Tach, I've understood your narrative all along. I guess I was hoping against hope that all you were doing was making was a mathematical error - a misundersanding of probability theory. But NOT, for a mathematician and a scientist, your belief in the only alternative to that, and you know what that is .. don't you ? Hint .. it's a five letter word, it begins with 'm' and ends with 'c'. Back soon to prove this .. with .. your .. narrative.
I agree 100% with what you've said, above. Also, thank you for taking the time to show the math. I was hoping someone would do this.
While I'm working on Tachs 'magical mystery tour of the anaboplectic algorithm', I would like to put this proposition to the forum. - A fair roulette wheel - I have a handdful of chips. - I toss them onto the roulette wheel table. They land randomly anywhere (within the betting fields) I propose that I have the same chance of winning or losing as anyone else, including players with no gambling system, and including anyone possessed of any gambling system such as algorithms analysing past results, or WHATEVER. Yes or no ? (Tach and Victor .. you two can have a go at this too) Edited last line
Let me spell it out for you, since you have so much difficulty in grocking it, it has absolutely nothing to do with the calculated outcomes: 1. The "programmers" bet red, I bet black, it came out black, so I won. 2. They bet black, I bet red, it came out red, so I won. 3. They bet even, I bet odd, it came out odd, so I won. 4. They bet odd, I bet even , it came out even, so I won. One hour, 800 EUR.
Well, technically no. If you dump your chips randomly on the wheel, you might put some of them on zero, which decreases your odds of winning. But if we add the caveat that the chips only fall on red or black numbers, then yes. I think that's actually what I showed in the math of my last post, as long as we recognize that rate of return is linear in number of bets so multiple bets at once are just as independent as multiple consecutive bets for the purposes of expected return. Yes, you won because the algorithm lost. I get that. The question at hand is: did you win because your strategy (betting against a bad algorithm) was a winning strategy, or did you win because you got lucky with a same-as-chance strategy? The calculated outcomes show that it had to be the latter, because the expected return per bet with any strategy is negative. Therefore, all strategies are losing strategies on average.
Can I reiterate that the often-overlooked issue in gambling is that people only stop when they've lost their shirt. If we had a roulette table that didn't have a zero, people would win a bit and get excited, and while they're winning they won't stop playing. Instead they place bigger and bigger bets, until eventually they lose everything they won, and their original stake. Then they stop. That IMHO is the biggest reason casinos etc make their money.
Good point. Yes, I agree. In my opening posts I had said 'ignore the zero for convenience' but of course, my scenario in post #45 involved a real live situation, which of course, must involve the zero. Thank you for pointing this out. Yes, I see that's what you showed in your earlier post.
Oh, so the fact that you won by betting opposite someone who lost really was your whole point? That makes everything much simpler. I guess I was thrown off earlier when you said: That really gave me the impression that you thought there was something relevant about the fact that they were using an algorithm to place losing bids.
There is. Something very simple, their probability of loosing was much larger than 0.5. I thought you understood that.
Ah me .. What can be said about this ermined little weasel who calls himself Tach on these forums ? Who pretends at great maths, physics, science, but is actually frightfully deficient in some of the basics, both is science and in human relationships ? Tach .. I've been trying to find some time to get to the business end of this thread - to show you the depth of your superstition, and then link up how you, by all you've said concerning the roulette / algorithm issue, are a believer in no less than magic - that's why I've called it 'Tach's Magical Mystery of the Anaboplectic (that's two Greek words - off to the NT Greek dictionary with you) Algorithm' .. But just as an aside .. to participate in some light humour, I noticed that another poster, was humorously, affectionately even, wondering where our friend Victor had got to in the pseudoscience page. In measure of equal humour, and with some cheekiness, I'll admit (but light years distant from your banalities - see following) I said .. "Nope - he is collaborating with Tach. I have a feeling about this" Your response ? Good grief, here it is .. Butthurt much? I wonder what crackpottery I exposed in your earlier posts that you are stalking me so viciously? STALKING YOU ??? VICIOUSLY ??? The roulette issue, and your egregious, unmitigated error in relation to it. is the ONLY dialogue I've perused you on, and in terms quite less severe than those you've used on others. This is NOT stalking, nor viscous - so again, FAIL on both counts. As I said earlier, if your position is corrupt at the source, all that follows from is likely to be too. Then you linked the 'Physics of a merry go round' thread, to show how I've apparently been stalking you .. and indulged in crackpottery, or whatever. AHHHH .. BIG MISTAKE Tach !!! I clicked onto that thread, and was overwhelmed with immediate examples of your abuse and hypocrisy. Worse, MUCH WORSE, I was overwhelmed by the abundance of examples of the scientific discipline you demanded of others, but of which you are UTTERLY, TOTALLY, ABSOLUTELY bereft of here, in this thread, concerning your magical algorithm, hereafter referred to as TMMAA (a suitable acronym for .. Tach's Magical Mystery of the Anaboplectic Algorithm) .. heh .. I couldn't let these go by Tach. So here are some relevant posts of yours in that thread (the number in brackets is your post number). See how your comments apply here to you on the roulette / TMMAA issue .. (24) Are you able to write the equation of motion? Tach, are YOU able to write the TMMAA equation that proves it was picking the loser (same as picking the winner) beyond probability (27) .. Instead of pretending to be doing physics, prove that you know how to. If you write the equations of motion, you can solve them as well .. Tach, instead of pretending to do maths, write the equation of probability that solves TMMAA (29) .. This is one of the problems that you need to roll out your sleeves and do the math .. Tach, ditto .. (32) .. Very simple problem, can any of you three pretenders (eram, RJBeery, Lakon) solve it? (Pete, please abstain from showing them how). At the very minimum, can you write down the equations of motion? Instead of talking about physics, how about actually doing physics for a change? Tach .. pathetic. You are goading others to goad others .. At the very minimum, can you write down the equations of probability ? (39) Yes, but he is so much fun , basking in his ignorance. I imagine him to be in his 60's , unemployed, dementia setting in. Ah .. me .. you are a sad little man .. (42) Correct. What happens exactly is governed by the equations of motion. I challenged the "three musketeers" (eram, RJBeery, Lakon) to write the equations of motion , it is a better use for their time than flapping their mouths. Motor Daddy has volunteered to help them, it is going to be a blast. Tach - what happens on a roulette wheel for each future spin is governed by equations of probability. I challenge you, the great .. emm, tailor .. to ...tailor .. (your words) the equation that solves how your TMMAA performed reliably beyond (worse / better) than chance. It will be better use for your time than simply flapping your mouth. it is going to be a blast ! (43) Sure, that is what makes him so entertaining. At least he's not a pretender, he doesn't know anything but he's proud of his ignorance and he flaunts it. I wonder if his family knows how stupid he is? Alas .. I see no opportunity to return this one to you. it seems you ARE a pretender and not aware of your ignorance. Does your family know ? Do you HAVE a family ? (45) Go ahead, "Make my day". Does your family know what you are posting here? Do you even have any friends ? (51) As long as you don't know them, you are just flapping mouth. You've done so much flapping AND tailoring with your TMMAA. Let's see the equations that proves it can be relied on to perform worse / better than chance. (67) It is called "Coriolis", Daddy-O. You should try enrolling in a physics class, now that you are retired. Sad .. though I'm sure you have enrolled in probability. That's why it so sad. (69)Well, he was one of the greatest physicists ever, I'd rather learn from him than from the resident crackpot. It is refreshing to see that your ignorance extends equally to classical physics. So, you aren't a nutter only when it comes to Einstein but also with respect to Newton. Way, to go, Daddy-O! Resident crackpot .. Lol .. Tach .. resident crackpot .. magic .. tailor ... mushrooms .. Lol And Ugh .. Another cheap cliché at the end. Hmmm, and all out of the sixties / seventies .. I'm starting to suspect why you have an age issue. You've an old fella, aren't you ? Nothing wrong with that as far as it goes, but it seems it doesn't sit to well with you. (75 & 76) You two little perverts already took that class. 50 years ago .. little pervert, you already took that class. 50 years ago Sad .. starting to show signs of sexual inadequacy here. And in post 78, Motor Daddy tried to ameliorate the issue, to calm your pathetic little mind, and to keep the discussion good natured and humorous, by saying .. I think she could teach me something about physics. And your response ??? (78) Not all the Viagra in the world can help you, perv. Tach, it is a proven fact that many who make banal jokes about Viagra in the manner you did above, actually suffer sexual dysfunction themselves. I read a very interesting article on this only recently. I'll try to find it and PM it to you - it had some links for old guys with penile / sexual dysfunction problems. You will find it quite useful. (126) Since you didn't do any calculation, this is , of course, pulled out from your behind. LOL .. LOL .. LOL .. since you didn't do any calculation about your TMMAA, what orifice did YOU pull it out from .. Oh, Wait .. penile dysfunction .. yes, I see .. (129) If you learn physics, you kill the ignorant target. If you keep trolling the forums instead of spending your time studying, you end up stupid and shot. One of a plethora of accusation of trolling from the master troll (and now tailor, magician, et al) (139)Now, at the beginning of this thread I challenged you and the other cheerleaders to do the calculations for the trajectory (instead of just wasting your lives trolling the thread). Can you figure out how Pete arrived to the 16mm (actually 63mm) number? What is the physics behind the numbers? Come on, it isn't complicated, it requires only 9-th grade physics. At the beginning of this thread, I challenged you (sorry, I can't say AND your cheerleaders - you have none - no one would be so stupid) to certain inalienable propositions I made in my posts #1 and #7 concerning probability in relation to roulette wheel. Come on - it isn't complicated. How does TMMAA circumvent these ? (141) ...if you also want to sweep under the rug your initial error of an order of magnitude.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ditto .. (161) You are still struggling with this basic exercise. You obviously have no clue. You are struggling with something far more minacious, because you have EVERY clue. (163) Well, instead of trolling the forum why don't you enroll in 9-th grade physics, you might learn something instead of embarrassing yourself ad nauseaum. This particular problem with the carousel is really trivial, why do you keep posting nonsense when you could better spend your time learning physics instead of pretending that you know physics? Just substitute roulette for carousel .. probability for physics .. you get the idea ! (167) I don't suffer fools. You are the crank who claimed that "Hence there is a paradox in special relativity", That's my problem. I'm too generous. I do suffer fools, and try to help them. There's hope for you yet, Tach. (171) Because I pointed out that you are a crank who thinks that "there is a paradox in special relativity"? Tough. You are a crank who has perverted the theory of probability with your TMMAA. (173) One cannot teach cranks, cranks remain cranks. I believe you are now fully cognisant of your grievous error. You just haven't got the balls to fess up. Crank. (175) This thread is not about your demonstrating that you are a troll in addition to being a crank, how about you solve the simple exercise defining the thread? .. .. simple .. exercise .. defining .. the .. thread? ............ Lol .. what CAN I say ? (177) I am challenging you to do something useful with your life instead of trolling. Little steps first, Tach. Before I make such onerous demands of you, I make the little ones. (179) Correction, I do not consider you inferior, I simply pointed out that you exhibit the traits of a crank, here. You are posting in the thread about the carousel but you have no clue how to solve the simple puzzle. Therefore , your posting qualifies as basic trolling. I do consider you somewhat inferior to myself and most other posters here, because fundamentally, you are abusive and dishonest. That brings about all your other problems that you are self abused of. But it's never too late Tach. It just requires courage - the courage to take your prejudices, superstitions and hypocrisies upon yourself and then disabuse yourself of them. It's hard, but it can be done.
The Jarecki story/novel whatever is a work of fiction. Note that writers & publishers make money from books/stories which sell. They are not concerned with the validity of claims made. As mentioned in a previous post, casinos do not worry about players who record roulette results in hopes of discovering some bias. Forms for this use are sold in shops in both Reno & Vegas & probably in shops near European casinos. I have seen them used in Vegas with no complaints from the pit bosses or other casino personnel. Note also that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A book published to make money is not necessarily true. There is no good evidence that casino roulette wheels are biased at all & certainly no reason to believe that any are biased enough to overcome the circa 5% house edge for American wheels or the edge for European wheels (about half of the American house edge). There are many books/stories published about humans abducted by aliens; Others about haunted houses; Still others about phenomena like the Blair Mill Witch project. Only the very naive believe that such books describe true events. It is interesting to note that people in primitive cultures often believe anything that is printed rather than told orally or hand written. What makes the Jarecki novel/story any more believable than the above mentioned books? BTW: On rare occasions, people with credible credentials publish nonsense in order to make money. An example is the Jupiter Effect published circa 1982 describing catastrophes expected in 1984 due to the alignment of most of the planets on one side of the sun. One of the authors of this book was/is an author of excellent books relating to valid science & others had serious academic credentials in astronomy. Unlike blackjack, roulette probability is independent of past events. The house edge is the same for every bet. While a person might do better or worse than expected for a short period, in the long run, no strategy should be expected to be better or worse than that indicated by the house edge. If you watch any player, you are likely to see him/her losing (it is expected). Betting against such a loser does not result in a winning strategy in the long run. It is expected to result in the loses indicated by the house edge. In a game with a house edge, anyone you watch for a while will be a loser. In the long run, betting the opposite of such a loser does not result in results other than the losses expected due to the house edge. The claim for an 800 Euro win might be valid. If it occurred, it was due to luck. It was not due to being a winning strategy. The claim true or not indicates that the claimer does not know much (if anything) about probability.
I don't know why you persist in this nonsense, especially after being given references to the contrary. This is because the fact that after losing huge amounts of money to Jarecki , the casinos switched to a different, much more expensive type of wheel. That he broke the banks on both the French and the Italian Riviera is a documentd FACT. You are simply repeating the same fallacy as Lakon and Fenis48. If the "loser" is a flawed algorithm, that has an experimentally verified systematic error, then you stand to win since you aren't dealing anymore with a random sequence of events (their bids are biased, in the wrong way). Which is precisely what I did. Had I been able to, I would have bet every money I had alongside with dr. Jarecki, just the same. We are no dealing with probabilities in these cases, we are dealing with certitudes. You and the others need to try (hard) to understand this fact. The house doesn't come into the picture in this type of experiment, they got their share, I got mine. False, as explained above and as proven experimentally. You are simply repeating the same fallacies as Lakon and Fednis48. Including the inability to accept the other "experiment", the Jarecki experiment.
It should be noted by all readers and posters to this thread, that the Jareki issue involved detectable roulette wheel bias, which it is claimed, allowed Jareki to profit. True or false (let us say true) it involved roulette bias. This should NOT be confused or linked to Tachs algorithm experience in 2010, which involved no, and had nothing to do with roulette bias. Tach has stated on many occassions here - nothing to do with roulette bias. It is interesting however, how he continues to refer to it, often conflating it with his 2010 algorithm experience - see several occasions of this in the above post.
It took you quite a while but you managed to understand this aspect. What is "algorith"? You mean "algorithm"? Can you figure out the difference between a mechanical bias (the wheel) and the algorithm bias? Hint: there isn't any, they are both systematic effects. One is hardware, the other one is software. Yes, I stated it in many occasions, with the hope that you'd understand. Unfortunately, you have a lot of difficulties.....
Took you one post only to start trolling again It is I that has continually highlighted this fact virtually from the start. The spelling error again .. LOL. Forget mechanical bias. There was no mechanical bias. Don't try to divert to this. let's be clear, NO MECHANICAL BIAS, right ? Stop trying to sneak it in. Stop trolling.
I will be off the air (unable to post) for the next 48 hours. Keep and bear in mind; Tach has stated on many occasions that his 2010 roulette experience where he won 800 eu DID NOT involve roulette bias. I wouldn't want any confusion to develope over this. I believe I saw such confusion creeping in, in the above few posts, so I think we should be utterly clear of this. EDITED; last line
