Quote:
Originally Posted by
redietz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
unowme
So you overcame the math because it didn't really apply to you or your strategy? That's fantastic! In the distant future when the world finally catches on to your odds bending techniques, the mathematicians may need to invent a new type of probability analysis to truly understand your play.
"Singer" is like Marvel's Scarlet Witch. He controls probability fields near him. It's a mutant ability.
Many times, I suggested to "Singer" that he should take a crack at the James Randi Foundation's million-dollar test of paranormal abilities. Unfortunately, I believe that challenge has ended. Now he'll have to earn the money by finding another glitch.
Thank God this has become a WoV West Coast or something. For the longest time, it was just arci taking "Singer" on. Then it was mainly arci and me. Not many logic enthusiasts on the old Best Buys forum. Now, thankfully, there are plenty of people to ask the obvious questions. I feel a stop loss/win goal debate on the horizon. Like a darkening storm. LOL. Have fun with it.
The thing is, I'm not so sure Singer's VP Martingale ever had enough play to push it into the long run losing proposition that it must be. How many 'sessions' does Rob claim he actually played? That all gets back to the risk of losing your bankroll before hitting your 'session goals'.
No one ever really showed me the math for that in this bet increasing scenario. Some claimed it was 5% which was clearly wrong. I think it is not impossible Singer won what he claims using his system. Some here say it is impossible. It may just be unlikely...It may even be likely that some will be big winners. I also think that if 1000 people were playing the strategy, it may be possible that the majority could come out winners with a few very big winners....but a certain percent would lose more than all the winners combined.
I'd love to do a Bayesian analysis on the actual results to see how closely it approaches the realm of the possible, but I imagine Rob didn't keep any detailed statistics on each session he played and the results of each trial. I think there may be other applications for Bayesian analysis in the casinos where probability theory may not be the right tool because you have missing information.