I understand what you're saying. I don't know what technical analysis is. Okay. Are you on drugs?Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
Printable View
I understand what you're saying. I don't know what technical analysis is. Okay. Are you on drugs?Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
We've seen countless examples of AP's using TA all the time. For instance, even though they know that only random hands have occurred in the past and only random hands will occur in the future, when they are behind for the year they ALWAYS claim (aka, predict) that they know they will be ahead by year's end. Similarly, when someone like Alan posts major wins and identifies he is ahead for the year, they use the same TA to "predict" that he will be behind by year's end.
See qua & arci, they do exactly what you're saying cannot be done. And right before your eyes, time after time.
Sorry Rob they are not charting or using technical analysis. It's more like fortune telling hoping the math will work for them.
Has anyone ever been banned from a casino for money management at VP, or using VP special plays?
I'm pretty sure the answer is NO.
So I'm wondering why that is, given modern casinos' ability to track play. Why would they want someone playing there who routinely comes in and beats them year after year?
Anyone want to take a crack at this?
APs get banned all the time, so at the very least, this is proof of concept regarding their edge over the casinos.
What does this have to do with tracking gaming play to see if the technical analysis used for projecting stock trends can also be used for improving your return at gaming?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Yes, atenolol 50 mg, atorvastatin 10 mg, valsart/hctz 80-12.5 mg, aspri........oh heck I can't finish my post I have to go take a leak..... damn drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'm just making a general remark that money management strategies are meaningless, and do not help you win. (They do help you lose a bit less, though, as you quit your sessions earlier, thus running fewer -EV hands! Of course, a horrible bout of the flu would accomplish the same thing.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
If money management and/or special plays could turn you into a consistent winner, casinos would take notice, and you would no longer be allowed to play VP.
That was succinct, Dan. Well done.
Rob, however, is going to say that he was banned from casinos, therefore money managing gets you banned.
So we're back to correlation versus cause and effect. If you are banned from casinos, are you banned for that which you think you are banned? Or must you ask the casino to truly establish a cause and effect? In Rob's case, for example, it's possible they have schlong limits and they've read his online posts (elsewhere) regarding this, so that's why he was banned, not his style of play.
Where are all of the baccarat and roulette junkies? You'd think they'd be all over this thread beings as it's about "trending"
Dan, you claim that "AP's get banned all the time". Can you name even ONE example of that which comes with written or video proof? And you have seen where I've thoroughly debunked the self-confidence-building perceptions and proclamations about winning year after year at the same casinos while being showered with comps & gifts & even MORE invites, by arci & Dancer & Jean Scott just to name a few? How? With simple business common sense, in that no casino anywhere would knowingly allow such individual drainage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
And yes, I have used money management & special plays for years, and have actually been the only player anyone has ever seen or heard about who has published an actual ban letter in a LV gaming paper.
So please do tell more clearly what in the world you're talking about.
jbjb, you're giving us card counters in bj and not vp "AP's". We already know card counters aren't welcomed. And who cares what Indian casinos do? I got banned from Casino Arizona for simply TRAINING a player on how to win and quit with a profit.
Another example of singer lying. I wonder if belly-boy will accept this nonsense?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Why do you call it nonsense? All I read about is how players on +EV paytables say that they will win because they are playing +EV paytables. That sounds to me like they are predicting the future, doesn't it? Doesn't it say to you that over the next XXX number of hands they will be getting winners to offset any previous losses?
And they say the opposite as well -- that if you are playing -EV you must lose. Isn't that more crystal balling the future?
By the way, I lost my crystal ball in the Northridge Earthquake. I don't predict, but I do pray a lot in casinos. And while people pray in churches and synagogues they really mean it when they pray in casinos.
If they are true APs they will say they have a good probability of winning. I suspect you aren't nuanced enough to understand the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Once again you are wrong. There is a good probability they will lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Sounds like you also lost your ability to understand the English language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Arc, if you really believe each hand is random (and you say it is) then what has come before will have no bearing on the next hand you play. To say that you are playing a +EV game or machine means nothing except for that one single hand.
Now, are you telling me you can string together one +EV hand after another?
Well, in that case, looking at charts with trend lines should also work.
This thumbing one's nose at probability theory gets old. If Alan wanted to ascertain who is likely correct, arci or Rob, there's nothing that prevents him (a respected journalist) from simply asking a collection of people who teach probability or have doctorates in gaming theory. Alan could simply google the local experts in universities and ring them up. Most would be more than willing to have lunch and spell things out.
This never gets done.
The time wasted writing and phrasing and bantering back and forth is much more than the time required to ask credentialed experts what the truth is. Alan is actually perfectly positioned, in terms of reputation, to quickly get the answers to the matters in question.
He prefers to leave the uncredentialed and anonymous snipe at each other without providing a logical conclusion to the questions.
Our loss.
Im not arguing with probability theory. What I am simply saying is that I have asked for information here to INVESTIGATE whether stock market technical analysis can be used in gambling. Instead of anyone providing me with any data to chart and to determine whether or not it's applicable or not, I get the usual SPAM about probability theory, +EV and everything else BUT some INVESTIGATION into what I initially asked about.
What have we got here?
1. People who have no idea what technical analysis is.
2. People who have no idea what technical analysis is.
3. People who have their own agenda about what they want to discuss.
One of the basics of TA charting is to look at trends. In order to win at a +EV game you also must have a trend of more winners than losers. Hence we have something in common.
So, we do have a common thread here and it is not a challenge of "probability" and redietz there is no need to contact any professorial group.
What I would like to see is some data on the fluctuations of credit meters -- and if you give me the credit meter data from +EV I'll take them.
And for the rest of you who don't have a clue about charting for TA please start another thread for your static.
Anyone can start a thread. Be my guest.
Yes, each session is made of individual independent hands. The probability distribution of those hands is easy to calculate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I'm telling you the distribution of those hands times the return for each result leads to a profit over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Your problem is YOUR ARE arguing with probability theory.
This is 100% false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Card counters don't win more hands then then lose.
Hole carders don't win more hands then they lose.
VP players don't win more hands then they lose.
We consistently profit because the payoff in these situations when we have the advantage exceeds the odds. Take a dealt 4 to a royal such as As, Ks, Qs, Js, 2h. Twelve cards will give you a pair for a push, eight will give you a flush, three well give you a straight and one will give a royal. So out the 47 remaining cards only 12 are winners. That's a win rate of less than 1 in 4. I don't count pushes as a win but if you want to, 24 of the 47 give you something. You're a slight favorite but have a huge advantage on this hand due to the payoffs.
This is 100% false---Arci has overstated this.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Arci says "the distribution of those hands times the return for each result leads to a profit over time." That is an absolute falsehood.
He would have been correct in saying "probably leads to a profit", as we all know that results may vary. All the probability (+EV)in the world does not necessarily lead to a profit, but the odds are favorable that it will.
I think if you specify a number (like three million or five million or something), you can -- for all practical intents -- say "show a profit over time." Now, if a person plays 10 hours a week for 50 weeks a year, that's 500 times 500 hands an hour, that's 250K. Put together 10 years of that, and you are in the vicinity of "for all practical purposes."
So if you play 10 hours a week for 10 years, you will show a profit at +EV games, given perfect play. I think that's a reasonable statement, if you believe the machines are all truly random. Toss in one rigged machine that you spend consistent time on, and kiss that profit goodbye.
Thanks. Again more discussion which has nothing to do with investigating charting wins and losses.
Just remember. Hitting the deal button at different times will get you different dealt hands.
Useless. Useless. Useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
The problem is there isn't anything to discuss or investigate. Your premise is an absurdity.
Call it what you want, TA, trending, etc. In a series of independent trials, which VP is, you cannot now, nor ever predict the future.
Technical Analysis as it relates to the stock market is widely followed. If you don't want to consider it for gaming then I understand. Don't participate.
Back when I was in college I took part in various research projects for other students knowing that what they were investigating could not be proven. But it was important to investigate it anyway for two reasons: one, to prove what we already assumed; two, to perhaps discover something we didn't know.
When I was growing up one of my parent's friends was a researcher at Lederle Laboratories -- the pharmaceutical company. He took existing drugs, some of which worked the way they were supposed to and some of which were failures, and he tested them on other illnesses. He was literally taking long shots in the dark. Why take long shots in the dark? Because you'll never know what you will find.
Am I taking a long shot in the dark? Maybe. Is it worth it? Yes. Because I will find out it doesn't work, or it does work, or it might uncover something else.
With that said, in a politically correct way, let me just add this which is not so politically correct: closed minds are stupid minds.
Yes...some cannot, and will not consider anything beyond what they have been taught....the Sheldon Coopers of this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Invite them to explain what they know in videos...like you did with Singer.
Charting random events is useless. By definition past results tell you nothing about what will happen next.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Are you sure you understand what random means?
BTW, I suggest you chart out 2+2 to see if it always comes to 4. You never know. You may find something no one else has ever considered. Don't let those closed minds stop you.
Yeah, I don't get this.
In the past, Alan has argued that no machines are rigged and that the results are random. Yet here he has decided to check out if the allegedly random results are non-random, which is okay with me, but it undercuts his first position.
So if I think some machines may be rigged occasionally, that is somehow different from thinking there may be non-random patterns in the results?
Anyone notice he never posted how much he lost on that last trip?
True. I still believe machines are not rigged and the results are random.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
What I want to find out is if there are patterns in random results that can be interpreted the same way we can interpret the patterns in stock market technical analysis. Is that really a horrible thing to do?
I just might find there is no pattern that fits the four stages of Stan Weinstein. But I won't know unless I do it.
Since I am not selling anything here, and since I am not asking anyone to put up any money or to finance my time in front of a video poker machine or standing at a craps table, what is the harm? Why so many protests?
Remember my original post -- I said that Stan Weinstein said to me you could chart anything. I hadn't heard about video poker nor was I a craps player when Stan Weinstein said that to me back in the early 1980s... it might have been 1983 or 84 or 85. So I didn't have the chance then to say "would it apply to casino gambling?" When I knew Stan I had been in a casino only once -- in St Maarten -- in 1977 and I played $2 blackjack and the dealer kept paying me with a $5 chip under a $1 chip so I would tip her.
And in my original post what triggered this investigation is that I was playing a 7/5 Bonus game at Morongo where the meter was staying in a narrow range, then I started to win and the credits would mount and I moved up to $5 and got the quad aces. Coincidental? Perhaps. But in my mind it made me remember Weinstein's four stages and that made me want to investigate further.
Since I am not a member of the flat earth society, I'm willing to take notes as I play. In fact, when I go to Vegas for New Year's with Linda I am going to bring along chart paper and we'll chart the meter and plot the pattern. Maybe it will show something, and maybe it won't.
As Porky would say, "that's all folks." And yes, that's all it is.
And I am asking the rest of you if you wouldn't mind charting yourself because the more data we have the better the research. If you're not interested -- then fine, and don't bother.
I still think results are random, I don't think machines are rigged, but what's the harm in charting results?
Probably more money than you could imagine. Thanks for asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
The harm is that random results will tend to show patterns over the short term. You will find these patterns. However, they are meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
So much for that mystical "stop loss" you adhere to so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Just like the superstitious baccarat players.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Consistently is dictated and controlled by discipline and determination. Players either have these traits or they don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Agreed. It's tough when it comes to casino gambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Who says I didn't use a stop loss? I said it was more than you could imagine since you've only told us about playing nickels.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
I don't know. I haven't done enough charting yet. In stocks they use 180 and 270 day charts. How many plays do baccarat players use? Ten? Twenty?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Some chart work involves five years and ten years of daily changes.
No social scientists here, eh?
If you check the academic journals going back 50 years, it's virtually a clean sweep for humans having a bias towards finding patterns where none exist as opposed to missing patterns that are there. In other words, we have an inherent paranoia when it comes to imposing order out of chaotic information, even when there is no order actually in the chaos. We are nature-built conspiracy theorists. Nothing is there, but we interpret relationships, anyway.
You know, if you actually go to a university library and read through academic journals, it's amazing what big questions have been investigated hundreds and thousands of times by people trained to do so.
Red, academia is always deficient when it comes to anything outside of textbook theory. These people are like the armchair AP's--they theorize about what the issue is and then come up with what people like them want to hear.
For instance, this discussion about Brodie, and now Greektown. AP's want it to be that Brodie was the "victim" of a "technician's error". He wasn't. Caesar's knew that's what he requested so they gave it to him. The pedestrian part of the story reads like an AP-Hammer's-Another-Casino best-seller, but I was clearly told that Brodie made the request. A lower level suit initially denied the request but was overridden by his Director.
I don't know a lot about Greektown other than certain self-proclaimed "AP's" who live in the past wanting it to be that "a flock of Vegas AP's came out of their secret lurking spots and descended upon Detroit like a brand new muscle car design". But when it came to the Revel promotion where these clowns all proclaimed the same type of thing, I found out 1st hand that that was not the case, by going in 50-50 with someone I know is a REAL gambling pro who actually walks the streets of LV in plain view.
If you quit at -$1500, good for you. For some reason, I think you lost more than that. But if you did, so what. That's not a lot of money on a $5 vp game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
I play nickels and quarters while passing time trying to do it as cheaply as possible.
It was owned by Indians at the time. They're afraid to lose a penny. Enough said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Why does everyone care so much about Alan's gambling. Like many of us here, he likes to gamble. He's a big boy and seems to have the resources to gamble when he desires to do so. If he adheres to his "rules" or decides not to because he wants to play a little more, who cares? He is playing for recreation--not as a pro.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
With all due respect, Rob, it must be nice to dismiss thousands of experts because they are part of something you call "academia." I don't think you know much of anything about academics.
The studies I am telling you to read aren't theories. They are experimental studies. Hundreds of them, maybe in the thousands. Experiments, Rob. Not opinion pieces.
You would really dismiss hundreds of experimental studies because they do not agree with your opinion? That is beyond insane.
I couldn't care less how he does. But don't tell us you do one thing then complete ignore your own stipulations. Sure doesn't look good for him. Plus the fact he thinks he's "profiting" when we all damn well know he isn't. He gives false hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by regnis
Jbjb you seem to have one purpose here: to rag on me. It must be your big thrill to attack a TV guy. I hope you're having fun. I've been dealing with dweebs like you my whole life. As W.C. Fields put it -- go away kid you're bothering me.
Dweeb huh? Typical attack from a pathetic loser. See ya.
I am curious what the academic experts say about the patterns that investors look at when they examine charts of stocks, commodities, futures? Do they also dismiss those patterns as "humans having a bias towards finding patterns where none exist"? Would you mind checking with those experts if, perhaps, they look at the chart patterns of their pension funds and 401ks, or are they dismissing those as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
By the way, Investors Business Daily is an investor publication which has its foundation on the reading of stock and commodity chart patterns. The Wall Street Journal, CNBC and nearly all financial media use technical analysis when showing chart patterns. Are they also "humans having a bias towards finding patterns where none exist"?
I was referring to your application of this tea leaves stuff to video poker, not the stock market. Just because something works for stock market investing doesn't mean it has any relevance to the allegedly random events of video poker. It's Rob's hot/cold cycles revisited.
Alan, how you spend your time is entirely up to you. Obviously. How TA could apply to video poker, I haven't a clue. Good luck with it.
It's not like data mining is new in the gambling world. People have data mined sports betting to death. Programs have been running 24/7 for decades searching for every conceivable relationship. In sports betting, some of the relationships mean something. Some do not. But sports betting doesn't feature independent random events.
Financial media do not cover "independent random events." That's the key phrase here. The difference is so obvious, I don't understand why you would suggest financial media as some evidence for humans finding patterns in independent random events.
Curiosity, as I wrote in my original post:Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I have no fear of investigating. Do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
By the way...
Independent random events can move the markets dramatically: deaths, accidents, plane crashes, freak storms, criminal acts. All independent, all random.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Red, if a machine keeps on spitting out winners, that machine is in a hot cycle. No question about it. Is it random? Yup. Will it continue? Don't know. Should you keep on playing it? Well, if you're not using an absolute stop-win goal....then what's your TA telling you?
The experts in academia would never understand this. Sure, they know how to get nervous when they hear things like "Muslim terrorists", "White Lives Matter", or "The Obama experiment has failed pathetically" but when it comes to practical solutions and how to accomplish anything instead of theorizing about it by referencing textbooks, they are painfully lacking.
Independent random events can move the markets dramatically: deaths, accidents, plane crashes, freak storms, criminal acts. All independent, all random. Absolutely correct Alan, they also have absolutely nothing to do with technical analysis.
Quahaug, thanks for explaining that much better than I did. I was referencing technical analysis, but didn't make that clear, which is my error.
Rob, your stereotyping of academics is ridiculous. I live in Tennessee. I know many academics who are more conservative than you. Academia includes engineers, business professors, agriculturists, and so on, not just English profs and music teachers. As a US national grouping, academics are more "liberal" than the US average, but the US, on a scale of western democracies, is among the most conservative. American academics, compared to most other democracies' academics, are quite conservative.
You are so wrong. Read the book by Weinstein or any other and you will see how random events are factored into prices which in turn become parts of chart patterns. Why am I arguing with people who know nothing about TA?Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
You're cherry-picking the subject. Watch the news on any channel. Constant disruptions are allowed on so many campuses and it is ALWAYS liberal groups supported by activist professors doing the disruptions when conservatives try to speak. Similar to marches in the streets by nutjob factions like Black Lives Matter that are nearly always accompanied by violence because these slugs don't work or have any responsibilities, and along with the homo/rainbow tiptoeing around town, there is always academia in the background. Conservative academia? Never.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
This goes back about a dozen years, I guess. Singer was posting on FREEvpFREE, the free speech arm of vpFREE. He's was doing his everyday usual calling all AP's stupid. Then a new poster under the name Aces Up showed up on the site praising the virtues of Singer's martingale. Everyone knew Aces Up was a Singer sockpuppet. So Rob was posting every day under two different personna's, Rob Singer, and Aces Up. It was quite comical watching Rob Singer ranting about AP's then Aces Up totally agreeing with everything Rob said. But that wasn't as funny as what happened next. Rob got the two personna's tangled up and posted as Rob Singer under the Aces up username. Hysterically funny. Rob was the laughing stock of the site. He tried his best to lie his way out of it. He said he had somehow lost his account and Aces Up was gracious enough to loan him his account. Nice try, Rob. Of course, Aces Up was never heard from again. If you don't believe this story then go to the FREEvpFREE archives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Alan I did a quicky look at this Weinstein guy and he seems to have his own trading method called "stage analysis" which is all well and good but it is not technical analysis so I can see the communication breakdown between us. However I don't think applying stage analysis to gambling in any form is a wise use of human capitol either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Nope, the player is in a hot cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Singer is backing off many of his previous claims. He claimed he could detect hot cycles and cold cycles by certain hands that appeared. Pure nonsense but what does on expect when Singer is the source.
Stan is the technical analyst who developed the four stage model but it is actually widely used under other names. I can give you a dozen different names for patterns used in TA. I know analysts who look for wedges, flags and even flying saucers on charts.Quote:
Originally Posted by quahaug
Stock and financial analysis is either fundamental or technical. Technical simply is the interpretation of price charts -- patterns of price changes. Everything else whether it's earnings or sales or profits or inventory ratios is "fundamental analysis."
When I wrote for Barron's Investment News and Views section analyzing companies I had to combine technical and fundamental analysis to reach all the readers.
This is groundbreaking! So instead of TA finding out if the machine is in a hot cycle, it might help to discern whether the player is in a hot cycle. I'll take that!Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Nothing grounding breaking, just normal random variation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
And, there's nothing you can do to discern a future random set of events.
Except AP's of course. Somehow they magically can determine the future whenever they are behind. You yourself have claimed to be behind for the year several times in the past, then immediately tried to make us feel all warm & fuzzy by saying how you KNEW you'd be ahead by year's end because "the math" somehow told you so. And of course, BINGO! You claimed to be winning shortly afterwards!Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Let's see you prove that lie Mickey.Quote:
Originally Posted by fpdw2015
BTW, you give yourself away every time you post about somewhere in the distant past. Why? Because you have no life today, and a quick check reveals how your future is very dark indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I was unaware he backed off his claims on hot/cold cycles.? They're pretty obvious to see and have saved me much grief. I was like everyone else and tried to play thru them and ended up like Alan, playing several hours on ddbp. I learned the hard way.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcimede$
Granted we are all subject to "selective memory" but I can't remember sitting down at a machine and going through a budget busting losing cycle and then miraculously hitting a royal. My "selective memory" tells me that every royal came after some sort of rally or run of winning hands. Of course, this is just selective memory. But if I had charts of the actual meter amounts it would help clear this up.
And that's all I'm suggesting: charting the meter amounts to see what they might show.
If you play the game with a real deck of cards on your kitchen table you will also see those hot and cold streaks. The problem is what are you going to do with this information.Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
If cold you can stop playing. If hot, move up in denomination. See my original post.Quote:
Originally Posted by fpdw2015
The problem is what you've seen is all in the past and has no bearing on the future. Nevada Gaming regulations clearly state there can be no internal bias and one event cannot effect another event.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson
Malignant Narcissism. "A psychological syndrome comprising an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial personality disorder, aggression and sadism. Often grandiose and always ready to raise hostility levels, the malignant narcissist undermines the organizations in which they are involved and dehumanizes the people with whom they associate. The MN has a psychological need for power and a sense of importance. He/she is pathologically grandiose, lacking in conscience and behavioral regulation with characteristic demonstrations of joyful cruely."Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Mr. Singer is the poster boy for malignant narcissism.
Technical Analysis (charting) is not a measure of bias or rigged machines. It would only plot points on a graph with the goal of seeing after dozens or hundreds of plotted points if any pattern develops.Quote:
Originally Posted by fpdw2015
THERE MIGHT NOT BE ANY PATTERN.
But we'll never know until the points are plotted. If a pattern is found THEN we'd have to see if they are true indicators.
What patterns would we look for?
Head and shoulders that lead to a slump.
Reverse head and shoulders that lead to a win.
Flags that lead to a big win.
Tops that follow rallies that lead to a breakdown.
There are patterns in nature. And the idea is that patterns show in all things.
Have you had a pattern in your life, perhaps when you could do nothing wrong?
Have you had times when nothing goes your way?
Sling, give the poor guy a break. After all, what do you think such a confused soul like him is doing today and can you imagine how he must dread the holidays? Let's cut him some slack when he makes these things up. Deb would certainly approve :)Quote:
Originally Posted by slingshot
This is getting weird.
The definition of random has been lost here, and that explains about 10,000 posts going back years.
If finding a "pattern" in past random events does not lead to predictive ability regarding future events, then of what significance is the "pattern?" If the "pattern" reveals a repetitive cause-and-effect or a predictable sequence, then the events are, by definition, not "random." Either the analysis of past random events yields no predictive value, or the events are not random.
The events cannot be half-random. They cannot be random in some one-by-one analysis but somehow non-random in an overarching sense.
This reminds me of some of the data analysis of JB Rhine's parapsychology subjects at Duke. When data provided no straightforward evidence of psychic abilities, the data was mined for "patterns." Some were found, of course, because if you are looking for undefined "patterns," something always emerges. But then the subjects whose histories provided the "patterns" were tested going forward, and there were no "patterns" going forward. Some people labeled this "the shyness effect." Others labeled it an artifact of the data.
Try to deal with this redietz: even "random" can have a pattern.
Not (as redietz has clearly stated so that almost anyone could understand) if it's random.
Well Alan, have at it. Flip a coin 100 times, analyze the pattern, then tell us how many correct calls you can make on future flips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson