Re: BS777 predicts ____

On Apr 3, 8:37�am, "Mason" <mrzer0_remo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 I have recently placed ACDOC in my killfile, so in my news reader his posts are
now treated like the spam that they are.  However, Gregg's quotation of an ACDOC
post that my reader had filtered out caught my eye.

ACDOC wrote:

Here's his "gem" of a definition:

"The gambler's fallacy is a logical fallacy. It is the incorrect
belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or
predicted from other, independent events."

21 anyone? Don't forget the strategy card. This fool is breaking 777's
shoes?

"Gregg Cattanach" <rl3166...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote
Third, you REALLY must be stupid to think that blackjack and craps are the
same class of game as far as random and independent events are concerned.

To amplify Gregg's comment (somewhat off topic) ...

Cards dealt from a deck without replacement are a classic example of dependent
events.  This could not be more obvious, except to ACDOC, apparently.  This
example should make it clear.

A standard deck of 52 playing cards is fairly shuffled.  The probability of
being dealt the Ace of Spades from the top of this deck is 1/52.  This
probability is true ONLY when the first card has yet to be dealt from the deck.
The probability is changed after the first card is dealt, when the card is not
replaced in the deck and the deck reshuffled.

If the card already dealt was the Ace of Spades, the probability of now being
dealt the Ace of Spades is 0.  If the card already dealt was not the Ace of
Spades, the probability of now being dealt the Ace of Spades is 1/51.  This
change in probability continues when every card which is not the Ace of Spades
is dealt from the deck.

The indisputably dependent nature of these events makes more or less favorable
conditions possible in blackjack.  The practice of card counting was created to
allow increased betting in order to take of advantage of these swings, when they
favor the player sufficiently.

The basic "strategy card" for blackjack players is an extension of this model.
The assumption for every decision is that the dealers up-card and the players
first two cards are dealt from the top of a fairly shuffled deck.  The hit /
stand / split / surrender decisions indicated are based on this particular
circumstance.  Even these decisions can vary when made with correct basic
strategy BECAUSE the current probabilities are dependent on prior events.  That
is why basic strategy for single deck blackjack differs slightly from that for
multiple deck blackjack.  The specific dealer's up card and players holding can
alter the correct decision in the single deck game when relatively fewer cards
are in play.   The impact of these cards (which can not be dealt again until the
new shuffle) can modify the best call on very close decisions.

ACDOC spams rec.gambling.craps, trolling for a reaction.  In this case, he
succeeded.  Since I never see his posts directly, I continue to hope that others
ignore him or killfile him.  They will find that the silence is golden.

--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason

"Gregg Cattanach" <rl3166...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:ttsQh.13357$Um6.5950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



ACDOC wrote:

Here's his "gem" of a definition:

"The gambler's fallacy is a logical fallacy. It is the incorrect
belief that the likelihood of a random event can be affected by or
predicted from other, independent events."

21 anyone? Don't forget the strategy card. This fool is breaking 777's
shoes?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------
Once again, to say that there's no point in coming up with a strategy
is "priceless".

Shank is a dope for saying that and so are you Gregg.

First, the definition of the Gambler Fallacy is correct.  And if you believe
that random and independent events can be predicted or affected by previous
independent events, I'd love to hear the mechanism involved.

Second, no one said that strategies aren't possible or useful in craps, just
that a strategy based on the Gambler's Fallacy is pointless (nice job of
context dropping, ADCOC).  Again, I'd love to hear a 'winning' strategy based
on the the Gambler's Fallacy.

Third, you REALLY must be stupid to think that blackjack and craps are the
same class of game as far as random and independent events are concerned.

Lastly, isn't it sad how ADCOC periodically posits that all the people that
call him on his contentless theories are the same person (sockpuppets). It's a
bitch to have LOTS of poeple see straight through your psuedo-intellectual
bullshit, isn't it?

--
Gregg C.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What did Mason say? I killfiled him. (LOL)

.

Relevant Pages

  • I "killfiled" Mason too! But he wont stay dead!
    ... probability is true ONLY when the first card has yet to be dealt from the deck. ...
    (rec.gambling.craps)
  • Re: BS777 predicts ____
    ... Don't forget the strategy card. ... Cards dealt from a deck without replacement are a classic example of dependent ... A standard deck of 52 playing cards is fairly shuffled. ... probability is true ONLY when the first card has yet to be dealt from the deck. ...
    (rec.gambling.craps)
  • Re: 2+2 Poker Probability Question
    ... Which has a higher probability of being the next card off the ... the Ace of Spades or the Deuce of Clubs? ... >dealt" the stopping criteria. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: what are the odds?
    ... >> a deck of cards and carefully shuffle it. ... >> dealt a deck, one of the 8x10^{67) arrangements, all equally ... >Let's suppose I lay out the cards exactly as you have explained. ... Nope, the probability that all the necessary mutations took place is exactly 1 *after* they have happened, no matter how low their probability was before the event. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • 2+2 Poker Probability Question
    ... "You are playing with a 52 card deck. ... Which has a higher probability of being the next card off the ... the Ace of Spades or the Deuce of Clubs? ...
    (sci.math)