+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 9 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 125

Thread: Saliu BJ Strategy Explained for Dummies

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    853

    Default Saliu BJ Strategy Explained for Dummies

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    I still do not know what his BJ system is ... do you? Maybe you or Katz or someone could do a voodoo post: "Saliu BJ system explained for dummies"
    I do not understand it well enough to summarize it... here is the description of counting (Probability Theory, Live! 182-4). Perhaps you can summarize and explain it, ZGeetser.

    "My count always starts at 0 / 0. I say mentally zero-zero.

    "~ The first number represents my consecutive losses.
    ~ The second number represents my skips without two or more consecutive wins. This parameter is trickier to grasp. I still have difficulties keeping accurate track of it mentally. It is much easier on paper.

    "If I lose my first hand, the count becomes 1 / 0. If I lose also the second hand, the count becomes 2 / 0. I say mentally
    two-zero.

    "If I win my first hand, the count becomes 0 / 0 and a half. I say mentally zero-zero and a half. The half simply indicates that the parameter is still running. If I lose the following hand, the count becomes 1 / 1. I say mentally one-one. That means I lost 1 consecutive hand; I also have a streak of 1 without winning 2 hands in a row. If I win my first hand, the count becomes 0 / 0 and a half. I say mentally zero-zero and a half. If I win also the following hand, the count becomes 0 / 0. I say mentally zero-zero. That means I have no consecutive losses; I also won at least 2 hands in a row. If I win my first hand, the count becomes 0 / 0 and a half. I say mentally zero-zero and a half. If I lose the following hand, the count becomes 1 / 1. I say mentally one-one. That means I lost 1 consecutive hand; I also have a streak of 1 without winning 2 hands in a row. I lose also the following hand. The count becomes 2 / 1. I say mentally two-one. I win the following hand. The count becomes 0 / 1 and a half. I say mentally zero-one and a half. I lose the following hand. The count becomes 1 / 2. I say mentally one-two. It means I lost 1 consecutive hand; I also have a streak of 2 without winning 2 hands in a row. That is, in 2 consecutive situations, my win was not followed immediately by another win.

    "I noticed that the second count is less streaky than the first one. That is, I win more regularly 2 (or more) hands in a row. I keep that in mind when I martingale my streaks. The Fundamental Formula of Gambling tells me that I win at least once in 7 hands with a degree of certainty of 99%. I martingale more aggressively at the beginning of the game. I martingale the first count when it reaches 4. Since the second parameter is more consistent, I martingale it after it reaches 3. I go up to 7 in both cases (2-4-8 and 2-4-8-16). I stop at 7. I become more cautious after 100 hands or so. I martingale the first count after it reaches 6 (or 5 earlier in the game) and the second count after it reaches 5 (or 4 earlier in the game). I go as much as I can or allowed. If I sense that the streak is real bad, especially inside the same shoe, I stop the martingale after 7 and start another one with 3 bet units.

    "The advantage at blackjack is higher payouts for blackjacks and double downs. After long losing streaks, the winnings come quite often as blackjacks or double down hands. I also try to disturb long streaks that are favorable to the dealer. There are shoes when the dealer seems to always have blackjack or 10-10 or never-busting hands. Some players play an extra betting box, if available. Others sit out 1 hand. Personally, I try not to play by the book. If playing by the book helped the dealer in this shoe, I figure I’ll break the rules this hand and thus hope to break dealer’s hot streak. As I said before, I split two tens against dealer’s 4, 5, or 6. I also hit 12 against 4, 5, 6 in those situations. Or I stand on low count against dealer’s 7-A."

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dodo View Post
    I do not understand it well enough to summarize it... here is the description of counting (Probability Theory, Live! 182-4). Perhaps you can summarize and explain it, ZGeetser.

    "My count always starts at 0 / 0. I say mentally zero-zero.

    "~ The first number represents my consecutive losses.
    ~ The second number represents my skips without two or more consecutive wins. This parameter is trickier to grasp. I still have difficulties keeping accurate track of it mentally. It is much easier on paper.

    "If I lose my first hand, the count becomes 1 / 0. If I lose also the second hand, the count becomes 2 / 0. I say mentally
    two-zero.

    "If I win my first hand, the count becomes 0 / 0 and a half. I say mentally zero-zero and a half. The half simply indicates that the parameter is still running. If I lose the following hand, the count becomes 1 / 1. I say mentally one-one. That means I lost 1 consecutive hand; I also have a streak of 1 without winning 2 hands in a row. If I win my first hand, the count becomes 0 / 0 and a half. I say mentally zero-zero and a half. If I win also the following hand, the count becomes 0 / 0. I say mentally zero-zero. That means I have no consecutive losses; I also won at least 2 hands in a row. If I win my first hand, the count becomes 0 / 0 and a half. I say mentally zero-zero and a half. If I lose the following hand, the count becomes 1 / 1. I say mentally one-one. That means I lost 1 consecutive hand; I also have a streak of 1 without winning 2 hands in a row. I lose also the following hand. The count becomes 2 / 1. I say mentally two-one. I win the following hand. The count becomes 0 / 1 and a half. I say mentally zero-one and a half. I lose the following hand. The count becomes 1 / 2. I say mentally one-two. It means I lost 1 consecutive hand; I also have a streak of 2 without winning 2 hands in a row. That is, in 2 consecutive situations, my win was not followed immediately by another win.

    "I noticed that the second count is less streaky than the first one. That is, I win more regularly 2 (or more) hands in a row. I keep that in mind when I martingale my streaks. The Fundamental Formula of Gambling tells me that I win at least once in 7 hands with a degree of certainty of 99%. I martingale more aggressively at the beginning of the game. I martingale the first count when it reaches 4. Since the second parameter is more consistent, I martingale it after it reaches 3. I go up to 7 in both cases (2-4-8 and 2-4-8-16). I stop at 7. I become more cautious after 100 hands or so. I martingale the first count after it reaches 6 (or 5 earlier in the game) and the second count after it reaches 5 (or 4 earlier in the game). I go as much as I can or allowed. If I sense that the streak is real bad, especially inside the same shoe, I stop the martingale after 7 and start another one with 3 bet units.

    "The advantage at blackjack is higher payouts for blackjacks and double downs. After long losing streaks, the winnings come quite often as blackjacks or double down hands. I also try to disturb long streaks that are favorable to the dealer. There are shoes when the dealer seems to always have blackjack or 10-10 or never-busting hands. Some players play an extra betting box, if available. Others sit out 1 hand. Personally, I try not to play by the book. If playing by the book helped the dealer in this shoe, I figure I’ll break the rules this hand and thus hope to break dealer’s hot streak. As I said before, I split two tens against dealer’s 4, 5, or 6. I also hit 12 against 4, 5, 6 in those situations. Or I stand on low count against dealer’s 7-A."
    The Ultimate Authority has spoken, in the tradition of the ultimate genius Irwin Corey ...

    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    Here's the thread.
    If no one else has a clue after all of the posting we have allowed, we pray that Ion Saliu himself can explain the essence of his "winning" BJ strategy, specifically its proper table application.
    We don't need the good professor as it's really very simple. The Gambler's Fallacy has been revoked. What every gambler always knew, the more you lose the more you're due to win, is back in full swing as the "go to" strategy for all gaming endeavors. After several losses in a row it becomes almost certain (0.999997 degree of certainty) that you will win. At this time you should bet the table limit. If you lose, you will lose knowing that you were almost certain to win. Sorry, no refunds.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    The Ultimate Authority has spoken, in the tradition of the ultimate genius Irwin Corey ...

