He was from El Paso but I’m posting it in the Las Vegas subforum anyways. I’m not sure what his vaccination status was.
Printable View
He was from El Paso but I’m posting it in the Las Vegas subforum anyways. I’m not sure what his vaccination status was.
First reaction: Gee, every time I turn the computer on, there's more talk of death. Chastised the gematria forum, about it, just last week.
Second reaction: Make hay. "Five-time WSOP winner Scotty Nguyen tweeted that he "can't believe this day has come - you will always be held high in our hearts, the man, the myth, the legend & THE GODFATHER of poker baby! Mr Brunson, you made poker what it is baby! thank you for what you give to all of us baby! RIP Mr Doyle Brunson THE GODFATHER OF POKER."
Yeah, baby, just like my very recent remark, "I'm all you can eat, baby." https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post157406 . Isn't this another of Nguyen's lines? Ha. Even after the conscious effort not to go there, into the psychic stuff.
They put Martha Stewart on the Cover of the Swimsuit Issue of Sports Illustrated.
I'm puking my guts out just thinking about that.
Oh yeah... RIP Doyle.
Hope you beat the shit out of Chip in Hell.
And Fuck mcap you Fucking Redskin!
Doyle was cool.
RIP
Quote:
IF THEY THREW MARTHA STEWART IN JAIL FOR BULLSHIT THEN I SAY DOYLE SHOULD GET 5 YEARS FOR THIS SCAM:
https://rec.gambling.poker.narkive.c...per-and-dumper
Cool would have been "cashing out" at age, 102, to match his two famous poker hands of 10-2, and 10-2.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
One of my favorite death quotes relating to Poker is,"At the end of life, we all lay down the losing hand!"
Could have been worse. Could have been Mr./Mrs Jenner!Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
Same Difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbCould have been worse. Could have been Mr./Mrs Jenner!Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
They put another Man on the cover too.
Kim Petras Is Second Trans Model on Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Cover (PUKE)
Third if you count Martha Stewart.
https://twitter.com/SI_Swimsuit/stat...ts-illustrated
Quote:
Originally Posted by monetSame Difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbCould have been worse. Could have been Mr./Mrs Jenner!Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
They put another Man on the cover too.
Kim Petras Is Second Trans Model on Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Cover (PUKE)
Third if you count Martha Stewart.
https://twitter.com/SI_Swimsuit/stat...ts-illustrated
Christ, when I was a kid Sports Illustrated swim suit edition was what you beat it to if you couldn’t access a Playboy.
Now if you have to hurl instead of sticking your fingers down your throat you can use it for that.
Well, I promised that I would be back for the next forum-member death. Perhaps, old Doily just set the table, say, as an honorary member.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
Looks like you might have misspelled the name of your sock puppet, "Opps."
Shouldn't it be with two O's, not two P's, i.e. "OopsiIDidItAgain?"
Bill, why did you abandon your Grim Reaper alias ? Or at least, I am assuming you did, since you have never used a previous alias once you have created and used a new one if I remember correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgainWell, I promised that I would be back for the next forum-member death. Perhaps, old Doily just set the table, say, as an honorary member.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
I couldn't do another anagram with or without gematria, and, had, thankfully, taken that angle as far as I could. Like the ketchup and fries running out at the same time.
Did a few more of those at the gematria forum, and, then, put up my final file(s) to show how the numerals led me back to the real world. Interestingly, while I was on my way out, someone put up a short video about the Grim Reaper interrupting the coronation, at about the 1:11 mark. So, I interpreted the interruption as the Grim Reaper's passing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcGRCMiW99c
Oh, that Grim Reaper turned out to be a "nothing verger".
Ha. I bet that not even MrV has heard of that word. (You have to give up reality to reach the other side.)Quote:
When contacted by Newsweek, Westminster Abbey identified the figure as a verger, a member of the abbey community who assists with religious services but who is not a member of the clergy.
A good spot to finish up my very own latest outing, and, with a bit of gematria to finish off the Reaper stuff.
Firstly, the queen died exactly 911 days after the WHO declared the pandemic. Secondly, there are 345,600 minutes from then to the coronation (end-day not included), and, alternatively, 7152 hours from then to my birthday, 2 July (end-day included). The Reaper's last post here was post #3456 in the thread, and, the Reaper's (randomly assigned) usernumeral there, at the gematria forum, was 7152. Lastly, the Opps of my new username fit in well with KJ's return, and, next, my going on to mention the OPP. So, I guess that I was right to be wrong. The part about letting go of reality to get to the other side.
Special thanks again, Tablepooey, for the bit of junk above. Have you ever studied a math proof to at least know how to begin to fake it?Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
I really thought that after you being you so much, that old Pooey would have told you the same as me. Nothing like getting the "rug" pulled out from underneath, one more time.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Now it's back to the attic for me to get something done. However, it takes less and less time to truly sort things out.
Daft post...as always.
Irreplaceable.
A formula for estimating a value is not a proof retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
V, the above analysis is quite sound, on all points.
Say, even had old Pooey properly and fully interpreted the nature of the math question, he ended by throwing in the condition that the number of occurrences of each ticket was to be factored in, by averaging out all of the occurrences. Then the relatively very few larger number of occurrences would become quite meaningless. As well, what to do with the unknown tickets, which weren't drawn? Ie, how many tickets must have been in the drum to account for a few, some, or many, of them not having been drawn? A lot. Right? Obviously, Pooey didn't even bother to fully calculate things in his example. He must have just hoped that I couldn't decipher it. Fooled him. Right? Furthermore, where it possible to simulate the thing, old AIQ would've already done it. But, the problem with thus proceeding to reverse engineer something is that there are often many different types and degrees of scenarios that could lead to the same, or different, outcomes. If, say, character profiling of serial murderers were so simple, then all of that would have long since ceased. On the other hand, every one's a self-professed expert, like you, but, in the end, it's still all a bunch of bull garbage. Mostly, people who never figured out even themselves. The best FBI agents, by directly questioning a suspect, can detect a lie only about 53%, or 54%, of the time.
So, now's YOUR chance to try to prove me wrong, on anything that I wrote. Big boy up, or, slink away, yet again. But this time it's not a matter of submitting other than my post above. Ingest another load of pot to try to truly defend yourself for once. Shouldn't be too very hard against an attic dweller like me. Ha.
What if you're the somewhat functionally illiterate brain-damaged nutjob in a seemingly endless online tiff with Tasha, Singer et al, and me?
A solution isn't a proof? A proof necessarily has to be complete or generalized?Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
Arguing with you is totally pointless. As if you think that you win by throwing mud against the barn door. Actually, the same thing from "father" Monet.
Maybe, old V can do better than KJ, and Redietz, too.
Come on, V, are you such a pussy? Can you still hear yourself talking? I own you, you motherfucker.
Another two daft posts.
The Old Boy is on a roll.
Exactly fucktard (look up the definition of a proof, if you don't believe me idiot). And with regard to averaging out all occurrences, you didn't even understand what I wrote since you are dumber than a bag of rocks. For a ticket inscribed with an A, you would count the number of times that ticket inscribed with an A is redrawn in 100 draws and then solve for K, the total population, using the binomial probability density function above. So now you have a K estimate using Ticket A (call this KsubA). You could then produce a K estimate again using a ticket inscribed with B in the same fashion as A (call this KsubB) and so on for all different inscriptions observed in 100 draws. So, for example, if you only observed tickets inscribed with an A,B,C, and D in those 100 draws, your K estimate would be the weighted average of those 4 K estimates you fucking cretin. So if ticket A was observed 41 times, B 24 times,C observed 20 times, and D observed 15 times your weighted K calculation would be [(41*KsubA) + (24*ksubB) + (20*KsubC)+(15*KsubD)]/100. In my original solution, I even stated quite plainly that it was an estimate you piece of shit. I never, ever said that it was exact. Re-read that original post if you don't believe me fagboy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
Dear Tablepooey, I initially noted that I understood your solution, by noting that you based it on n!/r!(n-r)! to limit the products (the probabilities). Ie, the number of ways to draw a particular ticket 6 times in your example of 100 draws. Then I noted that you didn't even follow through with your very own example because it couldn't have made any sense. I didn't write that your solution wasn't an estimate. I wrote that it was simply wrong given the true nature of the problem, which amounts to taking the drum as a whole, not, to the probability of drawing a particular ticket. So, your latest attempt is just more mud against the barn door. If you still can't see it, then post the question on a real math forum, and, then, see what happens. I didn't post a real solution because this is what happens on a gambling forum.
P.S. You should and ought to have looked up something, for yourself. Here's the first thing that popped up about solutions being proofs. Sort of an "estimate of an inscribed subproof" that has the word proof, and, then, in brackets, the word, solution. And the numeral, 42. Give it a click, looks sort of academic in nature.
Lol.
https://users.math.msu.edu/users/dun...Solutions).pdf
Exactly. You have no other response because you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Pussy from Portland stuck in a pothead thread with mentally ill, Tasha.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
"Response" to what?Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
All I'm saying is that you / your posts are"'daft."
As for 'Pussy from Portland stuck in a pothead thread with mentally ill, Tasha:' it's more about Peruvian flake and DQ strawberry blizzards than it is about cannabis: keep up or get the fuck out of the way you craven Canadian.
Oh yeah, if it is really nowheresville then why are YOU posting in it now?
So what you're saying is that you're clueless. If you have a box with K distinct tickets (none of the K tickets in the box shares the same inscription with any other ticket in the box), the probability of observing any given ticket m times in 100 draws with replacement is (100choosem)*(1/K)^m*(1-(1/K))^(100-m). Period. Feel free to post what I just wrote in any math or statistics forum of your choose - it's a fact cunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
There's no trying to change the subject, V. A post about a math problem, and, mathematical facts from a date-distance calculator, can not be construed as daft. There are both serious, and fun, facts. As I pointed out to old Pooey, several times over the years, the fun stuff was never anything more. But even the fun stuff was at a caliber that, I guess, just irked the hell out of him. I never claimed to be the Grim Reaper in real life. And, nor anything daft about pointing out that old Pooey's math leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. Next he, too, tried to change the subject, in several ways. I'm still waiting to hear how a solution, to a math problem, isn't a proof. Now he wants me to post his formula on a math forum, but, it's not the formula that I questioned.
Time to put up, or shut up, V.
And, lol at Tasha for again "politely" asking me to leave her thread, in which I barely posted, but always remained on topic. Perhaps my response there will get through to her, for a minute or two. Let's see what the old girl comes up with, if anything.
Like I wrote before, takes less and less time to truly sort things out, each time around. Because fewer posters remain to muddy the waters.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
Bill, it's time for you to post your solution. You said you would do so after I posted mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
Now, in regards to a solution to a math problem not being a proof, here is an example. What is the solution to 3+6. The solution is 9. Is that a proof ?Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
Fuck all you're retarded.
You have neither figured out the math problem, nor, provided even a simple definition of the word, proof.
"Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." What I was going to explain was the mathematical term "BP". So, are you sure even that (3 + 6) always equals 9?
V, even were all of my statements, and numerals, incorrect, there's still merit in questioning the fools.
Double P.S.S. This is fun!
Bill how come you won't post your solution like you stated you would ? A proof is the demonstration through a series of logical steps, that a statement is true. Was Accountinquestions post a statement ? No it wasn't. It was a question, not a statement. Plain as day the binomial probability density function can be used to estimate the population of K tickets in a box, even though you stated that I hadn't figured out the math problem. You're a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
I wrote that I would explain the BP bit after you figured it out. I'm still waiting for you to figure it out. Now that you brought it up, let's let it at this, for now. A joke? I'm not the one who has to garble posts. Or, simple definitions. And, math problems.
Then this will go nowhere since I believe that I figured it out and you claim to believe I didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
Not a matter of belief. You, yourself, wrote that yours was an estimation. I wrote that it was an estimation to a wholly different, much simpler problem. Anyone could make any estimation, and, then, next, call it a solution or whatever. Doesn't work that way.
Problems imply solutions (whether as proofs).Quote:
The only way that I know a formula works is via a proof. I might be able to verify by hand that it works for a number of cases, but that doesn't mean it always works; see here and here for some examples of this. This is not to say that experimental evidence is worthless - quite the contrary. But the special role of a proof is something which cannot be ignored.
Now, there are subtleties here. In order to prove something, I need to begin with axioms. What axioms are "acceptable?" The standard axiomatic foundation of mathematics is ZFC (but see here), but there are some "concrete" problems which can't be proved using these axioms alone (see e.g. here). The existence of such problems - and Goedel's theorem more generally - shows that ultimately, the notion of "proof" is more nuanced than we might think at first. For example, there could be a formula that always "works" for a given concrete problem, yet can't be proved to always work inside ZFC.
However, this situation tends to be the exception rather than the norm. And the answer to your question is no - formulas and proofs are quite different!
https://math.stackexchange.com/quest...la-and-a-proof
OK "Einstein," I'll put up.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
Two things:
1) Math had ZERO to do with my comment that your posts were "daft" as I only glossed over the math discussions: math isn't my forte;
2) I'll let your daftness speak for itself, to wit you posted this bit of daft bullshit, about as useful as shit on a plow handle:
"A good spot to finish up my very own latest outing, and, with a bit of gematria to finish off the Reaper stuff. Firstly, the queen died exactly 911 days after the WHO declared the pandemic. Secondly, there are 345,600 minutes from then to the coronation (end-day not included), and, alternatively, 7152 hours from then to my birthday, 2 July (end-day included)."
THAT shit is truly DAFT, wouldn't you agree?
Clearly with you, "Daft is as daft does."
What's silly about having fun? I don't think that there's a species that doesn't. And, very likely the math was the best result of also the gambling forums. Instead of talk of casinos, and their otherwise useless games. I mean, how daft to spend all of one's time and effort to be a no-name AP? Apparently, Brunson was worth about 75 million. But, how much did he win/lose at poker, by comparison? Too little over too many as no-name years to be properly and fully documented in public. He made his money by selling himself and his name to the larger, poker universe much later on. It doesn't make much sense, either, to try to claim recreation by going to a casino. Even the outcome is already known, and, there's just no improving your game even if you did.
But, again, there's nothing silly about noting, say, a conspiracy theory, and, then, what it is about that way of thinking that catches on, and, so, becomes as difficult to extinguish. Not especially before such has been thoroughly debunked. At the other end of the spectrum, there are very strange cycles to nature, such as full moons repeating on the same days within particular multiples of 19 years. There may even be a mathematical theory of everything, if believe Einstein's very own notion that the physics follows the math, that the connection exists. In my last post as the Reaper here, I went on to prove (as best as possible) that the Super Bowl prediction was a billion-to-one against. Weren't that and the above tidbits noteworthy even as a challenge to others in the gematria community? You'd be surprised at the level of "Ramanujan" math guys here and there who could pick such numerals, with connections, from thin air. Jeanne Dixon, eat your dead heart out. However, like everywhere else, once things got overly serious, in terms of the online Adaft Hitler's and their lifelong scams, truly nonsensical musings, and, so on, the fun people left. Believe it or not, I interspersed quite a few of the great mathematical notions within the anagrams with gematria. I just didn't spend millions to write an essentially flopped movie about it so that very strange persons such as you could go on about it, even while the great Redietz openly declined to offer up his analysis (of "Hard to Be a God").
