Quote:
Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
1Time - you continue to assert that unrelated events can influence each other.
|
It appears you are mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
In your coin toss example if I first toss heads, then the next toss must be tails. This is absurd.
|
I wrote nothing that states or implies this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Statisticly the odds of tossing 10 heads in a row is 2 to the power of the number of tosses; in this example 1 in 1024. But, if I have just tossed 9 heads in a row, what is the probability of tossing another head? It remains 1 in 2. The previous tosses have nothing to do with the next.
|
I agree, and I find no conflict with this and what I've written in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You suggest that the sample set size is irrelevant in realising the statistical outcome. I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. The greater the sample size the more likely the closer to the statistical outcome.
|
No, I wrote my examples for the sake of simplicity, not to suggest a rewriting of statistical analysis. Nothing I wrote with regard to the examples I gave renders the points I made any less valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
In the case of my blackjack playing each time I play I have a 48% chance of winning. Whether I won or lost on my last visit to the casino has no bearing on this.
|
Understanding the concept of previous events not affecting the odds of the next event was and is not at issue. And yes, if your system is as effective as I described, you should have up to a ~ 48% (but not likely more) chance of walking away a winner. However, I applied the coin toss example to the likelihood of you having accomplished your reported 96% to 98% success rate, and, I applied it to the likelihood of you or anyone repeating this success rate. I did not, however, apply the coin toss example to the likelihood of your success at your next event (as doing so would be absurd).
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
As far as knowing when to quit. I disagree with you. I have never suggested the concept is about the 'optimal time to quit'. It is simply quit while you're ahead.
|
As I'm sure you will agree "knowing when to quit" is an expression commonly used, and it is practically synonymous with the expression "quitting while you're ahead". The following quote is of a previous statement I wrote that addresses this. Note the bold text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Time /img/forum/go_quote.gif
"Knowing when to quit" is a fallacy, an illusion. There is no way to predict when to quit such that in the long run quitting at any point will translate into having better odds than the house and therefore see a profit.
|
While it is true a gambler cannot determine an optimal time to quit, a careful reading of my above quote will show I did not refer to or imply to an optimal time to quit. The bottom line is a gambler cannot beat the house odds by using a "quit while still ahead rule".
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I tend to quit when I have double my stake (I normally start with $100 - $200). Or, I will cash in my stake and the equivalent in profit and then play with any additional winnings. If I lose those, I'm still ahead.
|
Anyone's use of the above stated rules or partial system will not change the house advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If everyone knew when to quit the casinos would go broke, but very few people know when to quit; so the casinos continue to make money.
|
No. This is of course not true. The casinos would not go broke if everyone knew when to quit or "quit while still ahead" or used your system, because doing so does not dispense with the house advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You seem to think that gambling is a logical pursuit for most people. Fact is, it's not. People rely mostly on their emotions when gambling.
|
No, I'm well aware gambling for most involves emotion, and I've posted nothing to suggest otherwise. Remember the example I gave earlier about gamblers using the rule to play for "fun"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Why do people chase losses? Because they believe that they can regain their losses.
Why won't people quit while they're ahead? Because they believe that they can win more.
|
Your posting reasons why you think people can't know when to quit does not change the truth that casinos would not go out of business "if" they knew when to quit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You seem to be missing the details of some of the points raised here. You continue to come back to the 'house has the advantage so nobody can ever win argument'.
|
Competing is not my objective here, and I suggest it not be the use of this thread. I will be glad to offer details as I am able and deem it appropriate to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordgtlover /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Remember, the house doesn't care if if the house average is applied across 1 or 100 people. Some will win, and many will lose. If everyone always lost, who would return?
|
I have not stated or implied anything to the contrary. Perhaps reading my posts again will help.