    I would rather follow Prof Corey's system. oes he have one? Like the guy tole me at the table the other night, "The secret of blackjack is betting more money when you're going to win and less money when you're going to lose. He didn't have time to share with me the greater detail of his "system" but on the face of it it seems logical. I should have gotten his phone number. But he lost a few hands and left before I could question him further.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  5. #5

    Default

    If there was any validity to the Saliu streak-counting system, it would be better employed at baccarat so that bets could be alternated
    between bank and player. But alas, the Saliu approach violates the tenets of probability theory, statistical logic and Bayes theorem.
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aslan View Post
    I would rather follow Prof Corey's system. Does he have one?
    He just turned 100, we can ask him.
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    In the YO
    Posts
    15,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    He just turned 100, we can ask him.
    He looks like Albert...


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    In the YO
    Posts
    15,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    If there was any validity to the Saliu streak-counting system, it would be better employed at baccarat so that bets could be alternated
    between bank and player. But alas, the Saliu approach violates the tenets of probability theory, statistical logic and Bayes theorem in regards to "randomness".
    Randomness: Does it have meaning?
    1. The gambler's fallacy is the belief that the chances of something happening with a fixed probability become higher or lower as the process is repeated. People who commit the gambler's fallacy believe that past events affect the probability of something happening in the future.


      This article describes how, in our search for order and purpose in life, people sometimes assign meaning to events that are objectively random and devoid of meaning. Consider these two images — one dot pattern is random, the other isn't:


      Sample A
      Sample B
      One of the two images above shows a random pattern of dots, the other has been manipulated to resemble a random pattern but isn't really random. Which image is random?


      In perception studies, most people choose Sample A because Sample B shows tight clusters of dots that don't really seem random. But it turns out that Sample A has been artificially arranged to avoid normal clustering, and Sample B shows a truly random ordering of dots.


      The meaning of this experiment is that, when people see tight clusters of dots (or of events), they conclude it isn't a chance grouping but has special significance. But in reality and in nature, events often cluster purely by chance.


      The following sections show examples where, for psychological reasons, people assign meaning to meaningless groupings, significance to insignificant coincidences, even invest in outright frauds based on mistaken perceptions of reality.
    2. The Gambler's Fallacy
      The Gambler's Fallacy is a powerful and deceptive false belief — if this fallacy were to suddenly disappear, many gambling casinos would go out of business.


      Here's how it works — let's say we flip a fair coin, one that has an equal chance of coming up heads or tails. By definition, the probability for heads on the first flip is 0.5 or ½. Now think about these questions:
      • If you have just gotten one heads result, what is the probability for heads on the next flip?
      • If you have just gotten one tails result, what is the probability for heads on the next flip?
      • If you have just gotten eight heads results in a row, what is the probability for heads on the next flip?
      Contrary to a widely held belief, the answer to all the above questions is ... 0.5 or ½. Regardless of what has happened before, the probability for heads in the next coin flip is exactly the same.

      This fallacy has its roots in confusion between the probability of a sequence of events and the probability of an event separate from the sequence in which it appears:
      • The probability of tossing eight heads in a row is 2-8, or 1/256.
      • But during the eight coin tosses, the probability of each new heads result considered separately is ½.
      Casinos make vast sums of money from people who think, "I've lost repeatedly at this (roulette wheel / slot machine / card game), therefore my probability of winning must be increasing, so not only should I keep playing, but I should increase my bets." But in fact, a past winning or losing streak cannot change one's future odds of winning.


      I've often wondered whether an education in math might cure the Gambler's Fallacy.

      Friday the 13th
    3. Is Friday the 13th really more risky than another day? If we look for anecdotes meant to show the dangers of Friday the 13th, we will likely find some, but they may not mean what we think:
      • The probability that there will be a Friday the 13th during any given month is equal to the reciprocal of the number of weekdays: 1/7 or 14.1%.
      • The average number of Friday the 13ths in a year is equal to the number of months divided by the number of weekdays: 12/7 or 1.71.
      • The average probability that a given day will turn out to be Friday the 13th is equal to the average number of Friday the 13ths in a year, divided by the average number of days in a year: 1.71 / 365.25 or 0.468%. For simplicity, let's call this 0.5%, ½ of one percent.
      • Let's give this a personal context. Let's say that a subject (who we will call John) is very careful and/or lucky, and therefore has a memorably bad experience only every 100 days on average. Given that there is only a half-percent chance that this bad experience will fall on a Friday the 13th, there is little chance to argue for a connection.
      • Let's say that careful John reviews his life on his 70th birthday and recalls 365.25 * 70 / 100 (255.67) bad experiences. Given the ½% probability that any particular day will be a Friday the 13th, John may be able to recall 255.67 * 0.005 = 1.28 occasions where those bad experiences fell on a Friday the 13th.
      • If John is mathematically and logically inclined, he will disregard an occasion where a bad experience coincided with Friday the 13th, realizing it was coincidental.
      • But if John is superstitious or irrational, he might argue that the one example proves Friday the 13th is really a more dangerous day than average.
      • Assembled with John on his 70th birthday are 100 friends of similar age and behavior. Based on the foregoing, between them they might recall 128 occasions where a bad experience fell on Friday the 13th. Given the level of scientific literacy in modern society, what is the probability that none of the 100 friends will draw an irrational conclusion?
      In science, a precept called Occam's Razor argues that, among competing theories, the simplest theory tends to be the right one. The simplest explanation is that sometimes bad things coincidentally happen on Friday the 13th.

      MORE: http://arachnoid.com/randomness/


    Last edited by zengrifter; September 3rd, 2014 at 08:11 PM. Reason: I am gonna win next time, no worries

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    In the YO
    Posts
    15,587

    Default

    The gambler's fallacy is the belief that the chances of something happening with a fixed probability become higher or lower as the process is repeated. People who commit the gambler's fallacy believe that past events affect the probability of something happening in the future.

    There is sumthin wrong with the Gambler's Fallacy. It is not the full monty. For example: the average for Blackjacks for the dealer hand (and for any hand for that matter) is around 1:21. [GF has been a fav of mine because I have always believed it only tells a portion of the whole story.] Let's say there are 5 players and I am one, playing 6-deck, 75% pen. This means there will be about 16 rounds, and about 80 hands. Let's imagine the dealer has turned up NIL Blackjacks for herself this shoe, and NIL Blackjacks again for the next shoe. By some miracle, she also deals NIL BJs to herself for the third consec shoe.

    Most all the players will not pay any heed to that. In fact, they expect the dealer to never get any Blackjacks! But alas, the average BJ figure is set in stone @ 1:21 hands. This dealer has now gone 3 shoes X 16 = 48 dealer hands for zero Blackjacks.

    This game has an eternal record, kept up to date by the Blackjack gods: Zeus, Apollo, Jupiter and Odin. These dudes look down and see this dealer should have received an average of one BJ for each 21 hands, and they notice she is already 48 dealer hands without even one.

    This is when they decide to step in, after a gods' committee meeting. In her next shoe, she suddenly gets 4 or 5 Blackjacks out of 16 rounds and that shoe is a real stinker and pisses everybody off as we are all skun.

    I say this event was somewhat predictable, while GF says I am speaking bullshit. This [and many other examples] I have experienced too many times with my own eyes to doubt it. GF is warped!

  10. #10

    Default

    Katz “Call-Me-Jude” Kwitser sez –

    “The gambler's fallacy is the belief that the chances of something happening with a fixed probability become higher or lower as the process is repeated. People who commit the gambler's fallacy believe that past events affect the probability of something happening in the future.
    Reminds me of a profound saying by Tony-Jew Katz:

    “It ain’t what it is until what it is not is not.”

    If gambler’s fallacy is, then automatically reversed gambler’s fallacy is as well. “You can’t have it both ways,” sez the layman.