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post154699
Very shortly after I started posting at the WoV, I put up a quote there from a psychiatrist about it not being healthy for a mathematician to put up gambling advice on the internet under the guise of making your money last longer in a casino. Old Shackelford, really old at least in spirit, and appearance, already, then, had it immediately removed. There was just no telling any of the gambling truths there. Couldn't even assail old Jacobson, the joke of a mathematician thoroughly in support of Shackelford's repeated mathematical ignorance of the simplest of thus stuff. The mods there got sick of the scam, what, ultimately, must have been a scam from the start. Yeah, sure, he still hangs around there everyday with the minimum number of members to keep a forum reasonably active, because he a multimillionaire gambler extraordinaire. Failed actuary. Failed gambling forum. Have to stumble on it to soon figure out who he is. That was a big joke, too, the other nut, Jacobson, handing out his furniture to the poor. Basically shit-stained stuff that no one would pick from the curb.
But thanks for your very own idiocy. I thoroughly enjoyed this thread. The bonus was the realization that proof means full solution.
Oh, for anyone interested, V's also quite the real time online coward. No need to wonder about the reasons.
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post157696
No it doesn't. The bonus is the wonderful demonstration of how stupid you are. How absolutely clueless about mathematics and logic you are. The ability to post vast amounts of numerological and astrological gibberish is not a demonstration of mathematical,statistical, or probabilistic ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
You continue to image stuff that didn't happen. Again, I actually told you, more than once, that the numerology in terms of gematria, has nothing to do with the math, or me being the Grim Reaper or anyone else. Again, the quote from the postdoc, a few posts back, to note that proof may be considered a problem, and, so, then with a solution. Now going from your solution alone, it contained an answer, whether an estimate, or right or wrong. (That was a great quote, by the way, along with a lot of other basic mathematical information, such as math being an exact form of science.) So, look, you proceeded to prove out your answer. The proof-part. Right? Anyway, nobody in the land of professional math talks the way that suits the ad hoc holes you find yourself in on a gambling forum. Nice graph, by the way. Too bad you didn't try a bit harder with the math-side of things. But, who would go to all the work for a gambling forum, especially when anyone may do it on a real and actual math forum? I prefer to learn what I can, even from the obvious closet Nazis, and other fools, gamblers, but, to move ahead. With the latter it's best to do something like the anagrams with gematria to make your own little fun discoveries to help keep the mind active in other ways. Nobody here or there, anyway. So, after it's all said and done, who had the most fun? That song about not looking back. Gosh, I wonder that I'm allowed to play it as is, for a few minutes, without the $100,000 stereo equipment.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayNo it doesn't. The bonus is the wonderful demonstration of how stupid you are. How absolutely clueless about mathematics and logic you are. The ability to post vast amounts of numerological and astrological gibberish is not a demonstration of mathematical,statistical, or probabilistic ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HuiH-0R6a0
You're an idiot. THe sim part isn't hard, it would just take an hour or 2. A loop, a little logic and an array. Print this out into a huge list of results, then grep through it for results to count the number equal to observation. The more equal results the more likely. Just do enough samples and the results will be accurate. When I need to know the results to this, I will write the code or use smurger/tableplays method.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
I'll write the fucking thing if you agree to never post here again and we can get Druff to agree to enforce it.
LMFAO. I found the population of tickets, K-max (20 tickets), in the bowl, that would lead to the highest probability of observing the same ticket 5 times if you were to draw 100 times from that bowl. The binomial PDF, by definition, gives you the probability of observing m successes (5 in this example) in n trials (100 in this example), with replacement, for a given probability of success on a single draw (1/K in this example). Plugging in a series of different Ks along the X-axis until you find the maximum probability along the y-axis is the method. To refute this, is to refute the massively prevalent and well-established binomial PDF which is a bastion of probability theory. So again I say, Bill, go fuck yourself, you clueless, evil, dimwit.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
Doesn't Bill have a thing where he believes all gamblers lose over the long run? I don't pay much attention to him but if that is anywhere close to the case it shows he is mentally ill to a point where he should not be engaged on anything substantial.
AIQ, you remind me of that guy who answered, on the end, of the postdoc thread. About sore fingers, by using his calculator, after looking for a rule for the roots of a 5th degree polynomial, but only to find out later on that there's no thus (direct) rule. Incidentally, I gave the guy's answer an upvote, out of a good laugh.
Your results would reflect the manner of your simulation, but, it might be a useful first exercise to vary, say, the size of the drum, versus the range of the tickets, to see that there's a perceivable difference between small drum with large range, and, big drum with small range.
Anyway, why would I leave here, or there? It's a blast watching especially V fuck himself daily in that "Golden Ear" of his. Another guy who "thinks" that he's the big boyo. But, nobody could be smart enough, or, in V's case, rich enough. Chicken-shit V on pot without a hope of understanding even old Pooey's simplistic math. How do lawyers become so stupid?
I lost almost all higher math many years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
So Bill, to clarify something.
There is no "range". That is why tableplay uses the word inscriptions. There is no sequence or anything that would give useful info. It is only the size of the drum that matters. So in my sim, I would sim many results of various drum sizes. I could automate that aspect or just do it with random drum sizes then narrow it down until I was content. Or I could apply tableplay's stuff. Applying math like that isn't so easy. I'm only a math guy to the point where it is intuitive math.
And I have to hand it to Tableplay given our history and all. We dogged each other pretty hard but in the end he replied to this thread as a normal helpful kinda guy. I don't really troll people here who aren't actively trolling either.
lol I used Bill's version of TPs name. corrected.
