United States
Member #93,943
July 10, 2010
2,180 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on Dec 28, 2012
Considering you make like 15 seperate one line posts one after another, it seemed like a plausible thought to have. I mean why else would you see the need to log on, and then make 6-10 posts in a row, when clearly you'd only really need one or two to address all the points you'd need to in an intelligent debate....
Thanks Boney526,
You've covered all the bases, including this reply to Ronnie. I hope you were able to enlighten Stack47 who delights in pointing out that "real" players don't bet the way simulated ones do. He was relentless in that vein when I followed Maddog's Powerball prediction thread.
It's ironic to me that the most enthusiastic political flag wavers here are the ones who expend the most energy trying to obfuscate any efforts to increase the understanding of math and the scientific method, which, in the long run, will decrease the chances of our country competing with the rest of the world.
New Jersey United States
Member #99,028
October 18, 2010
1,439 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on Dec 28, 2012
Thanks Boney526,
You've covered all the bases, including this reply to Ronnie. I hope you were able to enlighten Stack47 who delights in pointing out that "real" players don't bet the way simulated ones do. He was relentless in that vein when I followed Maddog's Powerball prediction thread.
It's ironic to me that the most enthusiastic political flag wavers here are the ones who expend the most energy trying to obfuscate any efforts to increase the understanding of math and the scientific method, which, in the long run, will decrease the chances of our country competing with the rest of the world.
--Jimmy4164
It is interesting to talk about the (probably true) perception that more educated people tend to be liberal, and tend not to be too politically active. That doesn't describe me at all, but I think academia in general has a heavy left wing bias that causes that....
So many people who go to college for non politics related studies end up with a left leaning slant, and are better debaters than people who didn't. I do tend to lean right, so I don't agree with most of those people on political issues, but it is an intereseting point to make that the most politically adamant people can tend to be very, very ignorant on matters of science and math (that includes people on the left, too, as an example, scientists who won't even consider other possible reasons for global warming than human industry.) I'm no expert on these subjects at all, in fact, I'm a political science student - and I readily admit that the only math I have a good understanding of is everything you learn up to high school, and basic statistics and trig. As far as science, I took one Chemistry course because I was required to.
And I don't think that just because the left wing voters are generally better educated than right wing voters, that makes them right on political issues any more often. In fact, I think that it leads them to think they can make better decisions for other people, and that they end up with really biased ways of looking at political issues that causes them to want more regulation and ultimately harms our freedom and prosperity. In the end, the smart guy who tries to control your life is much more harmful than the ignorant guy who wants nothing to do with you. Not that the right wing is actually for de-regulation, just their own version of regulation..... but I digress....
While these issues regarding political electorats is interesting to me, and sucks for a conservative who like me, it is completely off topic here so I'll stop talking about that....
It's unlikely that we'll change anyone's mind, even if they see all the evidence. It's like those people who really think their betting system will beat roulette. They want to believe it so badly they won't ever change their mind, even after years of losing.
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on Dec 28, 2012
Yes, that's what we did. Of course, people ignore that the results of the draws pretty much match the expectations, and therefore fit the definition of "no evidence of bias found."
But Jimmy's simulation had a different point, which people here are missing. It really doesn't matter that no average player would play that way, the reality is that any players' simulation results on any game would look similar, given that he was trying to show that it's completely possible to RANDOMLY end up ahead even after thousands of plays against a 50% edge in a game with variance.
He was showing that STANDARD DEVIATIONS can trick you if you fall on the right end tail, and then think you're predictions more accurate than anyone elses. Of course if you are ahead your past predictions have been, but your future picks hold no extra weight. You are just as unliklely to win from that point on as anyone else.
By ignoring the results of his simulation, many members here are showing their ignorance of basic statistics. Which would be fine, as most people don't study statistics, except that are making outlandish claims about odds that fly in the face of probability theory, which has been shown to be true for hundreds of years.
