+ Register

[alrelax]

>>>>>>1) However, this objectivity is more apparent than actual. The definition of probability on this view is "The relative frequency of occurrence of an event after an infinite number of similar trials has occurred".


>>>>>>2)The second problem with relative frequencies is that they cannot apply to unique events.

Okay, I do read your 'stuff'.  But here.  Any system would have to have a 'trigger' NO?  And, any systems would have to have that trigger based on something, NO?  Which would have to be past events?? NO?  Although I am no Dr. Spock or Eisenstein, you are basing your decisions on past performance and what has happened.  Although, I will give you, that the other sides or possible numbers have to eventually come up, you are still predicating and that is without certainty.  And that is my point.  No better than 21 year old pimple face Joey from California blowing his $250.00 birthday present his daddy gave him. 

Next, someone will tell me there is absolute truth to Gypsy Fortune Tellers.   [smiley]aes/thinking.png[/smiley]

[Bayes]

No "triggers" are needed for this; the bet selection is based on a different principle, but you can choose to add some if you like.

Yes, the decisions are based on past outcomes, but there is nothing illogical or contradictory about that, as you will see. Again, can you at least wait until I've finished the thread before bashing?

you are still predicating and that is without certainty.  And that is my point.  No better than 21 year old pimple face Joey from California blowing his $250.00 birthday present his daddy gave him

No. This is black and white thinking. Yes, the outcome is not certain (obviously), but that doesn't mean the process gives you nothing better than a pure guess. The aim of the formula is to improve "cold" selecting, but it's not magic.

[alrelax]

Devil's advocate.  If it's 'not certain' as you say, then what good is it.  It is still a hunch, a maybe, a might do this or a might do that outcome. Stay well, keep up the great work!