New Forum Address: ROULETTELIFE.COM
  Update your Bookmarks

Author Topic: Science and Hypothesis. The meaning of probability (for Mike)  (Read 5415 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mike

Re: Science and Hypothesis. The meaning of probability (for Mike)
« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2016, 03:48:59 PM »
...whatever interpretation you prefer, the math remains the same...

Probability has no volition of its own.

It is a complete slave to the maths and no one can ever change that, even if you can.

What's your point?
 

scepticus

Re: Science and Hypothesis. The meaning of probability (for Mike)
« Reply #16 on: April 12, 2016, 05:25:55 PM »
scepticus,

Both Real and I have answered your questions many times before, it's not our problem if you don't accept the answers. You continue to be utterly confused and don't understand the difference between biased wheel AP and VB, as is evident from this comment:

Quote
There you are, standing at the table becoming animated each and every time the dealer  picks up the ball to start his spin - and you think you are not noticed !

Not only that, but your grasp of probability and math is practically non-existent, so there's really no point in arguing with you. Sorry.

And please stick to the topic of this thread. It's not about AP, as much as you seem to want it to be.

Still indulging in evasion , Mike
Please direct me  to your answer to how many spins you need to determine a biased wheel .
Please tell me where you get your stats if you don't watch the wheel .
Please tell me the name of a Physicist that agrees that  your method is viable.
Like REAL you continue to make statements rather than answer questions.
As for not knowing the difference between "a biased wheel AP and VB " please tell me what you consider to be the difference between them.
If my grasp of maths  is non-existent it was CERTAINLY  good enough to show that you were ignorant in claiming there could be no more than 81 sets of three in  4 spins.
My charge here IS about Probability .
That it is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that you and REAL can actually do what you claim to do.
So stop the patronising and answer my questions.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2016, 05:27:56 PM by scepticus »
 

BlueAngel

  • I always express my opinion
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1614
  • Thanked: 259 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Do you want truth? You cannot handle the truth!
Re: Science and Hypothesis. The meaning of probability (for Mike)
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2016, 10:21:01 AM »
Quote
So why do you and REAL think  YOU can beat roulette  ? And  without the aid of a computer too ?

Because we're beating the wheel, rather than the random game.

You are using PAST data to predict FUTURE results, (which pins/deflectors have hitted most, how many gaps between pockets per spin...etc)

Unfortunately for you those conditions are dynamic and fluctuating from one hour to the next, even from one spin to the next, therefore the profile you have created based on past data could be obsolete and you should realise it only AFTER losing several bets.

Roulette computers can do no more than applying this knowledge automatically, are only better in comparison with the manual application because a human could do mistakes, but even a flawless application can and will lose.

The bottom line is that you think your method is better but it's no better than all those systems you have condemned from time to time.
 

Reyth

Re: Science and Hypothesis. The meaning of probability (for Mike)
« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2016, 01:54:29 PM »
The bottom line is that you think your method is better but it's no better than all those systems you have condemned from time to time.

 

scepticus

Re: Science and Hypothesis. The meaning of probability (for Mike)
« Reply #19 on: April 23, 2016, 07:59:50 PM »
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. " Albert Einstein

"The only way to beat roulette is to steal chips when the dealer isn't looking". Albert Einstein.  ;)

I don't know why people keep repeating this nonsense . Particularly AP players who claim that they  beat roulette.
Where does Einstein say it can be beaten by anything specific ?  And Einstein was a physicist so would have considered " the Wheel " so, in saying what he is alleged to have said , I think he was being flippant. I think it  unlikely that he  spoke through ignorance.
 

Reyth

Re: Science and Hypothesis. The meaning of probability (for Mike)
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2016, 09:28:38 PM »
"The only way to beat roulette is to steal chips when the dealer isn't looking". Albert Einstein.

« Last Edit: May 01, 2016, 11:02:38 AM by kav »
 

Harryj

Re: Science and Hypothesis. The meaning of probability (for Mike)
« Reply #21 on: April 29, 2016, 03:20:29 PM »
   Amusing Reyth, but I have to protest. There is no clear evidence that Einstein ever studied roulette. The earliest example of the above quote I have found. Was in a "tongue in cheek" biography of Nick the Greek. Published in 1968.

     So let's look at the  FACT. Probability is not certainty !   It doesn't matter how many GOOGLES (a google is 1 followed by 100 zeros) you make your tests. You will never get( "Well hardly ever") all the possibilities to exactly equal their probability.  That is a FACT, and what the theorem states.

     For probability to be a mathematical  FACT every experiment should produce the same result. The larger the number involved the smaller the percentage of error is LIKELY to be, BUT the larger the ACTUAL error is LIKELY to be.

    You cannot calculate probability like simple arithmetic ! Every answer MUST include a "FUDGE FACTOR" to explain the obvious errors.

     Probability is a useful tool and cannot be ignored by the gambler, but it cannot be used to state with certainty that any bet will fail !

     Harry
« Last Edit: May 01, 2016, 11:03:22 AM by kav »
 
The following users thanked this post: scepticus

UK-21

Re: Science and Hypothesis. The meaning of probability (for Mike)
« Reply #22 on: May 01, 2016, 10:38:30 AM »
Not quite true . . . . if you were playing blackjack and took up the insurance bet when the dealer's upcard was an ace, but all of the tens in the deck/shoe had already been dealt out before that round, there would be a zero probability of you winning this bet - the dealer would not be able to pull a snapper. As most people don't count the cards when they play, they wouldn't know this. Many people take the insurance option as a matter of course.