Rest assured, a simulation for the Powerball or Mega Millions would have very similar looking results. The variance is higher, so the simulation would have to be longer to make a rough bell curve, but that's besides the point.
What makes the Lottery any different than roulette or a slot machine? If people could even change their odds from an average 50% payback to 75% payback through predictive powers, they are in the wrong place, as they could make an absolute killing on a game like Roulette.
But that's not possible, and casinos and lotteries are still in business. And the Lotteries take about .50 per dollar spent by people. So even though you won't buy millions of tickets in your life, millions will be sold, and you cannot ignore the reality that you have to be LUCKY to win a jackpot, and nothigng else can help you save buying more tickets (which will actually be more likely to cost you!)
Also - the betting strategy followed by these QP players is just fine, at least, there is no way to increase the average result. Given that you gave them a betting strategy to raise their bets, all you'd find is a few more small winners, probably a couple of big winners and many, many more huge losers. Look at the long term results of any martingale betting scheme for evidence.
"But Jimmy's simulation had a different point, which people here are missing."
I'm not knocking Jimmy's efforts just questioning if it's useful and/or practical information. RJ and discussed playing pick-3 QPs and from our experience very few players do. When somebody says this is the expected results of playing QPs, we could be polite and say "how about that" while thinking "so what" because very few players get QPs.
"given that he was trying to show that it's completely possible to RANDOMLY end up ahead even after thousands of plays against a 50% edge in a game with variance."
I mentioned the anomaly that happened with the Kentucky pick-3 drawing the month of July. Granted it was lucky for the players that four triples plus 123 were drawn and the lottery paid out 97% of the month's sales to the winners. A QP simulation would show the state getting the usual 50% rake and paying out the average 50% of the total sales the same month.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Jimmy many times. Why are you assuming we don't already know the house edge?
Jimmy has a history of telling us what we already know.
"He was showing that STANDARD DEVIATIONS can trick you if you fall on the right end tail, and then think you're predictions more accurate than anyone elses."
It won't trick anybody using five years worth of drawings. Let's talk probability.
In pick-3 there is a 72% probability all three digits will be different so if we were to select five straight numbers, having four with three different digits every drawing for 5 years would give us better chance of winning. The QP players have no clue what their straights will look like. Check the last five year results of any pick-3 game and the percentage of three different number shouldn't vary either way more than 1%. The point you're missing by tauting QP simulated results is the fact players can choose the five straight combos based on many probabilities and QP players can't.
"your future picks hold no extra weigh."
I can say with a 100% certainty over 19,000 groups of 28 will have a five number match in five consecutive drawings. Instead of boring us with useless information, how about helping us find a way to choose one of those groups.
"What makes the Lottery any different than roulette or a slot machine?"
The obvious is roulete doesn't offer a QP option. And bets can be made after the results process starts. Even hear of "wheel trackers"?
There is similarity too because groups of numbers can be played in both games. People play roulette and slot machines and some win, but you'll find the players who consistently show a profit in the poker room.
"Also - the betting strategy followed by these QP players is just fine, at least, there is no way to increase the average result"
And making it impossible to win enough one month in KY to easily cover the five years of bets. The playing and betting strategies are terrible because QPs can't use known probabilities and the bets can't change. If you're talking about the next 1825 MM, PB, Pick-5, or lotto drawings maybe, but you're talking about winning at the most in any one drawing $500.
"Given that you gave them a betting strategy to raise their bets,"
I actually suggested 50% of the players would see the betting and playing strategy is useless after 200 drawings, quit and try something else.
"So even though you won't buy millions of tickets in your life, millions will be sold, and you cannot ignore the reality that you have to be LUCKY to win a jackpot,"
That's what we were telling Thrifty for over a year now.
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on Dec 28, 2012
Considering you make like 15 seperate one line posts one after another, it seemed like a plausible thought to have. I mean why else would you see the need to log on, and then make 6-10 posts in a row, when clearly you'd only really need one or two to address all the points you'd need to in an intelligent debate....
