Re: hal still doesn't understand basic Bernoulli Trial (was: Re: Xiaou? [taptap] Is this thing on?)

hal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:05:22 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"
<dburkhuad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

hal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:29:31 -0500, "David L. Burkhead"
<dburkhuad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

hal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:29:45 GMT, "David L. Burkhead"
<dburkhuad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<hal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:t2vq22h1221egdtuneso65k57k6i0bsdv5@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:28:24 GMT, "David L. Burkhead"
<dburkhuad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I notice that hal cut all the stats groups from his reply.
Wonder why that is?

I almost always cut cross posts (at least whenever I notice
them). Cross posting is just plain rude. Especially between such
drastically different topical groups. If you have something you
want to prove, post your question to the other group you are
looking for support in, then post any conclusive or supporting
replies to rma.

Yeah. Right. A stats question is _so_ off-topic to stats
groups. Uh huh. Sure.

Cross posting is only rude when it's to groups that have no
bearing on the subject under discussion.

If you've received a reply from a stats ng that supports your
clouded and muddled thinking, feel free to post it here.

Likewise.

But you'll never ask anyone who actually _knows_ stats to take part
in the discussion. Of course, there are people who actually _do_
know stats already taking part in the discussion.

You're not one of them.

So how have you learned to fight, David? Do you try to predict what
someone might do, or do you train instinctive reaction to stimuli?
Do you focus and react to threats entering your circle of control
or do
you attempt to predict the future?

Nice "look over there." I have never posted an opinion on whether or
not one can make ush a prediction based on "tells."

But that has been the issue all along. I trashed such a notion, and
you junk yard dogs have been snarling at me ever since with
irrelevencies and obfuscations. Anything but admit that I clearly
know that such a notion is absurd.

You haven't "trashed" anything. Invalid arguments (which describes
pretty much everything you've said on the subject of statistics) do not
support or counter anything. And, once again, the fact that you consider
the various rebuttals to your invalid arguments to be "irrelevencies and
obfuscations" merely goes to show that you don't know anything about the
subject.

I have simply disputed your
false claims about statistics.

Hey, you live your life by WAGs if you want. I better my chances by
playing the odds.

Just claiming that the chances are 50-50 doesn't make them so.

Don't ever try to play blackjack BTW.

Why not? Win or lose is a two outcome situation. That means the odds
are 50-50, right? Oh wait, that's right. I know statistics and know you
can't assume a particular set of odds just by counting the number of
outcomes.

David L. Burkhead




.