Doyle Brunson passes

[tableplay]

A solution isn't a proof? A proof necessarily has to be complete or generalized?

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.

[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

[OppsIdidItAgain]

Another two daft posts.

The Old Boy is on a roll.

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.

[MisterV]

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.

"Response" to what?

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?

[tableplay]

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

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.

[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.

You're the only one thrown off numerous forums, and, with a severe posting limit on this one, for nonsensical trolling, but, I'm the one allowed to even create new identities.

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.

[tableplay]

I'm still waiting to hear how a solution, to a math problem, isn't a proof.

Time to put up, or shut up, V.

Bill, it's time for you to post your solution. You said you would do so after I posted mine.

You'll have to better define the range of numerals on the tickets. Beyond that, it has to do with the BP math problem. I explain the latter after tablepooey figures it out. Ha.

P.S. Surely to God, you can ask a more interesting question.

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 ?
Fuck all you're retarded.

[OppsIdidItAgain]

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!

[tableplay]

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."

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.

[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.

[tableplay]

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.

Then this will go nowhere since I believe that I figured it out and you claim to believe I didn't.

[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.

[OppsIdidItAgain]

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

Problems imply solutions (whether as proofs).

[MisterV]

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...Time to put up, or shut up.

OK "Einstein," I'll put up.

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."

[OppsIdidItAgain]

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.

[OppsIdidItAgain]

But thanks for your very own idiocy. I thoroughly enjoyed this thread. The bonus was the realization that proof means full solution.

[OppsIdidItAgain]

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

[tableplay]

But thanks for your very own idiocy. I thoroughly enjoyed this thread. The bonus was the realization that proof means full solution.

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.

[OppsIdidItAgain]

But thanks for your very own idiocy. I thoroughly enjoyed this thread. The bonus was the realization that proof means full solution.

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.

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.

[accountinquestion]

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?

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.

I'll write the fucking thing if you agree to never post here again and we can get Druff to agree to enforce it.