    What mankind was not aware of before the Parpaluck Era was the composition of probability. There are three fundamental probability elements, not only one:
    1) ratio between favorable outcomes and total possible elements — the gnoseologically ubiquitous element even children know as probability (p);
    2) number of trials (N) that the pre-Parpaluck world always reduced to 1 (one);
    3) the degree of certainty (DC), the fundamental probability element that Parpaluck introduced — but it shed too intense of light over darkness; even honest people became “blinded by the light”.

    “...the probability for heads in the next coin flip is exactly the same.”
    Of course, of course! You can’t add sides to the coin or faces to the die! That’s element #1 above: p. But such static view of the dynamic reality only counts (pun intended) to 1: The number of trials N is always 1. (Non wonder the card-counting “theorists” can only count from –1 to +1!) Even quite intelligent gambling theorists like Lizard of Odds get confused so badly: “Getting 200 heads in a row is equivalent to getting 1 heads in a row!”

    What’s missing in otherwise good minds but turned foggy is the sine qua non probability element degree of certainty (DC). Wrote Ion “Parpaluck” Saliu:

    The degree of certainty DC rises with the increase in the number of trials N while the probability pis always the same”.

    Now, we are in the mathematics proper of gambling. There ain’t just 1 (one) number of trials N. There are several trials, including one. The outcome is not equal to 1 only. The outcomes appear in multiple lengths named streaks. The streaks do follow mathematics to its deepest. The streaks are the result of undeniable mathematical formulas.

    The krooked N0rms of the world would mouth-foamingly scream that “There ain’t no formulae in gambling ‘cuz it is random!” They scream that because they desperately want to sell card-counting systems and software! On the other hand, the Lizards of Odds are consultants paid by the casinos. The kasinos aggressively fight every bit of mathematics if applied to gambling. Of course, of course! The casinos have a huge interest in avoiding gambling losses as the gamblers’ losses make up their bloodlines.

    .... to be continued ....

  11. #11

    Default

    …. continued ….

    No matter how you look at it, mouth-foamingly or not, all gambling is a series of streaks. From Player’s perspective, there are winning streaks (W+) and there are losing streaks (L-). The streaks are of various lengths, but precisely calculated by mathematical formulae/s. Look at this table representing the streaks for the real-life blackjack game:



    “NOT! NOT! Don’t show that no more!” them krookos will scream. “The losing streaks of Player will go indefinitely!”

    REALLY? Look at these roulette results:



    In the vast majority of cases, total appearances and total non-appearances fall within one standard deviation from the norm (not that insane n0rm!) Check any other results you want to (I’m addressing normal persons here, not the pathological liars like the Askobolans). What gambler’s fallacy… where is it, krookoo?? I ain’t seen 200 consecutive losses in coin tossing… not even 20… not even in blackjack… not even at roulette…

    The streak gambling system is clearly presented on several pages at SALIU.COM, especially Gambling Mathematics Is Science of Winning / Losing Streaks. The fundamentals of the gambling system were first published somehow by brute force. A Napster-like piracy site published virtually all roulette systems in existence, including the famed Super Roulette Strategy.

    The increase in bets is NOT an open-ended Martingale or Fibonacci progression. Again, all gambling events are series of streaks. The streaks will average out in results closely following mathematics. The necessary LONG RUN is as reasonable as it can be — it occurs in the overwhelming majority of cases in a LIFETIME.

    Compare that to card counting, where mathematics is not even allowed as a topic of discussion! The LONG RUN in cart-counting “requires” billions of trials (way beyond a lifetime)! Guess what? Binomial standard deviation can prove that one billion trial series can badly disprove card counting. “So, what?” the card counter afflicts and krooks will mouth-foam scream at you. “Do another billion trial sim… and another one if failed again… one of them billion trial series sim will be a winner…”

    “Toney Katz, Gentile or Jew,
    You might know a thing or two –
    Sometimes you do your math
    Like drinking the grapes of wrath.”


    Ion Saliu (royalty name: Parpaluck),
    Founder of Gambling Mathematics,
    Founder of Axiomaticism,
    Founder of Randomness Philosophy,
    Founder of TRUTH ABOVE ANYTHING ANYBODY Foundation

    (Punished by Miss Google for posting on ZenZone! I guess, too many addicts, afflicts, pathological liars, one-sentence idiots, etc. But there is one Kat… “Măi Kwitser, măi Cuiuţ, Am o mîţă, tu s-o…. BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Parpaluck View Post
    Reminds me of a profound saying by Tony-Jew Katz:

    “It ain’t what it is until what it is not is not.”

    If gambler’s fallacy is, then automatically reversed gambler’s fallacy is as well. “You can’t have it both ways,” sez the layman.

    What mankind was not aware of before the Parpaluck Era was the composition of probability. There are three fundamental probability elements, not only one:
    1) ratio between favorable outcomes and total possible elements — the gnoseologically ubiquitous element even children know as probability (p);
    2) number of trials (N) that the pre-Parpaluck world always reduced to 1 (one);
    3) the degree of certainty (DC), the fundamental probability element that Parpaluck introduced — but it shed too intense of light over darkness; even honest people became “blinded by the light”.


    Of course, of course! You can’t add sides to the coin or faces to the die! That’s element #1 above: p. But such static view of the dynamic reality only counts (pun intended) to 1: The number of trials N is always 1. (Non wonder the card-counting “theorists” can only count from –1 to +1!) Even quite intelligent gambling theorists like Lizard of Odds get confused so badly: “Getting 200 heads in a row is equivalent to getting 1 heads in a row!”

    What’s missing in otherwise good minds but turned foggy is the sine qua non probability element degree of certainty (DC). Wrote Ion “Parpaluck” Saliu:

    The degree of certainty DC rises with the increase in the number of trials N while the probability pis always the same”.

    Now, we are in the mathematics proper of gambling. There ain’t just 1 (one) number of trials N. There are several trials, including one. The outcome is not equal to 1 only. The outcomes appear in multiple lengths named streaks. The streaks do follow mathematics to its deepest. The streaks are the result of undeniable mathematical formulas.

    The krooked N0rms of the world would mouth-foamingly scream that “There ain’t no formulae in gambling ‘cuz it is random!” They scream that because they desperately want to sell card-counting systems and software! On the other hand, the Lizards of Odds are consultants paid by the casinos. The kasinos aggressively fight every bit of mathematics if applied to gambling. Of course, of course! The casinos have a huge interest in avoiding gambling losses as the gamblers’ losses make up their bloodlines.

    .... to be continued ....
    Silly boy! The odds of 100 events is not the same as the odds of one event-- no one here is saying that, and neither is Norm, whose intelligence you greatly underestimate in public, but with whom I suspect you fully agree with in your private thoughts. Norm represents the antithesis to your bogus, hocus pocus probability system. One never decides to bet on the 100th event before the first event has even occurred. If they did, I would agree with you, since before the first event has occurred, the 100th in a row identical event has an extremely low chance of taking place. But in real life (come back, Ion, come back!) a person decides whether and what he will bet on the hundredth trial "after" the 99th event has occurred. If all the previous events have been tails, the chance for the next event wil still be 50/50. And please! Stop claiming you invented the degree of certainly formula. You only renamed what was there before you were born! You old fraudster! Still trying to catch suckers in your web of deceit, eh? What do they say? There's a sucker born every minute of the day and two to take him! You're getting a little old for this kind of shenanigan. Time to turn over a new leaf, don't you think? Why don't you close down the old webtrap... I mean, website. There's a real life waiting for you out there. You have so much going for you, but scamming people is not one of them. Life is about real relationships and a life dedicated to con has none-- maybe on the side, but they are all tainted by one's occupation. A con artist relies of the larceny in the hearts of his victims. What about the larceny in the con artist's heart? He is trapped in a trap of his own making. Come clean, my friend. There is a real life waiting for you.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    3,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Parpaluck View Post
    …. continued ….