BTW the idea of Bill hanging out on math forums cracks me up.
You know nothing about math cunt. Therefore you cannot judge its complexity. It's true that Alpax could do this stuff blindfolded, but not you retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
Most of the Lawyers are at the bottom of the food chain and literally do nothing but try to get their clients to settle.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayYou know nothing about math cunt. Therefore you cannot judge its complexity. It's true that Alpax could do this stuff blindfolded, but not you retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgain
Basic Middlemen playing both sides of the fence.
The entire system is corrupted and most of us don't even realize it as we are constantly fooled and propagandized.
In this documentary, you get taste of how Corporations, Politicians, Media, Lawyers and the Justice Systeam all work hand in hand to destroy the peasants.
And if you aint for them, you are against them and since they control everything, you'll be crushed like the cockroach you are.
Same goes for me as they can crush me anytime they see fit.
Notice how the judge was obviously bought off to change the 2.7 Million Dollar Award down multiple times to roughly 480k.
And the case was later settled out of court for an undisclosed amount with a non-disclosure agreement.
I personally hate lawsuits and suing as I have refused to sue anyone in my lifetime but the more I learn how corporate government works, the more my stance changes.
lol at Democracy and Your Vote Matters lol lol lol... NOT!
Like the saying goes, only two tribes in this world: The Haves and the Have Nots.
Everyone on this forum is so lucky to be born with such an easy and strong starting position.
And what did we all do with it?
Hustle Casinos and Gambling lol lol lol... We're all idiots.
And KJ got to be the dumbest of the bunch with his broken arm bullshit.
HOT COFFEE (2011)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psebm9RJDvU
Finishing in the top ten on a certain written math contest in high school, to earn a full scholarship to a top university of my choice, "cracked" me up too. Might have won it had I the paid tutors and the time that the others put into it. Never occurred to me, back then on the farm. Since, I've learned that math isn't everything, and, so, things worked out for the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Exactly - judges make a lot of money on top of their official salary and they don't care who gets destroyed. You'll recall this particularly evil example of this:Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
You guys are what the gematria crowd calls, sheeple. You've never fought back, and, so, never learned how.
That may apply to ambulance chasers like You Know Who, but not to all lawyers in all areas of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
I did a lot of family law and that type of work often did not involve settlement: it ended in court.
Divorce, child support modification, custody change: many such cases involve at least one contested hearing.
OK, having briefly cleared the air you can now go about blowing out your opinions from your ass.
Top 10 in the country? Top 10 regionally? What was the test? Inquiring minds want to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgainFinishing in the top ten on a certain written math contest in high school, to earn a full scholarship to a top university of my choice, "cracked" me up too. Might have won it had I the paid tutors and the time that the others put into it. Never occurred to me, back then on the farm. Since, I've learned that math isn't everything, and, so, things worked out for the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
One of my compadres here had a perfect math SAT score. He's written some programs for us that aid and abet the betting process in terms of getting wagers in ASAP when the time is right. That's partly why I think it's funny when the new-to-sports-betting crowd oohs and ahhhs at auto-arbitrage programs for sports betting. Those arbitrage programs have been around 40 years.
V, like most of the people who choose to live in an area infested with stoners, lost hippies and broken down losers, you have proven how much you loathe this country. Therefore, continually absent of any proof whatsoever about what you say you are or were, or what your claimed status is or was, why would you want to think that simply writing words down explains anything your sorrowful existence?Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterVThat may apply to ambulance chasers like You Know Who, but not to all lawyers in all areas of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
I did a lot of family law and that type of work often did not involve settlement: it ended in court.
Divorce, child support modification, custody change: many such cases involve at least one contested hearing.
OK, having briefly cleared the air you can now go about blowing out your opinions from your ass.
Yes, life has passed you by. That's why you think you need to constantly interject your jizz into everyone else's discussions.
Your wife's dialysis machine needs oiling.
I'll ruin your libtard pothead day even further.
True "lawyers" never refer to any colleague in their field as "Ambulance Chasers". That's reserved for those of us who watch from the outside.
It's also apparent that you continually denigrate MDawg because you know and have seen how wealthy he is....who's in effect, living your "dream" around the higher end LV properties. It's obvious an envious dummy and attorney wannabee like yourself would also never understand how accident and injury law is to LA what plastic surgery for surgeons is--a goldmine.
Keep eating your heart out V. And keep trying to convince everybody you're sliding by.....
https://www.cemc.uwaterloo.ca/contests/euclid.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by redietzTop 10 in the country? Top 10 regionally? What was the test? Inquiring minds want to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by OppsIdidItAgainFinishing in the top ten on a certain written math contest in high school, to earn a full scholarship to a top university of my choice, "cracked" me up too. Might have won it had I the paid tutors and the time that the others put into it. Never occurred to me, back then on the farm. Since, I've learned that math isn't everything, and, so, things worked out for the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
One of my compadres here had a perfect math SAT score. He's written some programs for us that aid and abet the betting process in terms of getting wagers in ASAP when the time is right. That's partly why I think it's funny when the new-to-sports-betting crowd oohs and ahhhs at auto-arbitrage programs for sports betting. Those arbitrage programs have been around 40 years.
I see online that the average score (out of a 100) this year was 51. I recall that my score was 87, and, that the guy who beat me had 94. In 2010, there were two 98's. The online results go back only to 1998. It's a university entrance sort of test, held in the springtime, near the end of the traditional school year.
The only thing I much recalled the name of was the name of the scholarship. Back in the early 80's, at Waterloo University, it was called a Descartes scholarship. My grade-13 marks, either, didn't hurt. I retained my university transcripts, as well, but, nothing about the contest(s), or scholarship. The Euclid papers as graded weren't returned to the participants. I have no idea how that works now, online or not. Interestingly, the contests were put on lightly colored paper, a different color each year. Mine was pink.
Probably the best way to prepare isn't to obtain such questions at a university level, but, to dig up the old textbooks from the 40's, 50's, and 60's, from before calculators/computers, and intellectual laziness in general. As much as philosophy was declared dead by Hawking, has vanished from scientific papers, after the early era of Einstein, I envision the same fate for mathematics over the next couple of centuries, in the sense that we've lost the spirit of its pioneers. It's gotten to the point now that you're institutionally expected to pick up on some overly minute problem, and, then, hopefully, add a step.
The postdoc thread is from a professional math forum for university student math problems, with some latitude, but, lately, even when the higher-ups post something a little different, in a bit new direction, the fun stuff, the questions are "closed", and soon "deleted" if not improved upon. I put a question up, a few years ago, that one of the higher-ups wanted to help develop. One of his deceased colleagues had already put out a paper on the subject. My question, out of nowhere from my own work, involved a generalization of the paper. So, the retired university mathematician from Australia rounded up four or five or his friends on the forum to vote to reopen the question. Something that I've never seen happen before, on either of the StackExchange forums. The (top) moderator was somewhat, nay, totally, pissed. Ever since, I'm not allowed to put up anything fun even in the standard New Year's question thread about who can find the most complex way to express the numeral that is the new year. Anyway, there's the analogous math forum for research questions. I can understand not messing around on that one.
Robert, as always you provide great comedic material.
To claim that I would possibly be jealous of ... You Know Who ... is hysterical.
I don't believe the bullshit he posts.
Any idiot can claim wealth and try to back it up with photos of money, chips, fake Rolexes and the like; in fact a dickwad on this forum actually tried to pull it off, using a fake screenshot of a $1.5 VP hit as well as pics of phony wads of bills.
Wow, the steps some desperate souls will stoop to in their endless search for relevance, validation, and supremacy.
But unlike those asshats I don't lie.
So wait. Rob is now the spokesman for "true lawyers"? (whoever they may be) :confused: Please Rob give us some names of these "true lawyers" that you are now speaking for that would never refer to another lawyer as an ambulance chaser.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
While we wait for that, I will suggest that there are plenty of "true lawyers", or I will substitute top lawyers, that look down on all the shyster type lawyers that give their profession a bad name and reputation. And as a group, Personal injury lawyers surely make up a large portion of this group.
Nobody, and I mean nobody that I have read is questioning Mdawg because he is wealthy. Nobody questions that he is wealthy, and no one questions his claims because he is wealthy. People question and challenge his claims because they defy both the math and the way Las Vegas and the gambling industry works. The very same reasons I might add as to why YOU initially challenged his claims, before you decided you wanted this particular California flake (your description of him) as an ally, primarily because you both were attacking me.
Quite frankly to those of us that are AP's or even just recreational gamblers, players like Mdawg, losing players, whales or mini-whales, whatever his loses qualifies him as in the casinos eyes, are what makes this town go and for us APs what makes it possible for what we do.
Mdawgs story continues to be a great story to read. That of a high-rolling player who wins some, losses some, losing more than he wins and is comped accordingly. Maybe even better than accordingly, as I believe he plays the comp game well. Of course he has never acknowledged that, instead tells us about the winning while leaving out the losing. Everyone has figured it out now and that is why he rarely even gets a response to his new posts.
He actually revealed something this week that further revealed his true history with gambling, further exposing himself, but I see no need to repeat it right now. Everyone knows what he is, a higher end (hi-roller if you will) that wins some, loses some, losing more that he wins and getting very nice comps. What now makes Mdawgs story interesting is the higher level of play that many of us don't experience. It isn't that silliness of all the winning. That is as silly as your 1.6 million dollar Newell. Maybe THAT is why you two hit it off so well. ;)
20000 entries. Last man standing. The results are all readily tracked in MathWizards & Scammers. You can find old copies at the Library of Congress. I know I have a few copies. Don't think you'll find it on You-Tube. All you people believe Youtube is the answer to everything. And I chuckle. All you naivetes think that clicking on buttons to find answers is actual real research. You're not willing to do any REAL research. You're not willing to track down the surviving 1/2 a copy of some obscure pamplet from 30 years ago to prove me (your internet buddy) wrong. If only you weren't so lazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
No comment on the utility of "auto-arbitrage" programs when solely playing tournaments.
Ah, but there's a big difference between being honest, and, knowing the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Lots of honest people who are, still, very much full of shit.
Today, 09:48 AM #60
OppsIdidItAgain
OppsIdidItAgain is online now
Silver
Join Date
May 2023
Posts
66 <----------------------------------
A very successful outing, indeed.
If you remember MrV, this was Rob's exact initial response to Mdawg when he began posting several years ago....almost word for word. Following that initial response, Rob called Mdawg out when Mdawg claims to be a big tipper in Asia, as Mdawg apparently didn't know the tipping customs in Asia.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
It is just now convenient for Rob to support Mdawg as the have a common adversary. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend).
You will note that no real AP or winning player, myself included, but also including the likes of mickeycrimm, Axelwolf, JBJB, MaxPen, and many more on this forum or other forums have ever posted a picture of cash, or watches/jewelry, casino chips, or pictures of our homes, paid for with winnings, or cars, (or RVs). There have been exactly two people that I have seen on forums do that kind of non-sense. Rob Singer, and Mdawg. There are some scammers on youtube that do that and in truth, Singer and Mdawg are closer to those kind of scammers than anything else.
This is not what makes anyone credible or not. What makes someone credible is that their claims are 1) supported by math (or don't defy math) and 2) don't defy the way casinos or the industry works, you know...like claiming they brought in a machine especially for you and didn't release information on a big winner, :D, and 3) a general knowledge of the subject matter, advantage play that they are talking about and not things like betting into a hot streak (mdawg), or speacial plays and hot and cold cycles and machine telepathing information (Rob Singer).
And I would suggest that the 4th thing would be the ability to rationally and reasonably discuss any questions or challenges just to be sure the is no misunderstanding, something I have done many, many times. If instead, your immediate knee-jerk reaction is to attack anyone that questions or challenges you, you have all but verified what the truth really is. :cool:
Robbie the Robed Twat is a legend in his own mind.
Such shameless, ridiculous claims.
Back in the day the towns folk would have chased him out of town with pitch forks and firebrands.
Seems like I got under you skin a bit too much V!
Always happy to do it of course. And if you need some instructions on how NOT to handle this going forward, kew's your boy. :)
Ron, you are getting your ass kicked daily both here and at GF. And it has been that way since last summer when you pulled that phooney-balanoy Jackpot nonsense and reneged with meeting both MaxPen and Dan Druff. If you were a great troll, pulling this nonsense for 20 years, well you are a shell of that now. You look like an old fool, who hung on way too long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
There are some that think you are just playing. I don't. I think you are completely delusional and detached from reality to the point that you don't even recognize what a fool you are making of yourself. I guess your delusions and complete detachment from reality is harmless enough, but who knows? I would recommend your daughter really keep an eye on you.
Imagine a 73 year old man, who greatest achievement right now is he thinks he annoys or gets under someone's skin. THAT is what he hangs his hat on each day. Beyond pathetic. Beyond sad.
I guess my above post hit home with the man that posts as Rob Singer, especially being reminded of last summer's events with MaxPen and Dan Druff, when Singer high-tailed it from this forum in disgrace, because he has once again run over to GF to respond, saying he will not respond here.
This guy is just looney now. He has always been looney, but now whatever it was that people admired about his trolling is gone. He is now just a sad sack has-been....even a has been of a troll.
I'll let you sniff my underwear if you get my age right next time.
It's 74 :)
Okay, well, I couldn't let it go without the Reaper's standard one-over follow-up, to round things out.
Interestingly, the average of the sum of the six marks below is 98.166666666666 ... ---> 98.166. And, 98 = (1 + 96 + 1) ---> 1961, and, 98 = (2 X 7^2) ---> 2/7 as 2 July.
Back in the early 80's, it took an average of six grade-13 credits to apply to a university.
OppsIdidItAgain OppsIdidItAgain is online now
Silver
Join Date
May 2023
Posts
67 ----------------------------------> 67 = ( 1 + 66) ---> 1/66 ---> 166 as above, or 6^0/66 ---> 666.
I always sort of wondered what the 0.166 part meant, and, now I know. Moreover, this post, too, is in spot #67.
How's that for the numerals, MrV? Guess that I didn't quite hit normal at 98.6, but, again, all of it worked out for the best. Ha.
Very impressive grades there Garnabby, EXCEPT you must have fucked up on Biology, English and Music: you physically snipped out / removed those grades, LOL.
That report card reminds me of why I became a miscreant.
I think it was one of those IOWA Tests of Basic Skills, circa seventh grade, where the highest you could get was 99 (as in percentile). So I bring the IOWA Test results home, and my mother meets me at the front door and asks to see them. Still standing in the doorway, I hand her the pamphlet with my scores. The scores are broken into Local and National scoring. I had a 99 in every single category except National Geography, in which I scored a 98, which wasn't bad, I thought, coming from a broke-ass small town and never having been west of State College or south of Washington, D.C.
So the first thing my mom says, after perusing the pamphlet, was -- of course -- "Why did you get the 98?"
A light bulb went on and I thought, "You know, I don't think everyone may have my best interests at heart."
It was a LOL epiphany moment.
I know first hand how meaningless or deceiving grades are. I was straight A honors, but am actually very un-learned. I am very smart and can take tests, but i know very little of subjects that don’t interest me.
In high school, i rarely went to class. Instead, i had a full time job with an accounting firm until the state came to my house and asked my parents why i had no attendance.
In college, all my time was spent in bars or playing hoops.
Law school was going to the cub game almost every day. Otherwise golf or, if in season, the race track.
So despite great grades, i am ignorant on many subjects.
Freshman year in college;first semester, the day before my US History mid-term exam.
I'd gone to class and read most of the material but had planned to cram during an "all-nighter" but ...
I had a bad toothache; went to the dentist who extracted all four wisdom teeth on the eve of the exam; he gave me strong pain pills which I took as I needed them.
Back in the dorm, my room mate asks if I want to try some home made moonshine (mixed with grape juice).
I tried it, liked it, drank a bunch, passed out, never studied.
I'v no recollection of taking the history exam, but I did, and a week later the professor called me into his office: he said I'd gotten the lowest grade in the class on the multiple choice, but the highest on the essay.
At that point I realized a career in the law awaited me.
"Oh, you want to play that game?" muttered the crazy concussed Canuck, from the attic. But, it was Amarillo Slim, who politely noted that guessers are losers.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
So - just for you - I peeled back a bit of the other grades to reveal another two 9's. Ha.
You know, V, this is working out even better, each time around. Last time, there was (99 + 99 + 99 + 98 + 97 + 97) = 589 = (-11 + 600) ---> 911, by half a turn. And, the jpg of size 776.6 KB, with 7766 ---> 76 ---> 67, as in my previous post, which was post #67 in spot #67. Looks like the time of 3:38, too, sort of fits, by 338 = (2 X 169), or, (3 X 38) = (6 X 19); 338 ---> 38 = (76 / 2) ---> 67. But, this time, my post #68 = [-1 + 9 + (6 X 10)] ---> 1961 in spot #72 as 7/2 for July 2.
Gee, no wonder that you, and Regnis, are still such downers despite all of your uppers. Not hard to be a lawyer, I guess. Now I recall a word from my university days. Must have been a Canadian thing: sled, as in someone that you have to drag around.
OppsIdidItAgain OppsIdidItAgain is online
Silver
Join Date
May 2023
Posts
68
https://youtu.be/sGDuGybCRSE
Was happy to see an Amarillo Slim reference. His was the first poker book I read, when I was 16 or thereabouts.
Opps, my college weak spot was taking four terms of German. Brutal. German 4 had three students (branch campus), and I was clearly the dumbest. Hard to evade being aware you're the dumbest with three people in the class. I was told, at one point, that I was a disgrace to my name. The professor's name was Haag. My name, unfortunately, is Dietz.
Not sure what my college GPA would have been without those German classes. Probably about 3.8.
I read Brunson's "Super System", around the same age as you read the book by Slim. I recall that Brunson mentioned him a few times, as if they were buddies who made wild gambling bets with anyone on the spot. And other personal anecdotes. Apparently, people couldn't wait to lose their money to them to be able to brag that they did. But, the book was very light on the game-theory approach - Brunson didn't subscribe to that approach. There was more in the university library - by students who did thus simulations - and in the game-theory books after the 30's by way of a few examples applied to poker in general, from which it's possible to solve the more complex cases. Was maybe a decade, or two, after, that poker professionals Sklansky, and Greenstein, and a couple of others, started writing extensively about the game-theory approach.
I studied French for a few years in high school, and, later on, on my own, studied some German. I, too, have a German name, but, one which my mother had anglicized shortly after my birth. I took mostly only science courses (with mechanical engineering minor) in university. Many more of the high-nineties in math. The co-op or work, five-year, program, by alternating university terms with thus work placements was a bit different in that the more-academic students preferred the straight-up program of four years, with summers off. But, I had become more interested in applying what I was learning, at the time, to try to figure out where it was leading me. The thing that I realized much later on is that the best way to learn something is to forget it a few times, to have to further develop it. I worked, for a research consulting company, on satellite infrared detection of tanks buried under snow in the Arctic, under the guise of "search and rescue", and, later, for the university, when I shared an office with a civil engineering professor, for about a year. Back then, a lot of that sort of software was yet to be written. Oh, and in between, for a national meteorological center, in Toronto. So, I met lots of interesting and very accomplished characters, even before graduating. Used up the scholarship. The only thing I had to pay for was the textbooks.
My philosophy is that every one must try to figure out life/death for themselves, but, only one version is right. And, if you don't, well, it's not yours. Another thing that I always kept in the back of my head, to always add on to whatever I thus discovered.
Anyway, it was fun to make the various strictly numerological connections here, the last few years. Even your own forum numerals seemed to match mine, on the end.
redietz redietz is offline
Diamond
Join Date
Jul 2011
Posts
8,033 -----------> 3:38
And, the mention of a 3.8 grade point average.
I realized, later today, that the second file's size of 587.5 KB ---> 5875 = (5^3 X 47) sort of relates to the Reaper's 555, down the middle, and, this post's spot #74. You had to have been at the gematria forum to see the repeated appearance of the 555. And, my post #69 goes with spot #74 = (1 + 72 + 1), which is the combination of years that goes with 1961 with 7, and 2, reversed to go with 9, and 6, reversed. 72 alone is July 2, but, 69 alone is June 30, in terms of a square root of 900, as the alternate middle day of the year. It was fun to put stuff out there, and, then, look for the thus connections, and, ultimately, work to a little fun theory of my very own thus numerals. My contribution to the otherwise useless mindlessness of such forums. Last night's post time of 7:27 was another fluke, but still a surprise. Now I wonder what this one's will be. Ha. Oh, not that great, I don't know. Then, again, I'll have to think about it.
OppsIdidItAgain OppsIdidItAgain is online now
Silver
Join Date
May 2023
Posts
69