TurboGenius Turbo, do you remember the discussion on how to select the repeat?

Because both they and you have an abacus shoved all the way up their asses. It's funny watching a closed minded Spandex Boy. I already explained many times that math has very little to do with what casinos make off their table games, like 16% to 24% in most years. And that's a matter of public record. This bullshit about 5%+ as being the edge is cornball sophistry being fed to the general public because people like having a psychological excuse to lose. PSYCHE

 

Yep, that's because players recycle their banks over and over. If you think the casinos should make the HA for the table games then you don't understand the math. But we already knew that. Sorry Gizmo, you and Spike had a good run back in the days of GG, but 15 years of BS on forums have wised up readers; they no longer fall for your preposterous piffle. I used to think your posts quite entertaining, now they're just a big yawn. Get some new material.

 

You took 15years of bs to learn, really?

Are you still coding hoping for a different result?

How many coders are still coding, hands up?

 

LF, what's the point of quoting the entire post when it's directly above? It's unnecessary and a waste of bandwidth.

 

To let you know I replied to your post.

MJ,
from the denial posts about math, do you realise how many hard core gamblers are among us?

 

There's no need for that because it's obvious who's post you're replying to when it's immediately above. You just did it again.

And I knew Giz and Spike were full of it from the beginning. Some newbies might be impressed though.

 

You are so full of it. You have not addressed my simple arithmetic problem for you. You just shut up for a few days and now it some how has passed from your memory so you think it's OK to start being a Spandex Boy again. I have explained for many years that people are typically scared to win and they almost all of them come to a casino to lose a preplanned amount. There is no math to understand. So let me get back to my questions to you from a while back that you have ducked out of answering. I'm never going to let up on you. Do you find that interesting?

 

Hey Joe, you went fully chickenshit on this discussion. It goes on for a few posts and you ducked out because simple arithmetic undoes all your arguments.

 

They should be impressed how I took simple arithmetic and made you run like a chicken before the axe.

 

Here, let me help you save face a little Joe:

"Bayesian networks can model nonlinear, multimodal interactions using noisy, inconsistent data. It has become a prominent tool in many domains despite the fact that recognizing the structure of these networks from data is already common. For modelling the conditionally dependent data and inferencing out of it, Bayesian networks are the best tools used for this purpose."

The math you might search for in the actual probability outcomes during a win streak can be found in conditional probability.

 

usually, arguments go in this scenario - "You are wrong, because...this... and this..."
What write you - are so hard to understand...
Gizmo, can you say very short, where is not right Joe? Find one main feature and say :

"he is not right, because he thinks that ... "

and one-two sentences - can such to do?

The same ask LF, I know he can write many, have for that plenty of time, but other not have, or not all, so if to try concentrate to one mind? Is it is possible for you?

 

It's best to just ignore Luckyfella. He's a huckster playing the "hint" game, just hoping that people will be dumb enough to send him money for the secrets. Typical third world con stuff.

 

I've had numerous problems with him and his attitude, but he never asked for money in exchange for information. He is a decent person, in terms of ethics. Stop accusing people you don't know. Stay in the context of the game you claim to beat.

 

The math is important to the casino and it applies to them because 99% of the people there bet randomly against random games very dependably and they use the math to calculate what they're going to make every quarter. If you have your own edge that beats the casinos edge their math no longer applies to you.

 

Very simple request. Thanks.

Joe thinks I'm full of shit because I disagree with him that during a win streak the result must be 47% win rate and 53% lose rate in the long run. I'm saying that it can't be a win streak and result in a 47% win rate. It must be above 50%. It in fact has been demonstrated by others to be at least 66% win rate by skilled players in the long run.

 

Like watching boys in spandex, do you? Careful Giz, I think there might be a law against that.

Conditional probability doesn't apply to roulette outcomes, at least, not sequential outcomes. You could use it on a single outcome like "what's the probability of getting red, given that you get even?". But for sequences it's worthless. This is because the probability of say, a streak of 5 reds given that some event X occurred previously is just the probability of a streak of 5 reds. Why? because SPINS ARE INDEPENDENT : WHATEVER HAPPENED BEFORE DOESN'T AFFECT THE PROBABILITY OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT. [sigh]

 

Exactly this! Isn’t that basic mathematics? 50% is just breaking even. Anything below is a fail

 

Any Dracula can impale someone in the abdomen and leave that implanted in the ground hoisted on a pike. I like to think the Spandex Boys would like the spear up their ass past the abacus and where their heads are located.

 

Retard. Yelling does not make you right. As far as conditional probability goes then you will have to invent still not yet known math. It's unknown until it is known. Meanwhile a flat earth will just have to keep you amused.

BTW, abacus Anny, where's the math for coincidental continuation of win streaks in small samples?

 

Boy this sure escalted quickly. You are all correct, you are all wrong. That settles that. Participants of this forum and lurkers know who to believe.