    No matter how you look at it, mouth-foamingly or not, all gambling is a series of streaks. From Player’s perspective, there are winning streaks (W+) and there are losing streaks (L-). The streaks are of various lengths, but precisely calculated by mathematical formulae/s. Look at this table representing the streaks for the real-life blackjack game:

    Irrelevant, does not disprove the Gambler's Fallacy and Bayes Theorem.
    Please explain the Saliu 'Theory of Streaks' and enclude the theory 'proof-formula'.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aslan View Post
    Silly boy! The odds of 100 events is not the same as the odds of one event-- no one here is saying that, and neither is Norm, whose intelligence you greatly underestimate in public, but with whom I suspect you fully agree with in your private thoughts. Norm represents the antithesis to your bogus, hocus pocus probability system. One never decides to bet on the 100th event before the first event has even occurred. If they did, I would agree with you, since before the first event has occurred, the 100th in a row identical event has an extremely low chance of taking place. But in real life (come back, Ion, come back!) a person decides whether and what he will bet on the hundredth trial "after" the 99th event has occurred. If all the previous events have been tails, the chance for the next event wil still be 50/50. And please! Stop claiming you invented the degree of certainly formula. You only renamed what was there before you were born! You old fraudster! Still trying to catch suckers in your web of deceit, eh? What do they say? There's a sucker born every minute of the day and two to take him! You're getting a little old for this kind of shenanigan. Time to turn over a new leaf, don't you think? Why don't you close down the old webtrap... I mean, website. There's a real life waiting for you out there. You have so much going for you, but scamming people is not one of them. Life is about real relationships and a life dedicated to con has none-- maybe on the side, but they are all tainted by one's occupation. A con artist relies of the larceny in the hearts of his victims. What about the larceny in the con artist's heart? He is trapped in a trap of his own making. Come clean, my friend. There is a real life waiting for you.
    BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
    BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

    That’s how I heal: SHOCK THERAPY! Puncture the venom glands of the worms “who” paint their skin in silver-and-black to make-believe they are cobras. Then, give them a break — thusly, they’ll self-puncture the venom glands. In time, the venom glands will dry out.

    It is a modern treatment they apply in fighting AIDS more and more successfully. The AIDS virus grows stronger to medicines over relatively short times: Months, even weeks. The virus strains that respond better to medicines grow in numbers in a dramatic way. The “old” strain of the HIV goes the dinosaur's way! Now, some medical scientists took the AIDS patients out of medication. The reversed phenomenon takes place. The strained better adapted to medicines severely diminishes in numbers. Meanwhile, the old virus strain, which does not respond well to the medicine threat, grows in numbers, but less dramatically. An extraordinary example of evolution at work!

    “Torquemada, Torquemada,
    Where is your armada?”
    “We are hiding in God’s eye,
    In the mote that caused the sty.”

    “Torqué, where is your ghost?”
    AskoCabrón is my host.”
    “Torqué, how you feel in there?”
    “He farts bad… I need fresh air…”

    (AskoCabrón, believes he is the ghost of Torquemada… AskoCabrón hallucinates that G-D ordered him to continue the mission of Torquemada. BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    In the YO
    Posts
    15,587

    Default

    Card counting works... except when it doesn't work.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Read The Art of Military Strategy
    By Katweezel in forum Anything Else But
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 19th, 2012, 06:55 AM
  2. Life explained
    By blackchipjim in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: January 17th, 2010, 01:33 PM
  3. Obama's budget cut, explained
    By JohnDoe in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: April 30th, 2009, 03:17 AM
  4. Bailout plan explained
    By Warlord in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 20th, 2008, 12:09 AM
  5. The Cloward-Piven Strategy
    By Automatic Monkey in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 12th, 2008, 09:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts