Re: Trend less likely

mrzer0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mason wrote:
> I have Tommyknocker in my kill file, so I only see his posts when he is quoted
> by others.

Then shut the F*CK UP, when you don't even know what my complete
argument is.


> >> There is NOTHING INTUITIVE about saying that all future outcomes are to
> >> be presumed random and independent, and therefore will have more
> >> possible combinations than any one single "streak" or any one given
> >> "trend".
>
> The point of my post was ...
> there are NO streaks or trends in future outcomes.

Layman's terms, idiot. There may be successive consecutives sequential
outcomes in the immediate future rolls. You know damn well what
"with-trend" bettors hope for.

> no pattern of past events that has any
> relevance to any discussion about probability at the crap table.

> Past events (from which streaks and trends
> are selected) are completely extraneous and have absolutely no effect on what is
> probable.

riiiiiiiight. That is why i oppose "with-trend bet increasing". You
are agreeing with me. Get it ?

> Strip the fallacious concepts interconnecting past facts from future probability
> from the above blurb. The insight that is left is that no individual outcome is
> more likely than the sum of the likelihoods all other outcomes. This is the
> level of Tommyknocker's insights and understanding. "There is no one favorite
> outcome in rolls of dice."

Riiiiiiight. i would have thought i would encounter no contradiciton
and argument over such a simple stance.

> Strip the fallacious content from his posts and there is no there, there.
>
> >> example : the chances of the next 20 rolls being all sixes and eights,
> >> versus the next 20 rolls NOT being exclusively just sixes and eights.
>
> This probability can be exactly stated (although not by Tommyknocker). It is a
> simple relationship determined by exponential extension (by the number of rolls
> of the dice) of the "chances the next roll will not be a six or an eight"
> [(18/5)^20] and the chances "the next 20 rolls being exclusively just sixes and
> eights" [[1 - [(18/5)^20]].
>
> This is simple example of the mathematics of probability. It is always correct.
> There is no context of past events of any scope whatever that makes any change
> in this calculation.

Riiiiiiiiiight. That is why i made the not-so-bold declaration that
people are idiots to increase bets based on a perceived past "hot
streak"

> Tommyknocker refuses to be instructed by the implications of the evident fact
> that this quantified and testable description (of his chosen example BTW) makes
> no reference to any prior event. He endlessly tries to provide a personalized
> context of past events by which he asserts that probabilities should be viewed
> in some informative circumstantial context. That assertion is always false.

Not at all, you jackass. Kindly don't slander me by replying to
fractions of posts you are too chickensh*t to read in their entirety.
The title of this thread is "Trend Less Likely". You agree, and say
there is no there, there. Well then shut up. i only posted this
because someone had the nerve to disagree with the obvious math that
you agree with here.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Trend less likely
    ... All discussions of probability involve only future events. ... Past events are facts. ... Strip the fallacious content from his posts and there is no there, ... This probability can be exactly stated (although not by Tommyknocker). ...
    (rec.gambling.craps)
  • Re: a simple(?) probability question...
    ... but far from being "the basis" for your ... previous posts it bears little if any resemblance to anything you have ... In any given 100 year period the storm may, ... probability, actually occur zero, one, two, three etc. times. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Best way to force a JComponent to repaint itself
    ... personal attacks don't appear as direct responses to your posts on ... probability of reaching any given person who read some of your crap ... As zerg, you have tried to hide some of your usual mannerisms, but it's virtually impossible that somebody else would post in your style. ... [The rest is familiar crap from Twisted, ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: A tale of Four Brothers (Money Management)
    ... you have no clue as to the power of 'take ... Many posts on this NG have proven that the ... > probability does not change, but he is too stupid to understand them. ...
    (rec.gambling.craps)
  • Re: A Warning to Everyone
    ... >>> I refer Sir back to some of the posts that emanated from him, ... >> Well unlike some I clearly have risen above past events and moved on. ... >>> 'Usenet is not for the easily offended' ...
    (uk.local.kent)