When exactly did you come to the conclusion that I was here to have "intelligent debate" with you Boney?
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on Dec 28, 2012
Yes, that's what we did. Of course, people ignore that the results of the draws pretty much match the expectations, and therefore fit the definition of "no evidence of bias found."
But Jimmy's simulation had a different point, which people here are missing. It really doesn't matter that no average player would play that way, the reality is that any players' simulation results on any game would look similar, given that he was trying to show that it's completely possible to RANDOMLY end up ahead even after thousands of plays against a 50% edge in a game with variance.
He was showing that STANDARD DEVIATIONS can trick you if you fall on the right end tail, and then think you're predictions more accurate than anyone elses. Of course if you are ahead your past predictions have been, but your future picks hold no extra weight. You are just as unliklely to win from that point on as anyone else.
By ignoring the results of his simulation, many members here are showing their ignorance of basic statistics. Which would be fine, as most people don't study statistics, except that are making outlandish claims about odds that fly in the face of probability theory, which has been shown to be true for hundreds of years.
Rest assured, a simulation for the Powerball or Mega Millions would have very similar looking results. The variance is higher, so the simulation would have to be longer to make a rough bell curve, but that's besides the point.
What makes the Lottery any different than roulette or a slot machine? If people could even change their odds from an average 50% payback to 75% payback through predictive powers, they are in the wrong place, as they could make an absolute killing on a game like Roulette.
But that's not possible, and casinos and lotteries are still in business. And the Lotteries take about .50 per dollar spent by people. So even though you won't buy millions of tickets in your life, millions will be sold, and you cannot ignore the reality that you have to be LUCKY to win a jackpot, and nothigng else can help you save buying more tickets (which will actually be more likely to cost you!)
Also - the betting strategy followed by these QP players is just fine, at least, there is no way to increase the average result. Given that you gave them a betting strategy to raise their bets, all you'd find is a few more small winners, probably a couple of big winners and many, many more huge losers. Look at the long term results of any martingale betting scheme for evidence.
By ignoring the results of his simulation, many members here are showing their ignorance of basic statistics. Which would be fine, as most people don't study statistics, except that are making outlandish claims about odds that fly in the face of probability theory, which has been shown to be true for hundreds of years
Honestly Boney, do you really believe that because something has "shown to be true for hundreds of years" it is impossible to be proven false......????
New Jersey United States
Member #99,028
October 18, 2010
1,439 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on Dec 28, 2012
When exactly did you come to the conclusion that I was here to have "intelligent debate" with you Boney?
Well since you've been attempting to refute my points, that would indicate that you were debating, but I would have to say that you haven't been doing so intelligently.
New Jersey United States
Member #99,028
October 18, 2010
1,439 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on Dec 28, 2012
By ignoring the results of his simulation, many members here are showing their ignorance of basic statistics. Which would be fine, as most people don't study statistics, except that are making outlandish claims about odds that fly in the face of probability theory, which has been shown to be true for hundreds of years
Honestly Boney, do you really believe that because something has "shown to be true for hundreds of years" it is impossible to be proven false......????
No, but since you have no logical basis for your claim, since you refuse to realize the significance of statistics and you seem to be completely opposed to the use of the scientific method, I think that you won't be able to prove it false.
And in the case of probability theory, I think it's safe to assume that it's well understood.
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on Dec 28, 2012
Well since you've been attempting to refute my points, that would indicate that you were debating, but I would have to say that you haven't been doing so intelligently.
I don't need to do so "intelligently" Boney because I'm not in a debate with you. I offer evidence through trial and error, time will tel who is right and who is wrong.........................
You bring nothing to the table besides doubt and skepticism.
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on Dec 28, 2012
No, but since you have no logical basis for your claim, since you refuse to realize the significance of statistics and you seem to be completely opposed to the use of the scientific method, I think that you won't be able to prove it false.
And in the case of probability theory, I think it's safe to assume that it's well understood.
How does looking for a new and BETTER way translate into "you refuse to realize the significance of statistics"
New Jersey United States
Member #99,028
October 18, 2010
1,439 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Ronnie316 on Dec 28, 2012
How does looking for a new and BETTER way translate into "you refuse to realize the significance of statistics"
You are not looking for a new way, though, you're just picking numbers based on (what are actually) arbitrary predictions and wheeling them in different ways.
Plenty of people have done that. And they've done just as bad, as on average of their wagers vs. winnings, as everyone else.
You offer nothing to the table, really. And you have seemed to refuse to realize the significance in statistical tests to determine Confidence Intervals, to determine how confident you can be that the anomoly is actually non random, or "your prediction system worked"
You saying you are not debating is like how you say you have better odds. You must define things differently than the rest of the world, b/c the post I'm quoting was part of a DEBATE between you and me. You can't just claim things and have them be true, Ronnie. That's not how the world works. You have been debating for quite some time, even if in between you've posted other things.
United States
Member #116,263
September 7, 2011
20,243 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on Dec 28, 2012
You are not looking for a new way, though, you're just picking numbers based on (what are actually) arbitrary predictions and wheeling them in different ways.
Plenty of people have done that. And they've done just as bad, as on average of their wagers vs. winnings, as everyone else.
You offer nothing to the table, really. And you have seemed to refuse to realize the significance in statistical tests to determine Confidence Intervals, to determine how confident you can be that the anomoly is actually non random, or "your prediction system worked"
You saying you are not debating is like how you say you have better odds. You must define things differently than the rest of the world, b/c the post I'm quoting was part of a DEBATE between you and me. You can't just claim things and have them be true, Ronnie. That's not how the world works. You have been debating for quite some time, even if in between you've posted other things.
You write posts that require lengthy responses and I'm not going that direction with you Boney.
You are wrong that Im using arbitrary predictions, if you had been paying attention instead of incessantly skeptical would know that my developing premise is that humans can pick BETTER than RNG numbers can. \
There is also recently drawn numbers that have BETTER ODDS.
Kentucky United States
Member #32,651
February 14, 2006
10,302 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on Dec 28, 2012
It is interesting to talk about the (probably true) perception that more educated people tend to be liberal, and tend not to be too politically active. That doesn't describe me at all, but I think academia in general has a heavy left wing bias that causes that....
So many people who go to college for non politics related studies end up with a left leaning slant, and are better debaters than people who didn't. I do tend to lean right, so I don't agree with most of those people on political issues, but it is an intereseting point to make that the most politically adamant people can tend to be very, very ignorant on matters of science and math (that includes people on the left, too, as an example, scientists who won't even consider other possible reasons for global warming than human industry.) I'm no expert on these subjects at all, in fact, I'm a political science student - and I readily admit that the only math I have a good understanding of is everything you learn up to high school, and basic statistics and trig. As far as science, I took one Chemistry course because I was required to.
And I don't think that just because the left wing voters are generally better educated than right wing voters, that makes them right on political issues any more often. In fact, I think that it leads them to think they can make better decisions for other people, and that they end up with really biased ways of looking at political issues that causes them to want more regulation and ultimately harms our freedom and prosperity. In the end, the smart guy who tries to control your life is much more harmful than the ignorant guy who wants nothing to do with you. Not that the right wing is actually for de-regulation, just their own version of regulation..... but I digress....
While these issues regarding political electorats is interesting to me, and sucks for a conservative who like me, it is completely off topic here so I'll stop talking about that....
It's unlikely that we'll change anyone's mind, even if they see all the evidence. It's like those people who really think their betting system will beat roulette. They want to believe it so badly they won't ever change their mind, even after years of losing.
"While these issues regarding political electorats is interesting to me, and sucks for a conservative who like me, it is completely off topic here so I'll stop talking about that...."
Just don't bring up the Republican Party's position on Internet gambling and you'll be fine.