coach belly are you an advantage player.

[BoSox]

I do not mean to be noisy or anything it just I never recall you ever speaking about your own gaming experience. Do you have a preference or specialty in the gaming field? Do you gamble in any capacity?

[coach belly]

I do not mean to be noisy or anything it just I never recall you ever speaking about your own gaming experience. Do you have a preference or specialty in the gaming field? Do you gamble in any capacity?

You are being noisy...you have always been noisy.

I'm happy to demonstrate my gambling capacity, preferences and specialties in person.

But you have to ask me nicely.

[BoSox]

I should have known better than to ask you those questions.

[coach belly]

I should have known better than to ask you those questions.

If you were really interested, then you wouldn't hesitate to my witness my play.

Members are falling all over each other trying to get a look at MDawg's play, what's your problem with watching mine?

I'll teach you a lesson for sure.

[BoSox]

I should have known better than to ask you those questions.

If you were really interested, then you wouldn't hesitate to my witness my play.

Members are falling all over each other trying to get a look at MDawg's play, what's your problem with watching mine?

I think that even MDawg would pause and stop counting his little ketchup bottles if you started talking about your AP plays.

I'll teach you a lesson for sure.

I'm either going to have to pay for the lesson one way or another. As I do not want a boxing lesson at my age.

[coach belly]

if you started talking about your AP plays.

I would never talk about my AP plays. I've read that's frowned upon in this community.

I do not want a boxing lesson at my age.

The rates are age-based. How old are you?

[BoSox]

Put it this way coach I hope that you are in good health and wealth.

[mickeycrimm]

In the past Coach has made assertions that he believes 98% video poker can be beaten.

[redietz]

In the past Coach has made assertions that he believes 98% video poker can be beaten.

And "Rob Singer" has done the same...about a thousand times. Of course, that was only cover for his AP play. And of course, five years from now, we may learn that his double up bug claim with the systems cover story was really a cover story for a better system that was so good he had to use the double up bug claim to hide the fact that his secret system was so much better than his various publicly reported systems. And I need to watch Victor/Victoria again so I can keep up.

But back to coach. People making paranormal claims often use coach's posting style. Let me explain. Paranormal claimants rarely, if ever, actually venture into the math itself. Their claims rarely crunch numbers unless it's to ask rhetorically how many sessions would be required to hit a "long term" that would squeeze claims into a well nigh impossible category. Instead, they argue that all things are possible, with "possible" somehow translating into, "How dare you impugn my integrity by suggesting I'm lying about a 1 in 1000 claim?" So what paranormal claimants offer are "philosophies of math" rather than math itself. If something isn't impossible, then it becomes, rhetorically at least, possible, and instead of presenting, "There's a 99.9% chance of this" versus "There's a .1% chance of that" the entire presentation becomes one of impossible on one side and possible on the other. "Possible" becomes the "good guy," the side of truth and justice and human abilities and the human spirit with a dose of discipline and family values conquering the profane math and so on. "Singer" has, of course, spouted these things on many occasions. In gambling, "possible" also implies that no matter what beatings one has privately taken from negative games, one can keep playing with the hope of turning it all around.

Thus, stone cold impossible becomes ruled out. In the meantime, the possible (and also extremely unlikely) is not consistently tagged with math. So no consistent math references with math used adjectivally, as in .1% chance of this or .003% chance of that. Instead, the emphasis is on the verbiage of "possible."

The entire debate swivels away from probability and into the realm of morality and philosophy. Calling someone a liar becomes reason for pistols at dawn, rather than the sheer improbability of an event becoming reason to define someone as delusional. Instead of highly probabilistically unlikely claims requiring high standards of proof, the claims are considered testament and proof in themselves to the reality.

It's an old claimant presentation style, and what never, ever happens is that the claimant passes any rigorous mathematical test. So people who claim to have done something, when tested, inevitably fail, even though the mathematical possibility exists that they could succeed. The mathematical possibility also exists that they had reported reality -- they were just experiencing one of those once-in-a-lifetime streaks. But somehow, when the spotlight is on them, their abilities become "shy," to use a term from paranormal research, and their abilities fade into the realm of anecdotal history.

Usually, they know how it will all end, so they delay having that spotlight on them as long as possible, creating hoops and drawbacks and delays, all while sucking up the attention and publicity inherent in announcements of spotlight proceedings without ever actually stepping into it.

It's an old style. No adjectival math attached to claims, very few specific math references at all, everything is about defining things as "possible" as opposed to "probable," and evading the testing spotlight like the chicken being chased by Rocky Balboa.

[mickeycrimm]

In the past Coach has made assertions that he believes 98% video poker can be beaten.

And "Rob Singer" has done the same...about a thousand times. Of course, that was only cover for his AP play. And of course, five years from now, we may learn that his double up bug claim with the systems cover story was really a cover story for a better system that was so good he had to use the double up bug claim to hide the fact that his secret system was so much better than his various publicly reported systems. And I need to watch Victor/Victoria again so I can keep up.

But back to coach. People making paranormal claims often use coach's posting style. Let me explain. Paranormal claimants rarely, if ever, actually venture into the math itself. Their claims rarely crunch numbers unless it's to ask rhetorically how many sessions would be required to hit a "long term" that would squeeze claims into a well nigh impossible category. Instead, they argue that all things are possible, with "possible" somehow translating into, "How dare you impugn my integrity by suggesting I'm lying about a 1 in 1000 claim?" So what paranormal claimants offer are "philosophies of math" rather than math itself. If something isn't impossible, then it becomes, rhetorically at least, possible, and instead of presenting, "There's a 99.9% chance of this" versus "There's a .1% chance of that" the entire presentation becomes one of impossible on one side and possible on the other. "Possible" becomes the "good guy," the side of truth and justice and human abilities and the human spirit with a dose of discipline and family values conquering the profane math and so on. "Singer" has, of course, spouted these things on many occasions. In gambling, "possible" also implies that no matter what beatings one has privately taken from negative games, one can keep playing with the hope of turning it all around.

Thus, stone cold impossible becomes ruled out. In the meantime, the possible (and also extremely unlikely) is not consistently tagged with math. So no consistent math references with math used adjectivally, as in .1% chance of this or .003% chance of that. Instead, the emphasis is on the verbiage of "possible."

The entire debate swivels away from probability and into the realm of morality and philosophy. Calling someone a liar becomes reason for pistols at dawn, rather than the sheer improbability of an event becoming reason to define someone as delusional. Instead of highly probabilistically unlikely claims requiring high standards of proof, the claims are considered testament and proof in themselves to the reality.

It's an old claimant presentation style, and what never, ever happens is that the claimant passes any rigorous mathematical test. So people who claim to have done something, when tested, inevitably fail, even though the mathematical possibility exists that they could succeed. The mathematical possibility also exists that they had reported reality -- they were just experiencing one of those once-in-a-lifetime streaks. But somehow, when the spotlight is on them, their abilities become "shy," to use a term from paranormal research, and their abilities fade into the realm of anecdotal history.

Usually, they know how it will all end, so they delay having that spotlight on them as long as possible, creating hoops and drawbacks and delays, all while sucking up the attention and publicity inherent in announcements of spotlight proceedings without ever actually stepping into it.

It's an old style. No adjectival math attached to claims, very few specific math references at all, everything is about defining things as "possible" as opposed to "probable," and evading the testing spotlight like the chicken being chased by Rocky Balboa.

In short, recreational gamblers believe is possibilities while professional gamblers rely on probabilities.

[MisterV]

In short, recreational gamblers believe is possibilities while professional gamblers rely on probabilities.

Or: Play time vs. Work time.

I guess that's the difference between guys like me and you.

I gamble for shits and giggles; you're in it to earn your daily bread.

When I lose (happens a lot) I shrug and say "Oh well, it was spare money anyway, I'm financially well-heeled and need to spend it on something so who cares, really?" whereas if you lose it's more like "Fuck me, it's back to dumpster diving til the tide turns."

When gambling is an existential event people have to take it more seriously to help ensure their survival; for me it's a mindless albeit stimulating diversion.

[BoSox]

In short, recreational gamblers believe is possibilities while professional gamblers rely on probabilities.

Or: Play time vs. Work time.

I guess that's the difference between guys like me and you.

I gamble for shits and giggles; you're in it to earn your daily bread.

When I lose (happens a lot) I shrug and say "Oh well, it was spare money anyway, I'm financially well-heeled and need to spend it on something so who cares, really?" whereas if you lose it's more like "Fuck me, it's back to dumpster diving til the tide turns."

When gambling is an existential event people have to take it more seriously to help ensure their survival; for me it's a mindless albeit stimulating diversion.

What a lousy post MisterV.
You apparently know mickeycrimm's financial position in life. He very well may be sitting better than you are.

[mickeycrimm]

In short, recreational gamblers believe is possibilities while professional gamblers rely on probabilities.

Or: Play time vs. Work time.

I guess that's the difference between guys like me and you.

I gamble for shits and giggles; you're in it to earn your daily bread.

When I lose (happens a lot) I shrug and say "Oh well, it was spare money anyway, I'm financially well-heeled and need to spend it on something so who cares, really?" whereas if you lose it's more like "Fuck me, it's back to dumpster diving til the tide turns."

When gambling is an existential event people have to take it more seriously to help ensure their survival; for me it's a mindless albeit stimulating diversion.

I used to be in gambling to earn my daily bread.

Then I was in gambling to bank up as much money as possible before I got to old.

Now, I still gamble for something to do but don't need the money anymore. I'm set for life. You know, like all those working stiffs that retire after 40 years of work.

About losing? Fuck, I never had a losing year. Never came close. Making money was always routine to me. There's no losing in gambling. At least not for me. Where'd you come up with that shit?

[BoSox]

Redietz wrote:

"It's an old style. No adjectival math attached to claims, very few specific math references at all, everything is about defining things as "possible" as opposed to "probable," and evading the testing spotlight like the chicken being chased by Rocky Balboa."

[coach belly]

No adjectival math attached to claims, very few specific math references at all

Mathematicians within the community have analyzed and explained that neither Singer's nor MDawg's claims are within the realm of the paranormal.

The results that our fellow members reported were found to be not extraordinary.

The math guys took it upon themselves to investigate the claims, I did not petition or encourage them to do so.

[redietz]

No adjectival math attached to claims, very few specific math references at all

Mathematicians within the community have analyzed and explained that neither Singer's nor MDawg's claims are within the realm of the paranormal.

The results that our fellow members reported were found to be not extraordinary.

The math guys took it upon themselves to investigate the claims, I did not petition or encourage them to do so.

Many problems with this post by coach. Allow me, if you will, to "play coach."

First of all, we have the "mathematicians within the community" phrase. LOL. What community are you referring to, coach? Name the mathematicians, please, so we can ask them directly. I don't recall anyone saying either person's claims were "not in the realm of the paranormal." Please point out where that particular phrase was used, if you please.

I also never said Mdawg's or Singer's claims for their PAST was paranormal. What I said was that they claim a PAST, and then going FORWARD, they claim they can do the same thing. The claim that they have a way to duplicate the PAST while GOING FORWARD is what is paranormal. And it can be tested. And it won't be.

For example, coach, have you tallied how many sessions MDawg has won consecutively? MDawg can claim whatever he pleases. Good for him. But I assert that he can't do the same going forward.

Now, as an analogy, I won 17 consecutive against-the-spread in a public contest about 10 years ago (a contest I did not win, by the way, despite a 66-34 ATS record). The odds against doing that were the same as someone dying-by-reptile. I did it; it's in the books. Turns out it's not all that uncommon, as some offshores offered "streak rewards" for winning a certain number of consecutive against-the-spread games, and the biggest rewards were for winning 21 in a row. People actually did it on occasion. But that happens when you have 30,000 people on sites betting every day. Eventually long shots happen. People win the lottery.

But can I win 17 against-the-spread in a row GOING FORWARD? Well, in "coachspeak," I can (theoretically); it's possible. But I will not. I will never do that again. The claim that I can duplicate that, on command, is ludicrous. Absurd. Dumb as rocks. Possible? Oh, sure. But dumb as rocks to assert I will do that.

If MDawg were tested, he's not going to do this never losing stuff GOING FORWARD. And he's not going to be able to demonstrate streaks like he's reported when there are witnesses. That would be paranormal.

See, the debunking isn't historical debunking of past claims. The debunking is the unveiling that the person with the past claims does not have abilities enabling them to do their alleged thing going forward. Once that is demonstrated, then their past claims become just anecdotal curiosities, like winning lotteries.

Coach pointing out that Lloyd's chances aren't paranormal:

[kewlJ]

First of all, we have the "mathematicians within the community" phrase. LOL. What community are you referring to, coach? Name the mathematicians, please, so we can ask them directly.

Sorry to jump in here, Red, but the "mathematicians" referenced are Wizard and Eliot, both of whom I have great respect and admiration for their math abilities. But let's clarify what was said and occurred.

Wizard: Mdawg privately contacts Wizard more often than most people take a crap. It is usually to bitch and whine like a girl, and try to get people suspended. But on at least one occasion (likely far more) that contact was to manipulate Wizards opinion. It occurred just after Wizard stated that it was time for Mdawg "to put up or shut up", I believe in December.

Mdawg manipulated Wizard by telling him, he (mdawg) uses a $500k line of credit to leverage against small wins each day. When you consider that, yeah, it seems possible that a player could extract quite a number of small wins, before it all collapses. Problem is in Mdawgs "writings" there is no mention of credit lines anywhere close to that amount. He talks about taking credit in $8000 range. So if Wizard were to re-calculate based on the smaller credit lines that Mdawg actually talks about, then all these frequent wins, becomes much less "possible"....into the "impossible" range really. I know Mike is not going to like it when I say Mdawg is manipulating him, but that is in fact what is occurring, including with all the crying and whining.

Now Eliot is a little different. Eliot is just a pure math geek and I don't mean that as an insult. He takes emotion completely out of it and just looks at the math. So Eliot concluded that the likelihood of Mdawgs claims where 1 in 600. And THAT was before this current trip of 10 more straight winning-every-session, winning-every-day was added in.

Now lets be clear 1 in 600 (much higher including these latest claims from this trip) for any reasonable person, means it didn't happen. But Mdawg has taken that 1 in 600 and says, "see it is possible". Shades of the Dumb and Dumber movie, where the girl puts the odds of them being together at 1 in a million and the response it "so you are telling me there is a chance". That is Mdawg....he is one of the dumb and dumber guys.

[coach belly]

What I said was that they claim a PAST, and then going FORWARD, they claim they can do the same thing.

I'm not concerned with whatever claims going FORWARD you ascribe to them.

That's your peculiar obsession, not mine.

I'm addressing the insistence that they are lying about their PAST results.

I also never said Mdawg's or Singer's claims for their PAST was paranormal.
MDawg can claim whatever he pleases. Good for him.

Then we are in agreement...it seems that you see things my way.

[coach belly]

Name the mathematicians

Why do you seem to be under the impression that I have anything against MDawg? My entire purpose in this thread was to demonstrate that his claims (at least the ones I have read) are not mathematically ridiculous.

[AxelWolf]

No adjectival math attached to claims, very few specific math references at all

Mathematicians within the community have analyzed and explained that neither Singer's nor MDawg's claims are within the realm of the paranormal.

The results that our fellow members reported were found to be not extraordinary.

The math guys took it upon themselves to investigate the claims, I did not petition or encourage them to do so.

Perhaps not one of his claims in and of itself. the totality of claims are ludicrous. Here is a gem from today.

Quote: MDawg

"There are exceptions. Last trip I had this shoe where I won almost every hand in shoe (minus ties) after I arrived about 15 hands into the shoe, and betting just two hundred a hand I won over ten grand."



Quote: Sabor "So after skipping the first 15 hands you must have played around 70 hands. 10k winner @ $200/hand means you net 50 wins.

Let's assume you won 60 hands then and lost 10 to accomplish this.

1 - BINOMDIST(60,70,.51,TRUE) = 1.80381E-10

Wow, a 5.5 billion to 1 event. Pretty improbable for mere mortals, but I'm sure to you it's just another Tuesday.

Stay hydrated."