Math vs fantasy

[kewlJ]

Gambling is mathematics. Advantage play is mathematics. Everything in life is about mathematics.

Anyone that claims to win at gambling long-term should be able to explain the math of what gives them an advantage. These guys that come along with claims that defy the math and then double down claiming the math is a hoax or conspiracy and that they are working off some alternative math are telling a tale, a fantasy. No different that the little girl who fell through a rabbit hole to a magical fantasy world or the little boy that planted some magical bean and climbed up a beanstalk to a land of giants.

This is a forum populated by people that known and understand the math. The real math, not some alternative twilight zone version. For some reason some of these people choose to embrace some of these fantasy claims. I guess they think it funny to do so.

The very low bar for any claim of long-term winnings from gambling has to be that the math works. The real math, not some funky alternative version. After that we can get into discussions of longevity and how a player can go about being able to keep playing against an industry trying to stop them, but only after that low bar of the math working has been met.

On this forum, Spike/Evenbob now joins Rob Singer, and Mdawg with these fantasy claims that defy math and claiming some form of alternative math.

Now moving past the math for a minute, if a player had discovered some holy grail of winning as these guys all claim, and had the ability to basically print money, would they drive a taxi cab or run a bar (Evenbob), or chase ambulances for a living (Mdawg) or work in aerospace (Singer and his wife) for decades?

These fables are fun, I guess. But they are as real as Jack and his beanstalk. And the APs and guys on this forum that understand the math know it. The very low bar has to be the math.

[kewlJ]

One other thing: The guy that claims he is rainman with total recall of every card played as his vehicle for defying the math. It would make no difference if he was rainman or even just the luckiest person alive, a human lucky clover, the casinos still will not just allow and welcome a player to play and win, like he claims. Casinos have a defense built in that they can bar anybody, from advantage players, to cheats, to the luckiest person alive. Even rainman.

So, good try, but just not reality.

Real long-term winning play at the casinos is about finding something that gives you a mathematical advantage and figuring out how to apply it so that you can keep playing against an industry trying to stop you. Anything else is just Jack and his beanstalk.

[smurgerburger]

Whistling in the dark.

[accountinquestion]

[Spike]

I am not defying the t
he math. The math for roulette is figured using random bets against random outcomes. I use non random bets so the math using random bets does not apply to me.

[MDawg]

Whistling in the dark.

In other words,

One thing you can tell, when UNKewlJ makes with the all bold sentences one after another something has really gotten to him. You can practically see the hand cocked onto his side, the bent elbow and the high pitched whiny voice complaining, "Now wayyyyt a minute, Misterrrrr."

[MisterV]

I am not defying the t
he math. The math for roulette is figured using random bets against random outcomes. I use non random bets so the math using random bets does not apply to me.

Ahhhh, I see....the bets used are "non-random" because Spike pre-determined / decided upon the number(s) he would bet before he made a bet as opposed to having no idea and simply betting whatever number comes to mind when it is time to bet.

Brilliant: a man with a plan.

Next time I play craps I'll give myself a real edge and play like a real AP like Spike by predetermining whether to bet PL or DP before I play and then betting.

To infinity, and beyond...

[jbjb]

[kewlJ]

I am not defying the t
he math. The math for roulette is figured using random bets against random outcomes. I use non random bets so the math using random bets does not apply to me.

Case in point. Alternative math.

[jbjb]

I am not defying the t
he math. The math for roulette is figured using random bets against random outcomes. I use non random bets so the math using random bets does not apply to me.

Ahhhh, I see....the bets used are "non-random" because Spike pre-determined / decided upon the number(s) he would bet before he made a bet as opposed to having no idea and simply betting whatever number comes to mind when it is time to bet.

Brilliant: a man with a plan.

Next time I play craps I'll give myself a real edge and play like a real AP like Spike by predetermining whether to bet PL or DP before I play and then betting.

To infinity, and beyond...

The dude's full of shit. We know it, he knows it, etc., etc., etc.....

[MisterV]

I'm not 100% certain Spike knows it, given him being so very young; youngsters like him need to experience the way the world works before spouting opinions on complicated subjects.

His mother might want to cut down on all the sweets he gets as too much sugar is not good for the development of a growing young boy's brain and mental acuity.

Hey, since when did little children start posting on gambling forums?

Isn't watching Spongebob Squarepants more entertaining?

Kids these days...

[Spike]

I am not defying the t
he math. The math for roulette is figured using random bets against random outcomes. I use non random bets so the math using random bets does not apply to me.

Case in point. Alternative math.

No. The facts change so the math changes. It's like the speedometer readout changes if you put taller tires on your truck. The math has changed. I use non random bets so the math has changed.

[kewlJ]

Spike, I read your anti-Law of Large numbers rant at WoV. It is complete nonsense. Shame on Wizard for allowing that crap on a forum supposed to be about the math....free speech or no free speech policy.

And there is nothing new about your "short term defying" positions. Rob Singer has taken that exact same position for a decade or more. That right there tells you everything you need know.

And I will tell you the same thing I told Singer, using your game roulette as the example. Can a player walk into a casino play roulette bet black and win 3 out of 4 spins and leave? Absolutely. Can a player duplicate that every day for a year? Absolutely not. THAT sir is the Law of Large Numbers (or trials) at play.

[kewlJ]

the math changes.

Based on private conversation, I don't really believe you believe such voodoo. I believe you are just seeking attention and conflict, for entertainment purposes.

[Spike]

the math changes.

Based on private conversation, I don't really believe you believe such voodoo. I believe you are just seeking attention and conflict, for entertainment purposes.

So you think the math is same for whatever tire you use. Really.

[jbjb]

EB's house.

[Spike]

Spike, I read your anti-Law of Large numbers rant at WoV. It is complete nonsense. Shame on Wizard for allowing that crap on a forum supposed to be about the math....free speech or no free speech policy.

And there is nothing new about your "short term defying" positions. Rob Singer has taken that exact same position for a decade or more. That right there tells you everything you need know.

And I will tell you the same thing I told Singer, using your game roulette as the example. Can a player walk into a casino play roulette bet black and win 3 out of 4 spins and leave? Absolutely. Can a player duplicate that every day for a year? Absolutely not. THAT sir is the Law of Large Numbers (or trials) at play.

Having an 80% hit rate does not mean winning 3 out of 4 every time. It does mean winning mean winning every session however. And the law lof Large numbers does not apply to individual short term events. How could it. Google it and you will see.

[accountinquestion]

I am not defying the t
he math. The math for roulette is figured using random bets against random outcomes. I use non random bets so the math using random bets does not apply to me.

If the ball lands on 23 every time but you bet randomly then you lose.

If you don't bet randomly but the ball lands randomly then you still lose.

Do you disagree with either?

[MisterV]

I am not defying the t
he math. The math for roulette is figured using random bets against random outcomes. I use non random bets so the math using random bets does not apply to me.

and

Having an 80% hit rate does not mean winning 3 out of 4 every time. It does mean winning mean winning every session however.

Sophistry raises its head, sniffs the air, climbs out of its hole and announces "Here I am."

[Spike]

I am not defying the t
he math. The math for roulette is figured using random bets against random outcomes. I use non random bets so the math using random bets does not apply to me.

If the ball lands on 23 every time but you bet randomly then you lose.

If you don't bet randomly but the ball lands randomly then you still lose.

Do you disagree with either?

It all depends on the quality of the non random bet