+ Register

[alrelax]

Agreed.  But I'm just curious.  When you say you "fielded a phone call" what exactly does that mean?  UNLV phoned you up or what exactly?

I received an email last night, I responded with my contact info--rather than going back and forth.  I then received a phone call contact from an associate that was responsible for the area that was addressed. 

FYI and everyone else's at this point, most  us have quoted a 'UNLV' article or report at one time or another.  They put a lot of hard work into them and those reports and articles are the 100% property of the author's and co-owned intellect rights by UNLV.  The authors are mostly industry related or a straight up teacher/professor at the UNLV or another university, etc.  Most of them, at least the highest majority have no problem to give permission to use their works, just they want to know and have it a but more formal.  It is clearly posted on every work they have that I have seen on the internet or their site.

I was told, they don't desire their works to be put up and used in 'less than desirable' situations and purposes, for sake of cutting a long conversation, short.

When you see this on the UNLV's articles, usually at the end, I must have a copy of your permission letter, etc., or I will be forced to delete it.  It reads as follows:  "Note: This summary is the intellectual property of the author and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Do not use or reproduce without proper citation and permission."

Thanks, Glen.

[Jimske]

I don't believe I said anything in that quote about Thorpe and you make it appear that I did and you've just lambasted me for misunderstanding the content you have outlined in that quote I believe that's from another member on the board? Please clarify thank you

Sorry to butt in here, Glen, but I don't see how you were "lambasted."  You already know that it is my opinion that you have a very high degree of narcissism and as such cannot accept even the slightest criticism.  Mike didn't say you invoked Thorpe in your argument.  He invoked Thorpe as a kind of expert witness to his own testimony.
******************
IMO, Mike is correct re: HA is the culprit and one might say all else is just a function of the house edge.

Mike way more educated in the maths than me so one way of looking at the whole problem is to present an extreme to simplify for the simple minded like me.  There is only one casino and one player with a calculated odds in the whole world.  This player wagers 1 unit a gazillion times for a gazillion years.  The product of his endeavor will, in fact, equal the HA of one point whatever %.  If the player decides to change his wager than the average bet size (ABS) will be used.

It doesn't matter what he does with his initial bank of unlimited funds.  He can give some away, cash some in as short term profit and buy a soda, lose some to the drop box.  All of these actions will precipitate another way of measuring the "house take."  But the facts don't change.  The math doesn't lie.
****************************
The real question is prediction.  It's not so easy to generate random numbers with a few decks of cards but no matter because either way one must be able to predict an outcome which can be defined and calculated as "EDGE."  Which is what he is saying all along.

Without such calculation nobody can say other than they are guessing!  Gizmo said, "what's wrong with guessing?"  LOL - Nothing!

Geez!!!!  Why do you think nobody has presented one RULE to show that a prediction will have an advantage?

[Jimske]

Yeah, I get it Glen I was just wondering how it all transpired.

[Xander]

The phone call never happened!  Why do you exaggerate like that!!!

What a complete load of BS!

[Gizmotron]

The phone call never happened!  Why do you exaggerate like that!!!

What a complete load of BS!

Aren't you just guessing.

[Xander]

No guess.  It doesn't happen like that.  They would at worst emailed Victor.  They wouldn't call.  The call is just more exaggerating.  Absolutely made up and absurd.

[Gizmotron]

Just so that you all can grasp some knowledge regarding all this easy Narcissism talk so "freely" being thrown around. Everyone tends to have one or two characteristics of Narcissistic behavior in them. It takes more than five traits to be classified as a Narcissist in the DSM-5.


The primary indicator is in a single behavior trait where disagreement is misunderstood for criticism. It's a button that triggers a defensive response. It is the same reaction and trait for codependency too. The reaction usually results in an attempt to control the situation by manipulation.


The trick to get out of the misunderstanding is to not react when anyone is disagreed with until it's clear that it was in fact only a disagreement and not an insult. It is easy to misunderstand disagreement because it can imply that someone does not know something. The trick to maintaining your cool is to admit to yourself that you just might not know something. You don't have to have a cow if you don't know a thing. At least you don't need to run a tired out old skit that is supposed to protect you. Just wait a few seconds before exploding. See if you like seeing both sides of an opinion. Listen to the messenger. Life is far better when you listen well. It's better to not go through a wasted day regurgitating the silence treatment than it is to have fun that day.

[Jimske]

No guess.  It doesn't happen like that.  They would at worst emailed Victor.  They wouldn't call.  The call is just more exaggerating.  Absolutely made up and absurd.

:))Yes, sounded a little flakey to me that's why I asked. 

[Jimske]

Just so that you all can grasp some knowledge regarding all this easy Narcissism talk so "freely" being thrown around. Everyone tends to have one or two characteristics of Narcissistic behavior in them. It takes more than five traits to be classified as a Narcissist in the DSM-5.

I disagree.  Surprise, surprise.  Narcissism has definitions in and out of technical literature.  It goes back at least as far as the story of Cain and Abel, which in that extreme symbolizes the epitome of evil incorporated in personality (you might find People of the Lie by M. Scott Peck interesting).  In the lesser it is simply willfulness, egotistical, lack of humility.  In short, it doesn't have to be a clinical analysis to be used and understood.

[Gizmotron]

Jimske, I sat back a second, kept my cool, and I can't disagree with your statement. We see calling people narcissists all the time these days. It's just a word. But when you see the confusion and/or misunderstanding in a discussion it's always good to know what is actually being communicated.

[alrelax]

The last time I bend to the membership regarding Admin function of this board.

But for the record, I am forwarding a copy of the email I received, as I type this to Vic. 

As well, I just completed a series of communications with Xandar, and I mean completed. 

Unfortunately, like a handful of others, I see as distractions because  of their twisting and turning without their own desire to read and grasp the whole author's position and meaning of his posts/threads.  I still say, if you don't like, enjoy, find interesting, learn or appreciate an author or book, why waste your time on it in the first place?

Thanks, Glen.

Vic has the email copy I received last night that started this episode today.  Vic can confirm this and let it take its course or not say anything.  But for the record I would appreciate Vic to confirm the receipt of my email and confirm what I wrote as accurate within this thread.  But if not, I am sorry--it is just what it is.

I only did this extra measure for the sake of the transition here.  Maybe if you do not like or approve of my way of Admin, you will feel more comfortable at one of the other boards where their Admin functions are not as easy and result in suspensions and punishments, etc.  Or perhaps you might feel more conformable with a certain exclusive website/message board as a base, that are strictly professionals in the most elite circle of multi million dollar earners in gambling?  But either way, I did what I thought was best. 

No more actions will ever be brought public like this because  it does not work out easily or should I say with less headache and pain. 

Thanks.

Vic, Care to comment, confirm??

(Whatever you believe is best for the board to say on your behalf to this situation, Thanks)

[Albalaha]

Again, you're just demonstrating lack of understanding of probability. Blackjack is not a game of independent trials. Technically, Baccarat isn't either, but Thorpe also investigated the possibility of getting an edge in Bacc and found there was none, and of course Roulette IS a game of independent trials, so counting past outcomes is pointless (but you MAY be able to get an edge using physics).

---Mike

Baccarat is a game of independent trials. Do not assert wrong things.

Further, which math book did you refer who taught you that roulette being a game of independent trials, unbeatable?

Who told you that I am looking for past outcomes to determine my way of playing?

Have you heard of "the law of large numbers"? It is a law and not a "theory", I hope you know the difference between the two.

Which physics book told you that you can get an edge in roulette with any study of physics? Winning roulette with physics is a theory and not a law.

Thing is, people who read too many forums have got more unrealistic and unscientific approaches towards gambling than a layman. We all assert our views without putting any evidence. Anybody getting influenced with our writings could get biased and thus harmed, inadvertently.

I feel ashamed to see approaches like "Pattern Breaker", which is one of the worst way of playing possible in our forums. Martingale is the nectar of obvious death. It is the worst thing that ever happened to gambling. Put all you have at risk to win 1 unit. Anyways, we are all adults here and thus responsible for whatever we learn.

I like Mike's posts and comments. They are very close to reality and mostly accurate. I like Xander's posts too. He has got his own set of experiences of the advantage play for decades and I got to see a bit of how he does that. Unfortunately, at times, he goes too far and people do not seem to like that.

Regarding Gizmotron, he is very different from us. He talks of patterns identification and exploiting them. Mathematicians expressly deny that patterns do not help in gambling. They are only illusions. As Mike said earlier, a pattern could end or continue whenever we try that, with equal probability. I believe that Gizmo might be having something that could work differently than we think but he could not be able to convince us on that, so far.

We can still co-exist and behave in a mature manner.

[Mike]

---Mike

Baccarat is a game of independent trials. Do not assert wrong things.

Al,

Not quite. Cards drawn from a shoe aren't replaced, so "strictly speaking" Bacc isn't a game of independent trials in the way that roulette is, because obviously cards not replaced cannot contribute to the probability of the NEXT hand. Therefore the probabilities are not fixed but change as cards are removed. But it turns out that this can't give you an advantage in the way that it does in Blackjack, where cards not being replaced can lead to favourable probabilities for the player. From the Wizard of odds FAQ :

On baccarat, are the odds perpetual (as in dice and roulette) or do the odds change as cards are dealt out of the shoe (as in blackjack)? I know that it is not at all probable, but is it mathematically possible for the Banker to win every single hand in the baccarat shoe?

Anonymous

In an effort to debunk betting systems I used to say that the past does not matter in gambling. However once in a while somebody would rebuke me by saying that the past does matter for card counters, which is true. So now I say that in games of independent trials, like roulette and craps, the past does not matter. As I show in my baccarat appendix 2 a shoe rich in small cards favors the player and a shoe rich in large cards favors the banker. Thus, in baccarat, there is an extremely slight disposition that the next outcome will be the opposite of the last. So, yes, the odds do change in baccarat as the cards play out, but only to a very small extent. For all practicable purposes the game is not countable. I do not know if the banker could win every hand but I speculate that the answer is yes.

https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/baccarat/

Further, which math book did you refer who taught you that roulette being a game of independent trials, unbeatable?

I didn't say it was unbeatable, only that it's unbeatable using patterns and triggers, trends etc, precisely because trials are independent.

Who told you that I am looking for past outcomes to determine my way of playing?

I know you don't do that, but you DO believe that it's possible to win using progressions. I argue that progressions can't help unless you have an edge, because all they do is increase the variance (both positive and negative).

Have you heard of "the law of large numbers"? It is a law and not a "theory", I hope you know the difference between the two.

How does the LLN give you an edge or help you to win?

Which physics book told you that you can get an edge in roulette with any study of physics? Winning roulette with physics is a theory and not a law.

I use "physics" broadly, which includes bias. No physics book needed; you don't need a physics PhD to understand that if a wheel is defective in some way the odds have the potential to be in your favour. Then there is Visual Ballistics. Apart from my own experience, there are independent studies which confirm that it works. See https://www.insidescience.org/news/physics-knowledge-can-tilt-odds-roulette

Of course there is no "law" that you will win at roulette using physics, because it's an APPLICATION of physics. Skill and a lot of hard work is necessary, and it's getting harder all the time, but there is POTENTIAL to get a real edge, unlike the case of trends, patterns and triggers.

[VLS]

Vic, Care to comment, confirm??

(Whatever you believe is best for the board to say on your behalf to this situation, Thanks)

I confirm. There is an email from UNLV urging the forum to follow rightful procedures for proper quoting/citing which we should honor as true gentlemen

[Albalaha]

I know you don't do that, but you DO believe that it's possible to win using progressions. I argue that progressions can't help unless you have an edge, because all they do is increase the variance (both positive and negative).

You can never have an edge mathematically because you can not change the payouts of a casino. Stop ranting over edge or dreaming of changing payouts. Go beyond that. As I told earlier, even martingale or labouchere wins the game despite the house edge. Problem is, they need countless chips(mathematically they will win though) which makes them impractical, rather bad to try. A progression, sensible enough to handle the worst and then winning in near average case thereafter, as LLN confirms, can beat the game, in the long run.

How does the LLN give you an edge or help you to win?

As I said, mathematically, you can never get an edge so LLN doesn't give me an edge by itself but only the wisdom to understand that things are near average, with a nice degree of certainty, only in the long run. All MMs suggested so far, are meant for short sessions, causing rapid death in adverse cases. I have a strategy (mm) that safeguards me from big losses and it is designed to win when you see regression towards mean.

No study in this world proved baccarat to be a game where past outcomes can help in winning. Hypothesis can not become a rule unless worth proving. Even Thorpe could not do much in baccarat.