will lose your one. We play until I either win
your dollar and you pay me $100 or you win my $100.
Now you see why Tim ran away from the bet.
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<cKmdnY0eeJoqz-b4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 12:51 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
But Pickle seems to think that no one else has ever thought of this, and >>> that
he is the only one with this special insight. That’s why he is keeping it >>> secret...
No secret ... he who quits with one net win in coin flips is the winner.
But he does not have an advantage. You are in a group that was intended to discuss gambling, and “advantage” has an agreed on definition that you are ignoring. It means +EV, and your made up game is not +EV.
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<n6ydnQkAu-hTYuf4nZ2dnZfqlJz-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/13/2023 6:15 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
You are so correct ... are you in for my offer to play. You only need
one hundred. You could win my entire net worth.
Why do you repeatedly ask everyone here that question that you think is some
sort of gotcha? It’s not a gotcha by any means. It’s a waste of time. >>> It’s an even money bet inside of a risk of ruin wrapper that you have
arbitrarily structured at 100:1. BTW, I really believe that you have very >>> little concept of your risk. I have run the simulations, so I know the
answer, but what do you think is the chance that you will never get ahead >>> one
bet in a series of 1,000 even money bets? I ran 1000 simulations of that. >>> How
many of those 1,000 do you suppose left you less than one bet ahead? You can
do that calculation with math, too, but I doubt you bothered.
I cannot "do the math" that "you" did ... you did not show the math so I
cannot comment on what you did.
I didn’t do any math, and never said I did. I suck at it. It’s Tim’s job, but you ignore him, too.
Once again, this version of gamblers ruin might be the simplest to solve in all of probability: if you have x bets, and your opponent has y bets in an even money game, then your odds of your opponent losing all his chips against you losing all yours are x:y. So in your stupid game, it’s 100:1. If you had two bets to your opponent’s one, it’s 2:1. Why don’t you stick to a 2:1 game so you can see the flaw in your thinking? You keep talking about people “running away” from your bet. No one is running away, but everyone is declining because it’s so dumb and pointless and such a waste of time. It’s like flipping coins, but with the added torture of a gimmick that kicks the variance up so much that even a sick gambler who likes to bet on anything would laugh at this. I don’t think anyone here can understand the point you are trying to make, except to claim some imaginary insight, and to bash Tim, and try to prove that you are smarter than him. You might be smarter, you might not, but you are way behind when it comes to math. He taught it, you make it up.
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<n6ydnQkAu-hTYuf4nZ2dnZfqlJz-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/13/2023 6:15 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
You are so correct ... are you in for my offer to play. You only need
one hundred. You could win my entire net worth.
Why do you repeatedly ask everyone here that question that you think is some
sort of gotcha? It’s not a gotcha by any means. It’s a waste of time. >>> It’s an even money bet inside of a risk of ruin wrapper that you have
arbitrarily structured at 100:1. BTW, I really believe that you have very >>> little concept of your risk. I have run the simulations, so I know the
answer, but what do you think is the chance that you will never get ahead >>> one
bet in a series of 1,000 even money bets? I ran 1000 simulations of that. >>> How
many of those 1,000 do you suppose left you less than one bet ahead? You can
do that calculation with math, too, but I doubt you bothered.
I cannot "do the math" that "you" did ... you did not show the math so I
cannot comment on what you did.
You fail to understand the "bet" (or bets, there have been several).
I will limit my "bankroll" to $100 ... you only need one dollar. I bet
you my hundred that you will lose your one. We play until I either win
your dollar and you pay me $100 or you win my $100.
Now you see why Tim ran away from the bet.
WTF? I decided to reread this after I noticed that “there have been several” above. In one place you say I only need one dollar. But two sentences down, I have to pay you $100. So do I need one dollar, or one hundred? WTF are you doing?
On 12/14/2023 1:34 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<cKmdnY0eeJoqz-b4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 12:51 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
But Pickle seems to think that no one else has ever thought of this, and
that
he is the only one with this special insight. That’s why he is keeping
it
secret...
No secret ... he who quits with one net win in coin flips is the winner.
But he does not have an advantage. You are in a group that was intended to discuss gambling, and “advantage” has an agreed on definition that you are ignoring. It means +EV, and your made up game is not +EV.
So, you determine what I mean when I say "advantage" ... I say the
person who can quit in a coin game when he is ahead one bet has an "advantage" over someone who wants to play some more.
Sorry, you and
Tim can take your "definitions" to a different site.
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<eImdnUaXt_vQ-eb4nZ2dnZfqlJz-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 1:34 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<cKmdnY0eeJoqz-b4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 12:51 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:But he does not have an advantage. You are in a group that was intended to >>> discuss gambling, and “advantage” has an agreed on definition that you >>> are ignoring. It means +EV, and your made up game is not +EV.
But Pickle seems to think that no one else has ever thought of this, and >>>>> that
he is the only one with this special insight. That’s why he is keeping >>>>> it
secret...
No secret ... he who quits with one net win in coin flips is the winner. >>>
So, you determine what I mean when I say "advantage" ... I say the
person who can quit in a coin game when he is ahead one bet has an
"advantage" over someone who wants to play some more.
No, what you’re saying is that if you make up an artificial and absurd game where you are very likely to win, then you are very likely to win in that game. Who is going to win more bets in blackjack? An expert card counter, or the house? Does that side have the advantage?
Sorry, you and
Tim can take your "definitions" to a different site.
Like... to a gambling site?
On 12/14/2023 3:53 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<eImdnUaXt_vQ-eb4nZ2dnZfqlJz-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 1:34 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<cKmdnY0eeJoqz-b4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 12:51 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
But Pickle seems to think that no one else has ever thought of this, and
that
he is the only one with this special insight. That’s why he is keeping
it
secret...
No secret ... he who quits with one net win in coin flips is the winner.
But he does not have an advantage. You are in a group that was intended to
discuss gambling, and “advantage” has an agreed on definition that you
are ignoring. It means +EV, and your made up game is not +EV.
So, you determine what I mean when I say "advantage" ... I say the
person who can quit in a coin game when he is ahead one bet has an "advantage" over someone who wants to play some more.
No, what you’re saying is that if you make up an artificial and absurd game
where you are very likely to win, then you are very likely to win in that game. Who is going to win more bets in blackjack? An expert card counter, or
the house? Does that side have the advantage?
I did not make up the game or the bet. Don't change the subject.
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<H8ednYzMAup85ub4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 3:53 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<eImdnUaXt_vQ-eb4nZ2dnZfqlJz-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 1:34 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<cKmdnY0eeJoqz-b4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 12:51 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:But he does not have an advantage. You are in a group that was intended to
But Pickle seems to think that no one else has ever thought of this, and
that
he is the only one with this special insight. That’s why he is keeping
it
secret...
No secret ... he who quits with one net win in coin flips is the winner. >>>>>
discuss gambling, and “advantage” has an agreed on definition that you
are ignoring. It means +EV, and your made up game is not +EV.
So, you determine what I mean when I say "advantage" ... I say the
person who can quit in a coin game when he is ahead one bet has an
"advantage" over someone who wants to play some more.
No, what you’re saying is that if you make up an artificial and absurd >>> game
where you are very likely to win, then you are very likely to win in that >>> game. Who is going to win more bets in blackjack? An expert card counter, or
the house? Does that side have the advantage?
I did not make up the game or the bet. Don't change the subject.
Yes, you did make up the bet. If you read what you wrote, you are asking your opponent who is fighting 100:1 odds AGAINST him, to *pay* *you* 100 to 1. So when you win those 100 times out of 101, you win a total of $10,000. And when he wins 1 time out of 101, he wins a total of $100. Were you aware of this? I really have no idea, or if you just changed the wording - again - recently. You also said that there have been “several” bets, all offered by you. Why don’t you list them, and tell us why you abandoned each one.
Or maybe you can just quit pounding on Tim and everyone who agrees with him, and just admit that you are being a dick. No need to even explain why. I hate his politics, too, but I don’t find that a reason to attack his math.
On 12/14/2023 5:16 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<H8ednYzMAup85ub4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 3:53 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<eImdnUaXt_vQ-eb4nZ2dnZfqlJz-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 1:34 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<cKmdnY0eeJoqz-b4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 12:51 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
But Pickle seems to think that no one else has ever thought of this,
and
that
he is the only one with this special insight. That’s why he is
keeping
it
secret...
No secret ... he who quits with one net win in coin flips is the winner.
But he does not have an advantage. You are in a group that was intended
to
discuss gambling, and “advantage” has an agreed on definition that
you
are ignoring. It means +EV, and your made up game is not +EV.
So, you determine what I mean when I say "advantage" ... I say the person who can quit in a coin game when he is ahead one bet has an "advantage" over someone who wants to play some more.
No, what you’re saying is that if you make up an artificial and absurd
game
where you are very likely to win, then you are very likely to win in that
game. Who is going to win more bets in blackjack? An expert card counter,
or
the house? Does that side have the advantage?
I did not make up the game or the bet. Don't change the subject.
Yes, you did make up the bet. If you read what you wrote, you are asking your
opponent who is fighting 100:1 odds AGAINST him, to *pay* *you* 100 to 1. So
when you win those 100 times out of 101, you win a total of $10,000. And when
he wins 1 time out of 101, he wins a total of $100. Were you aware of this? I
really have no idea, or if you just changed the wording - again - recently. You also said that there have been “several” bets, all offered by you. Why don’t you list them, and tell us why you abandoned each one.
Or maybe you can just quit pounding on Tim and everyone who agrees with him,
and just admit that you are being a dick. No need to even explain why. I hate
his politics, too, but I don’t find that a reason to attack his math.
I only win once ... whether he wants to deny it or not. You keep
changes the "rules". I have no idea of what his math might be.
You would not play the 50/50 game with me for a single $100 chip. I
would be extremely likely to win your chip... you might win a chip or so
from me along the way ... but you cannot quit, only I can quit when you
lose your one chip. That is the only thing that is under discussion.
You still will not play for the loss of $100 possible when you possibly
could win thousands ... why not?
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<d4udnRIoDYSqD-b4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 5:16 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<H8ednYzMAup85ub4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 3:53 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<eImdnUaXt_vQ-eb4nZ2dnZfqlJz-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 1:34 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<cKmdnY0eeJoqz-b4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 12:51 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
But Pickle seems to think that no one else has ever thought of this, >>>>>>>>> and
that
he is the only one with this special insight. That’s why he is >>>>>>>>> keeping
it
secret...
No secret ... he who quits with one net win in coin flips is the >>>>>>>> winner.
But he does not have an advantage. You are in a group that was intended >>>>>>> to
discuss gambling, and “advantage” has an agreed on definition that >>>>>>> you
are ignoring. It means +EV, and your made up game is not +EV.
So, you determine what I mean when I say "advantage" ... I say the >>>>>> person who can quit in a coin game when he is ahead one bet has an >>>>>> "advantage" over someone who wants to play some more.
No, what you’re saying is that if you make up an artificial and absurd >>>>> game
where you are very likely to win, then you are very likely to win in that >>>>> game. Who is going to win more bets in blackjack? An expert card counter, >>>>> or
the house? Does that side have the advantage?
I did not make up the game or the bet. Don't change the subject.
Yes, you did make up the bet. If you read what you wrote, you are asking >>> your
opponent who is fighting 100:1 odds AGAINST him, to *pay* *you* 100 to 1. So
when you win those 100 times out of 101, you win a total of $10,000. And >>> when
he wins 1 time out of 101, he wins a total of $100. Were you aware of this? >>> I
really have no idea, or if you just changed the wording - again - recently. >>> You also said that there have been “several” bets, all offered by you. >>> Why don’t you list them, and tell us why you abandoned each one.
Or maybe you can just quit pounding on Tim and everyone who agrees with him,
and just admit that you are being a dick. No need to even explain why. I >>> hate
his politics, too, but I don’t find that a reason to attack his math.
I only win once ... whether he wants to deny it or not. You keep
changes the "rules". I have no idea of what his math might be.
You would not play the 50/50 game with me for a single $100 chip. I
would be extremely likely to win your chip... you might win a chip or so
from me along the way ... but you cannot quit, only I can quit when you
lose your one chip. That is the only thing that is under discussion.
You still will not play for the loss of $100 possible when you possibly
could win thousands ... why not?
Your brain is broken. The outcome of that single trial might be 50/50, but you want 100:1 on that bet. Do you see the problem? The second problem is your claim that I could win thousands. How could I do that? You have a $100 bankroll. That’s *your* rule, isn’t it? The third problem is your same claim in parallel with another claim that you are going to play until you are one chip ahead, period. If you will never quit when you are not ahead, I can never collect anything. Are you aware of any of this?
On 12/14/2023 5:48 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<d4udnRIoDYSqD-b4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 5:16 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<H8ednYzMAup85ub4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 3:53 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<eImdnUaXt_vQ-eb4nZ2dnZfqlJz-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 1:34 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<cKmdnY0eeJoqz-b4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 12:51 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
But Pickle seems to think that no one else has ever thought of this,
and
that
he is the only one with this special insight. That’s why he is
keeping
it
secret...
No secret ... he who quits with one net win in coin flips is the
winner.
But he does not have an advantage. You are in a group that was intended
to
discuss gambling, and “advantage” has an agreed on definition that
you
are ignoring. It means +EV, and your made up game is not +EV.
So, you determine what I mean when I say "advantage" ... I say the
person who can quit in a coin game when he is ahead one bet has an
"advantage" over someone who wants to play some more.
No, what you’re saying is that if you make up an artificial and absurd
game
where you are very likely to win, then you are very likely to win in
that
game. Who is going to win more bets in blackjack? An expert card counter,
or
the house? Does that side have the advantage?
I did not make up the game or the bet. Don't change the subject.
Yes, you did make up the bet. If you read what you wrote, you are asking
your
opponent who is fighting 100:1 odds AGAINST him, to *pay* *you* 100 to 1.
So
when you win those 100 times out of 101, you win a total of $10,000. And
when
he wins 1 time out of 101, he wins a total of $100. Were you aware of this?
I
really have no idea, or if you just changed the wording - again - recently.
You also said that there have been “several” bets, all offered by you.
Why don’t you list them, and tell us why you abandoned each one.
Or maybe you can just quit pounding on Tim and everyone who agrees with him,
and just admit that you are being a dick. No need to even explain why. I
hate
his politics, too, but I don’t find that a reason to attack his math.
I only win once ... whether he wants to deny it or not. You keep
changes the "rules". I have no idea of what his math might be.
You would not play the 50/50 game with me for a single $100 chip. I
would be extremely likely to win your chip... you might win a chip or so from me along the way ... but you cannot quit, only I can quit when you lose your one chip. That is the only thing that is under discussion.
You still will not play for the loss of $100 possible when you possibly could win thousands ... why not?
Your brain is broken. The outcome of that single trial might be 50/50, but you want 100:1 on that bet. Do you see the problem? The second problem is your claim that I could win thousands. How could I do that? You have a $100 bankroll. That’s *your* rule, isn’t it? The third problem is your same claim in parallel with another claim that you are going to play until you are
one chip ahead, period. If you will never quit when you are not ahead, I can
never collect anything. Are you aware of any of this?
You are confused. There were many variations on the proposed bet(s).
The ORIGINAL comment was I will win if we play Say Red (a 50/50 game) [substitute any coin flip stuff you want] if I walk away with one net win.
That is all. No limit on my bankroll at all. That is the whole thing.
It was a worthless discussion when we were trading $1 back and forth
(that is if I did not win the first play) ... wasn't worth anything.
Things changed completely when I wanted to play for a single $100 win.
It started to be more interesting.
Will you play me for a $100 a play? Only I get to stop.
[My position still is that the player that can stop has an "advantage”.]
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:56:34 AM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote.
(in article<n6ydnQkAu-hTYuf4...@giganews.com>):
On 12/13/2023 6:15 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:WTF? I decided to reread this after I noticed that “there have been
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
You are so correct ... are you in for my offer to play. You only need >>>>> one hundred. You could win my entire net worth.
Why do you repeatedly ask everyone here that question that you think is some
sort of gotcha? It’s not a gotcha by any means. It’s a waste of time. >>>> It’s an even money bet inside of a risk of ruin wrapper that you have >>>> arbitrarily structured at 100:1. BTW, I really believe that you have very >>>> little concept of your risk. I have run the simulations, so I know the >>>> answer, but what do you think is the chance that you will never get ahead >>>> one
bet in a series of 1,000 even money bets? I ran 1000 simulations of that. >>>> How
many of those 1,000 do you suppose left you less than one bet ahead? You can
do that calculation with math, too, but I doubt you bothered.
I cannot "do the math" that "you" did ... you did not show the math so I >>> cannot comment on what you did.
You fail to understand the "bet" (or bets, there have been several).
I will limit my "bankroll" to $100 ... you only need one dollar. I bet
you my hundred that you will lose your one. We play until I either win
your dollar and you pay me $100 or you win my $100.
Now you see why Tim ran away from the bet.
several” above. In one place you say I only need one dollar. But two
sentences down, I have to pay you $100. So do I need one dollar, or one
hundred? WTF are you doing?
He's still trying to dodge his embarrassments. He's to the childish point now where he
HAS to "Dodge and post last." ... 'If you post last, you're right.'
On 12/14/2023 7:19 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 11:56:34 AM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote.
(in article<n6ydnQkAu-hTYuf4...@giganews.com>):
On 12/13/2023 6:15 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:WTF? I decided to reread this after I noticed that “there have been
On Dec 13, 2023, da pickle wrote
You are so correct ... are you in for my offer to play. You only need >>>>>> one hundred. You could win my entire net worth.
Why do you repeatedly ask everyone here that question that you
think is some
sort of gotcha? It’s not a gotcha by any means. It’s a waste of time. >>>>> It’s an even money bet inside of a risk of ruin wrapper that you have >>>>> arbitrarily structured at 100:1. BTW, I really believe that you
have very
little concept of your risk. I have run the simulations, so I know the >>>>> answer, but what do you think is the chance that you will never get
ahead
one
bet in a series of 1,000 even money bets? I ran 1000 simulations of
that.
How
many of those 1,000 do you suppose left you less than one bet
ahead? You can
do that calculation with math, too, but I doubt you bothered.
I cannot "do the math" that "you" did ... you did not show the math
so I
cannot comment on what you did.
You fail to understand the "bet" (or bets, there have been several).
I will limit my "bankroll" to $100 ... you only need one dollar. I bet >>>> you my hundred that you will lose your one. We play until I either win >>>> your dollar and you pay me $100 or you win my $100.
Now you see why Tim ran away from the bet.
several” above. In one place you say I only need one dollar. But two
sentences down, I have to pay you $100. So do I need one dollar, or one
hundred? WTF are you doing?
He's still trying to dodge his embarrassments. He's to the childish
point now where he
HAS to "Dodge and post last." ... 'If you post last, you're right.'
You cannot read either, Jerry. I can only "net" one $100 chip from him
... he can win a hundred $100 chips from me.
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<zhydna7an51fPub4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 5:48 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<d4udnRIoDYSqD-b4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 5:16 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wroteI only win once ... whether he wants to deny it or not. You keep
(in article<H8ednYzMAup85ub4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 3:53 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<eImdnUaXt_vQ-eb4nZ2dnZfqlJz-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/14/2023 1:34 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 14, 2023, da pickle wroteSo, you determine what I mean when I say "advantage" ... I say the >>>>>>>> person who can quit in a coin game when he is ahead one bet has an >>>>>>>> "advantage" over someone who wants to play some more.
(in article<cKmdnY0eeJoqz-b4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>): >>>>>>>>>
On 12/14/2023 12:51 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
But Pickle seems to think that no one else has ever thought of this,
and
that
he is the only one with this special insight. That’s why he is >>>>>>>>>>> keeping
it
secret...
No secret ... he who quits with one net win in coin flips is the >>>>>>>>>> winner.
But he does not have an advantage. You are in a group that was >>>>>>>>> intended
to
discuss gambling, and “advantage” has an agreed on definition that
you
are ignoring. It means +EV, and your made up game is not +EV. >>>>>>>>
No, what you’re saying is that if you make up an artificial and absurd
game
where you are very likely to win, then you are very likely to win in >>>>>>> that
game. Who is going to win more bets in blackjack? An expert card >>>>>>> counter,
or
the house? Does that side have the advantage?
I did not make up the game or the bet. Don't change the subject.
Yes, you did make up the bet. If you read what you wrote, you are asking >>>>> your
opponent who is fighting 100:1 odds AGAINST him, to *pay* *you* 100 to 1. >>>>> So
when you win those 100 times out of 101, you win a total of $10,000. And >>>>> when
he wins 1 time out of 101, he wins a total of $100. Were you aware of >>>>> this?
I
really have no idea, or if you just changed the wording - again -
recently.
You also said that there have been “several” bets, all offered by you.
Why don’t you list them, and tell us why you abandoned each one.
Or maybe you can just quit pounding on Tim and everyone who agrees with >>>>> him,
and just admit that you are being a dick. No need to even explain why. I >>>>> hate
his politics, too, but I don’t find that a reason to attack his math. >>>>
changes the "rules". I have no idea of what his math might be.
You would not play the 50/50 game with me for a single $100 chip. I
would be extremely likely to win your chip... you might win a chip or so >>>> from me along the way ... but you cannot quit, only I can quit when you >>>> lose your one chip. That is the only thing that is under discussion.
You still will not play for the loss of $100 possible when you possibly >>>> could win thousands ... why not?
Your brain is broken. The outcome of that single trial might be 50/50, but >>> you want 100:1 on that bet. Do you see the problem? The second problem is >>> your claim that I could win thousands. How could I do that? You have a $100 >>> bankroll. That’s *your* rule, isn’t it? The third problem is your same >>> claim in parallel with another claim that you are going to play until you >>> are
one chip ahead, period. If you will never quit when you are not ahead, I can
never collect anything. Are you aware of any of this?
You are confused. There were many variations on the proposed bet(s).
The ORIGINAL comment was I will win if we play Say Red (a 50/50 game)
[substitute any coin flip stuff you want] if I walk away with one net win. >>
That is all. No limit on my bankroll at all. That is the whole thing.
It was a worthless discussion when we were trading $1 back and forth
(that is if I did not win the first play) ... wasn't worth anything.
Things changed completely when I wanted to play for a single $100 win.
It started to be more interesting.
Will you play me for a $100 a play? Only I get to stop.
[My position still is that the player that can stop has an "advantage”.]
Well, there you go. Your original claim as I remember it was that you could win every time in say red, but it kept evolving into more convoluted nonsense as you were proven wrong, and wouldn’t admit it. So let’s focus on that alone. But we need you to finally concede that there is no reason that you will always get ahead in any even money game, at least in real life. The probability is very high that you will, but outside of that, you have to start talking infinity, and that has no place when talking about “advantage” in the accepted sense. Telling someone you can quit as soon as you are ahead, and that he can never quit, is a game that exists only in your imagination. So congratulations, you have an even money game right there in your imagination where you have what meets your also imaginary definition of “advantage”. And all this just to try to prove Tim wrong because you don’t like his politics.
I am not concerned about Tim's politics. I am concerned about your understanding of what I meant when I said "advantage" and "every time".
I tried to make it clear that it is the size of the bet that "changed"
Tim's understanding of what I meant.
You seem to not "get it" yet
either. If we are playing for a dollar ... winning one net chip one
time is not really important.
(I am not talking about any other time ...
there is only ONE TIME. My ONE TIME is "every single time I play him"
and I only play once ... the next guy in line can play him next.)
When I raise the bet to $100 ... even you admit there is a "very high" probability that I will get "ahead" (you did not mention it is only one
net bet) ... that one net bet is too much for Tim ... you too.
My original bet was that I would quit every time when I won one net bet
but he could not quit while he was ahead. He is the "house" of the
roulette wheel with no zeros.
I win $1 and walk away. It is a short
time.
You would step up to that wheel if you only wanted to net one bet
one time.
On Dec 15, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<JoKdnWCQM5P1w-H4nZ2dnZfqlJz-fwAA@giganews.com>):
I am not concerned about Tim's politics. I am concerned about your
understanding of what I meant when I said "advantage" and "every time".
“Every time” has one meaning, unless you decided to change that, too. I accept only the real meaning of that. “Advantage" has definitions related to context. If you want to discuss gambling outcome probabilities, it means only +EV. If you want to use a different definition, that’s fine, but you won’t be taken seriously, and you are probably aware that you are not being taken seriously.
I tried to make it clear that it is the size of the bet that "changed"
Tim's understanding of what I meant.
You keep talking about trying to make things clear, but you have totally failed. In your replies to Jerry, what is clear that even you can’t keep up with your ever changing bets, so I am sticking with the first bet.
You seem to not "get it" yet
either. If we are playing for a dollar ... winning one net chip one
time is not really important.
Important to what? If you are trying to have a serious probability discussion, the dollar amount is X. The value should mean nothing.
(I am not talking about any other time ...
there is only ONE TIME. My ONE TIME is "every single time I play him"
and I only play once ... the next guy in line can play him next.)
When I raise the bet to $100 ... even you admit there is a "very high"
probability that I will get "ahead" (you did not mention it is only one
net bet) ... that one net bet is too much for Tim ... you too.
WTF are you talking about? If you are talking about that $100 add on to the basic bet, where you get a fucking 100:1 payoff on a bet where you are actually a 100:1 *favorite*, that does not change the probability of anything, it just makes the EV so absurdly bad that the game is unplayable. If you are talking about constant $100 bets for both players, and you don’t seem to know based on your replies to Jerry, that changes nothing except the required dollar value of the bankroll.
My original bet was that I would quit every time when I won one net bet
but he could not quit while he was ahead. He is the "house" of the
roulette wheel with no zeros.
And I have pointed out that the house can indeed walk away any time they want. This whole thing exists only in your imagination. If you want to call it all hypothetical, that’s fine, too, because the game remains 0 EV. That means in conventional terms that you have zero advantage.
I win $1 and walk away. It is a short
time.
Why do you say it is a short time? That seems to be the root of your logic failure. I told you I run sims where the player never gets ahead in thousands of trials. And it does not matter how many trials I choose, there will always be some where the player does not get ahead.
You would step up to that wheel if you only wanted to net one bet
one time.
And that thinking is the reason the small martingale will live on forever with people like you. In spite of your denials, there is no effective difference in your brilliant method.
On 12/15/2023 11:56 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 15, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<JoKdnWCQM5P1w-H4nZ2dnZfqlJz-fwAA@giganews.com>):
I am not concerned about Tim's politics. I am concerned about your understanding of what I meant when I said "advantage" and "every time".
“Every time” has one meaning, unless you decided to change that, too. I accept only the real meaning of that. “Advantage" has definitions related to context. If you want to discuss gambling outcome probabilities, it means only +EV. If you want to use a different definition, that’s fine, but you won’t be taken seriously, and you are probably aware that you are not being
taken seriously.
"Every time" does have one meaning. For me, I am only playing ONE TIME.
After I win, you can look back and agree that was every time I played.
I tried to make it clear that it is the size of the bet that "changed" Tim's understanding of what I meant.
You keep talking about trying to make things clear, but you have totally failed. In your replies to Jerry, what is clear that even you can’t keep up
with your ever changing bets, so I am sticking with the first bet.
The first bet is the only bet that matters. I said I had an advantage;
Tim said I did not. I then offered to play for a single win of single
$100 chip ... that is when Tim realized I did have an "advantage"
(extremely good odds) of winning that $100 chip. I might win the first
time we played. If he won, if he could quit, he would be the winner.
But he cannot quit, only I can quit. That was and is the bet.
Do you think I have really good odds of getting ahead one bet?
You seem to not "get it" yet
either. If we are playing for a dollar ... winning one net chip one
time is not really important.
Important to what? If you are trying to have a serious probability discussion, the dollar amount is X. The value should mean nothing.
It only means something when the loss is only $1 ... when it is $100,
the not definite but really serious advantage become "worth it".
(I am not talking about any other time ...
there is only ONE TIME. My ONE TIME is "every single time I play him"
and I only play once ... the next guy in line can play him next.)
When I raise the bet to $100 ... even you admit there is a "very high" probability that I will get "ahead" (you did not mention it is only one net bet) ... that one net bet is too much for Tim ... you too.
WTF are you talking about? If you are talking about that $100 add on to the basic bet, where you get a fucking 100:1 payoff on a bet where you are actually a 100:1 *favorite*, that does not change the probability of anything, it just makes the EV so absurdly bad that the game is unplayable. If you are talking about constant $100 bets for both players, and you don’t
seem to know based on your replies to Jerry, that changes nothing except the
required dollar value of the bankroll.
That was later, not important. Forget that ... no one would take that
bet. But will you play for just $100 loss possibility? All you can
lose is $100. Will you play or do you think that he odds are that I
might net $100 and quit playing.
My original bet was that I would quit every time when I won one net bet but he could not quit while he was ahead. He is the "house" of the roulette wheel with no zeros.
And I have pointed out that the house can indeed walk away any time they want. This whole thing exists only in your imagination. If you want to call it all hypothetical, that’s fine, too, because the game remains 0 EV. That
means in conventional terms that you have zero advantage.
You can point out whatever you want ... in my original bet, I walk away
when I win a net one bet. That is where I have an advantage. Will you
play for a possible $100 loss? You could win a lot if I run out of $100's.
I win $1 and walk away. It is a short
time.
Why do you say it is a short time? That seems to be the root of your logic failure. I told you I run sims where the player never gets ahead in thousands
of trials. And it does not matter how many trials I choose, there will always
be some where the player does not get ahead.
That is true ... I agree ... will you take that chance? I can only win
$100 ... you could win a lot more than that if I run out of money. What
are your odds of winning all my money?
You would step up to that wheel if you only wanted to net one bet
one time.
And that thinking is the reason the small martingale will live on forever with people like you. In spite of your denials, there is no effective difference in your brilliant method.
No Martingale ... just one bet at a time. I win the first bet, I am
gone with your $100. I lose and you have $200, I must try to win again
to get "even" ... you may get ahead two bets ... but then you might get
back to only that one ahead ... then you might win again and be ahead
two and on and on ... but never does it go back "the other" way ... and
I leave with your $100 or I run out of my entire life savings. You
could really do well. Want to try it? Run the statistics on how often
coin flips just go back and forth ... back and forth ... how often does
one player (and/or the "other") player get one net bet ahead? How often?
I believe you are really thinking about this and I value your opinion.
But there is no Martingale going on here.
On Dec 15, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<M3udnTai0OIsOuH4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/15/2023 11:56 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 15, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<JoKdnWCQM5P1w-H4nZ2dnZfqlJz-fwAA@giganews.com>):
I am not concerned about Tim's politics. I am concerned about your“Every time” has one meaning, unless you decided to change that, too. I >>> accept only the real meaning of that. “Advantage" has definitions related >>> to context. If you want to discuss gambling outcome probabilities, it means >>> only +EV. If you want to use a different definition, that’s fine, but you >>> won’t be taken seriously, and you are probably aware that you are not
understanding of what I meant when I said "advantage" and "every time". >>>
being
taken seriously.
"Every time" does have one meaning. For me, I am only playing ONE TIME.
After I win, you can look back and agree that was every time I played.
I tried to make it clear that it is the size of the bet that "changed" >>>> Tim's understanding of what I meant.
You keep talking about trying to make things clear, but you have totally >>> failed. In your replies to Jerry, what is clear that even you can’t keep >>> up
with your ever changing bets, so I am sticking with the first bet.
The first bet is the only bet that matters. I said I had an advantage;
Tim said I did not. I then offered to play for a single win of single
$100 chip ... that is when Tim realized I did have an "advantage"
(extremely good odds) of winning that $100 chip. I might win the first
time we played. If he won, if he could quit, he would be the winner.
But he cannot quit, only I can quit. That was and is the bet.
Do you think I have really good odds of getting ahead one bet?
You seem to not "get it" yet
either. If we are playing for a dollar ... winning one net chip one
time is not really important.
Important to what? If you are trying to have a serious probability
discussion, the dollar amount is X. The value should mean nothing.
It only means something when the loss is only $1 ... when it is $100,
the not definite but really serious advantage become "worth it".
(I am not talking about any other time ...
there is only ONE TIME. My ONE TIME is "every single time I play him"
and I only play once ... the next guy in line can play him next.)
When I raise the bet to $100 ... even you admit there is a "very high" >>>> probability that I will get "ahead" (you did not mention it is only one >>>> net bet) ... that one net bet is too much for Tim ... you too.
WTF are you talking about? If you are talking about that $100 add on to the >>> basic bet, where you get a fucking 100:1 payoff on a bet where you are
actually a 100:1 *favorite*, that does not change the probability of
anything, it just makes the EV so absurdly bad that the game is unplayable. >>> If you are talking about constant $100 bets for both players, and you
don’t
seem to know based on your replies to Jerry, that changes nothing except the
required dollar value of the bankroll.
That was later, not important. Forget that ... no one would take that
bet. But will you play for just $100 loss possibility? All you can
lose is $100. Will you play or do you think that he odds are that I
might net $100 and quit playing.
My original bet was that I would quit every time when I won one net bet >>>> but he could not quit while he was ahead. He is the "house" of the
roulette wheel with no zeros.
And I have pointed out that the house can indeed walk away any time they >>> want. This whole thing exists only in your imagination. If you want to call >>> it all hypothetical, that’s fine, too, because the game remains 0 EV. That
means in conventional terms that you have zero advantage.
You can point out whatever you want ... in my original bet, I walk away
when I win a net one bet. That is where I have an advantage. Will you
play for a possible $100 loss? You could win a lot if I run out of $100's. >>
I win $1 and walk away. It is a short
time.
Why do you say it is a short time? That seems to be the root of your logic >>> failure. I told you I run sims where the player never gets ahead in
thousands
of trials. And it does not matter how many trials I choose, there will
always
be some where the player does not get ahead.
That is true ... I agree ... will you take that chance? I can only win
$100 ... you could win a lot more than that if I run out of money. What
are your odds of winning all my money?
You would step up to that wheel if you only wanted to net one bet
one time.
And that thinking is the reason the small martingale will live on forever >>> with people like you. In spite of your denials, there is no effective
difference in your brilliant method.
No Martingale ... just one bet at a time. I win the first bet, I am
gone with your $100. I lose and you have $200, I must try to win again
to get "even" ... you may get ahead two bets ... but then you might get
back to only that one ahead ... then you might win again and be ahead
two and on and on ... but never does it go back "the other" way ... and
I leave with your $100 or I run out of my entire life savings. You
could really do well. Want to try it? Run the statistics on how often
coin flips just go back and forth ... back and forth ... how often does
one player (and/or the "other") player get one net bet ahead? How often?
I believe you are really thinking about this and I value your opinion.
But there is no Martingale going on here.
Before I reply to the whole post, please define “advantage”. Clearly.
On 12/15/2023 2:52 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 15, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<M3udnTai0OIsOuH4nZ2dnZfqlJ9j4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/15/2023 11:56 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 15, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<JoKdnWCQM5P1w-H4nZ2dnZfqlJz-fwAA@giganews.com>):
I am not concerned about Tim's politics. I am concerned about your understanding of what I meant when I said "advantage" and "every time".
“Every time” has one meaning, unless you decided to change that, too.
I
accept only the real meaning of that. “Advantage" has definitions related
to context. If you want to discuss gambling outcome probabilities, it means
only +EV. If you want to use a different definition, that’s fine, but you
won’t be taken seriously, and you are probably aware that you are not being
taken seriously.
"Every time" does have one meaning. For me, I am only playing ONE TIME. After I win, you can look back and agree that was every time I played.
I tried to make it clear that it is the size of the bet that "changed"
Tim's understanding of what I meant.
You keep talking about trying to make things clear, but you have totally
failed. In your replies to Jerry, what is clear that even you can’t keep
up
with your ever changing bets, so I am sticking with the first bet.
The first bet is the only bet that matters. I said I had an advantage; Tim said I did not. I then offered to play for a single win of single $100 chip ... that is when Tim realized I did have an "advantage" (extremely good odds) of winning that $100 chip. I might win the first time we played. If he won, if he could quit, he would be the winner.
But he cannot quit, only I can quit. That was and is the bet.
Do you think I have really good odds of getting ahead one bet?
You seem to not "get it" yet
either. If we are playing for a dollar ... winning one net chip one time is not really important.
Important to what? If you are trying to have a serious probability discussion, the dollar amount is X. The value should mean nothing.
It only means something when the loss is only $1 ... when it is $100,
the not definite but really serious advantage become "worth it".
(I am not talking about any other time ...
there is only ONE TIME. My ONE TIME is "every single time I play him" and I only play once ... the next guy in line can play him next.)
When I raise the bet to $100 ... even you admit there is a "very high"
probability that I will get "ahead" (you did not mention it is only one
net bet) ... that one net bet is too much for Tim ... you too.
WTF are you talking about? If you are talking about that $100 add on to the
basic bet, where you get a fucking 100:1 payoff on a bet where you are actually a 100:1 *favorite*, that does not change the probability of anything, it just makes the EV so absurdly bad that the game is unplayable.
If you are talking about constant $100 bets for both players, and you don’t
seem to know based on your replies to Jerry, that changes nothing except
the
required dollar value of the bankroll.
That was later, not important. Forget that ... no one would take that bet. But will you play for just $100 loss possibility? All you can
lose is $100. Will you play or do you think that he odds are that I
might net $100 and quit playing.
My original bet was that I would quit every time when I won one net bet
but he could not quit while he was ahead. He is the "house" of the roulette wheel with no zeros.
And I have pointed out that the house can indeed walk away any time they
want. This whole thing exists only in your imagination. If you want to call
it all hypothetical, that’s fine, too, because the game remains 0 EV. That
means in conventional terms that you have zero advantage.
You can point out whatever you want ... in my original bet, I walk away when I win a net one bet. That is where I have an advantage. Will you play for a possible $100 loss? You could win a lot if I run out of $100's.
I win $1 and walk away. It is a short
time.
Why do you say it is a short time? That seems to be the root of your logic
failure. I told you I run sims where the player never gets ahead in thousands
of trials. And it does not matter how many trials I choose, there will always
be some where the player does not get ahead.
That is true ... I agree ... will you take that chance? I can only win $100 ... you could win a lot more than that if I run out of money. What are your odds of winning all my money?
You would step up to that wheel if you only wanted to net one bet
one time.
And that thinking is the reason the small martingale will live on forever
with people like you. In spite of your denials, there is no effective difference in your brilliant method.
No Martingale ... just one bet at a time. I win the first bet, I am
gone with your $100. I lose and you have $200, I must try to win again
to get "even" ... you may get ahead two bets ... but then you might get back to only that one ahead ... then you might win again and be ahead
two and on and on ... but never does it go back "the other" way ... and
I leave with your $100 or I run out of my entire life savings. You
could really do well. Want to try it? Run the statistics on how often coin flips just go back and forth ... back and forth ... how often does one player (and/or the "other") player get one net bet ahead? How often?
I believe you are really thinking about this and I value your opinion. But there is no Martingale going on here.
Before I reply to the whole post, please define “advantage”. Clearly.
If we play a coin flipping game, I think I have an "advantage" if I quit
when I get one net win ahead ... even if it is on the first flip.
If the "net" is a penny, it not "worth" playing at all or continuing to "maybe" being two bets ahead.
Raise the bet "enough" and it is "worth" playing ... it is not likely
that the back and forth will not result in both players being one net
bet ahead ... if the bet is worth it, the very high odds of getting one
net bet ahead is worth the remote risk of ruin. Even playing for
pennies "might" cost you thousands of dollars, if you think your
opponent "might" get all those pennies. How likely is that to happen?
What are the odd that one side in coin flips gets a net hundred bets
ahead before the other side got one net bet ahead?
On Dec 16, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<a_CdnXQ788LbBeD4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/15/2023 2:52 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
Before I reply to the whole post, please define “advantage”. Clearly. >>If we play a coin flipping game, I think I have an "advantage" if I quit
when I get one net win ahead ... even if it is on the first flip.
If the "net" is a penny, it not "worth" playing at all or continuing to
"maybe" being two bets ahead.
Raise the bet "enough" and it is "worth" playing ... it is not likely
that the back and forth will not result in both players being one net
bet ahead ... if the bet is worth it, the very high odds of getting one
net bet ahead is worth the remote risk of ruin. Even playing for
pennies "might" cost you thousands of dollars, if you think your
opponent "might" get all those pennies. How likely is that to happen?
Good lord. I asked for a clear definition of a single word, and all that mess above is your reply? You cannot form the definition of a single word around a discrete situation and still call it a definition of the word. You believe otherwise, so no wonder you are so confused.
What are the odd that one side in coin flips gets a net hundred bets
ahead before the other side got one net bet ahead?
Good lord again... that EXACT question has been answered repeatedly and clearly by both me and Tim. You have become Jerry. You ask a question, you get a very clear answer, and then you ask the question again repeatedly as if it has never been answered. You simply ignore the answer, and then go on and on with your illogical claims. Whatever.
On 12/16/2023 10:24 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 16, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<a_CdnXQ788LbBeD4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/15/2023 2:52 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
Before I reply to the whole post, please define “advantage”. Clearly.
If we play a coin flipping game, I think I have an "advantage" if I quit when I get one net win ahead ... even if it is on the first flip.
If the "net" is a penny, it not "worth" playing at all or continuing to "maybe" being two bets ahead.
Raise the bet "enough" and it is "worth" playing ... it is not likely that the back and forth will not result in both players being one net
bet ahead ... if the bet is worth it, the very high odds of getting one net bet ahead is worth the remote risk of ruin. Even playing for
pennies "might" cost you thousands of dollars, if you think your
opponent "might" get all those pennies. How likely is that to happen?
Good lord. I asked for a clear definition of a single word, and all that mess
above is your reply? You cannot form the definition of a single word around a
discrete situation and still call it a definition of the word. You believe otherwise, so no wonder you are so confused.
Even Tim "finally" admitted I have an advantage if I do not bet again
when I get one bet ahead. I am not confused.
What are the odd that one side in coin flips gets a net hundred bets ahead before the other side got one net bet ahead?
Good lord again... that EXACT question has been answered repeatedly and clearly by both me and Tim. You have become Jerry. You ask a question, you get a very clear answer, and then you ask the question again repeatedly as if
it has never been answered. You simply ignore the answer, and then go on and
on with your illogical claims. Whatever.
No, actually that is a different question.
Why will you not play a
50/50 game for a $100 chip if you cannot leave while you are ahead?
On Dec 16, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<87CdnU6w2Ow5duD4nZ2dnZfqlJz-fwAA@giganews.com>):
On 12/16/2023 10:24 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
On Dec 16, 2023, da pickle wrote
(in article<a_CdnXQ788LbBeD4nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com>):
On 12/15/2023 2:52 PM, Bill Vanek wrote:
Before I reply to the whole post, please define “advantage”. Clearly. >>>>If we play a coin flipping game, I think I have an "advantage" if I quit >>>> when I get one net win ahead ... even if it is on the first flip.
If the "net" is a penny, it not "worth" playing at all or continuing to >>>> "maybe" being two bets ahead.
Raise the bet "enough" and it is "worth" playing ... it is not likely
that the back and forth will not result in both players being one net
bet ahead ... if the bet is worth it, the very high odds of getting one >>>> net bet ahead is worth the remote risk of ruin. Even playing for
pennies "might" cost you thousands of dollars, if you think your
opponent "might" get all those pennies. How likely is that to happen?
Good lord. I asked for a clear definition of a single word, and all that >>> mess
above is your reply? You cannot form the definition of a single word around >>> a
discrete situation and still call it a definition of the word. You believe >>> otherwise, so no wonder you are so confused.
Even Tim "finally" admitted I have an advantage if I do not bet again
when I get one bet ahead. I am not confused.
What are the odd that one side in coin flips gets a net hundred bets
ahead before the other side got one net bet ahead?
Good lord again... that EXACT question has been answered repeatedly and
clearly by both me and Tim. You have become Jerry. You ask a question, you >>> get a very clear answer, and then you ask the question again repeatedly as >>> if
it has never been answered. You simply ignore the answer, and then go on and
on with your illogical claims. Whatever.
No, actually that is a different question.
No, it is the exact same question. Maybe the fact that you can’t understand that is your whole problem.
Why will you not play a
50/50 game for a $100 chip if you cannot leave while you are ahead?
Yep, you are now Jerry. Congratulations. As I repeat the answers to your questions, the probability that you still won’t understand approaches zero, but it will obviously never, ever, get to zero.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 27:37:13 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,352,693 |