Trump's decision on DACA "dreamers"

[bookburn]

So Trump decides to withdraw the DACA law on illegal immigrant children staying in the U.S. Going to be media demonstrations of all kinds on this, pointing the finger at Trump, not the illegals. Supposedly, the illegals involved are now about age 25. Who knows what will happen to them?

From a survival standpoint, lots can be said justifying the "dreamers" existence in the U.S.. Darwin's Rules no doubt allow migrations of all kinds, and probably the illegal immigrants allow that people have the RIGHT to live anywhere they want to. Forces at play in the world push people around, and the U.S. is no doubt responsible for the refugee problem in the Middle East. Already has numerous populations from other war-torn countries, like Korea, Philippines, Africa, and countries in the Caribbean.

I hope the legal immigrants in the U.S. can be excluded from the coming decisions about immigrants and refugees. No telling how Muslim refugees being accepted for residency will be allowed to practice their religious legal system. U.S. seems to be on the ropes, as far as presenting a unified front in Congress and the liberal news media.

But it does seem that refugees should be flowing into the country just because they can survive better here. Something about identifying with a homeland and ethnic center in self-determination, I should think. Let the refugees become wards of the United Nations for settlement in nearby countries, maybe.

Also, of course, there is the time factor to consider. Like, Obamanation let the illegals stay for many years, during which time it can be argued that they have been "grandfathered in." That's in Darwin's Rules somewhere, probably. Then, too, one should estimate how long it will take to try each case separately before deportation occurs. By the end, those "dreamers" will be parents and joined by an increasing number of relatives who blend in. Talking about a flood of "dreamers." Congress will probably do its typical number on legislating merciful litigation coming to the aid of a humanitarian cause like this. In the meantime, expect the Democrats to benefit by increasing numbers of protesters.

To what about the survival of those already trying to live with law and order, providing a model of democratic multiculturalism for other "democratic" nations? Not sure what Darwin's Rules say about defense of such pluralism, except that the election vote we have is a way to establish priorities. No doubt the U.S. Constitution says rules are decided by the majority, while minorities have equal rights UNDER THE LAW.

[EtzAnM⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛cVdMIq]

Trump is proving himself a heartless bastard by dashing to hope and
dream the dreamers dream.

[Gunner Asch]

Ayup! Wonderful isnt he?!!!


>
>
>
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[rbowman]

On 09/05/2017 01:45 PM, EtzAnM⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛cVdMIq
wrote:

>
> Trump is proving himself a heartless bastard by dashing to hope and
> dream the dreamers dream.

Fuck them if they can't take a joke.

[KnQuOH⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛byqWyl]

rbowman wrote on 9/6/2017 10:46 PM:
> On 09/05/2017 01:45 PM, EtzAnM⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛cVdMIq
> wrote:
>>

>> Trump is proving himself a heartless bastard by dashing the hope and

>> dream the dreamers dream.
>
> Fuck them if they can't take a joke.

It's not nice to scare the shit out of these boys and girls who love
America, and I bet they love Jesus too.

<http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.4275460/kicked-while-we-were-down-paramedic-who-saved-harvey-victims-faces-deportation-if-daca-ends-1.4275467>

[PaxPerPoten]

President Trump is giving them the opportunity to widen knowledge of
their culture by actually living in their own homeland. Wouldn't it be
wonderful to see an actual Mexican Flag(example) flying in Mexico rather
then over the Streets of America. Yes...That is sarcasm! I see one
whining about how he wanted to be an Engineer in America...What the
Hell...Doesn't his Homeland in Guatemala need Engineers worse then we do?


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[PaxPerPoten]

He will be met with great enthusiasm in his home country that needs
medical personal badly. But he will be deprived of voting for Hillary
type El Presdente there. He would be safe from deportation if actively
serving in America's military. Possibly the Programs of the Democrats
might get him killed in a needless war though.

[rbowman]

On 09/06/2017 09:27 PM, KnQuOH⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛byqWyl
wrote:

To reiterate, fuck 'em. They will be valuable assets back where ever
they came from. It is immoral for the US to act as a brain drain to the
world. We need to restore talent to countries badly in need. Think of it
as Peace Corps For Natives.

[If 6 Was 9]

On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 17:12:19 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>Trump is proving himself a heartless bastard by dashing to hope and
>>dream the dreamers dream.
>
>Ayup! Wonderful isnt he?!!!

Newsflash for all the dopey cunts like Wieber: Fucking over the
innocent will do absolutely nothing to fix your life. The dreamers
have worked to earn what you were born with. You squandered the
opportunity. They still have hope of succeeding, while you deserve to
remain miserable. It is predictable and appropriate that you waste so
much time deepening that misery by demonstrating the inexorable
shrinkage of your pea brains.

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 06:16:36 -0700, If 6 Was 9 <is...@er.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 17:12:19 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>Trump is proving himself a heartless bastard by dashing to hope and
>>>dream the dreamers dream.
>>
>>Ayup! Wonderful isnt he?!!!
>
>Newsflash for all the dopey cunts like Wieber: Fucking over the
>innocent

Odd....it would appear that the kids parents fucked them over...yet
you appear to be ignoring that fact and trying to blame someone else.

So if your Daddy was selling your sister and drugs out of the front of
your living room..and they evicted you...its the landlords fault?

Fascinating indeed.

[CanopyCo]

If they are in fact a asset to their community, why don’t they apply for legal entry and citizenship?

[If 6 Was 9]

On Sat, 09 Sep 2017 22:16:09 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 06:16:36 -0700, If 6 Was 9 <is...@er.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 17:12:19 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Trump is proving himself a heartless bastard by dashing to hope and
>>>>dream the dreamers dream.
>>>
>>>Ayup! Wonderful isnt he?!!!
>>
>>Newsflash for all the dopey cunts like Wieber: Fucking over the
>>innocent
>
>
>Odd....it would appear that the kids parents fucked them over

Nope. The parents gave them a shot at a better life. You want to
demonize them as part of your disgusting strategy of rationalizing
your own failure by fantasizing that everyone else can be brought down
to your level. Still a good chance the dreamers will succeed, but
worst case, they did their best, something you'll never be able to
claim.

[If 6 Was 9]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 07:01:14 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
wrote:

>If they are in fact a asset to their community, why don’t they apply for legal entry and citizenship?

That's exactly what they're trying to do, canopy von winkle.

[bookburn]

Strange thing about odds. It seems that chances are that if you have a 50-50 chance of winning a flip of the coin, that after a dozen flips your chances of winning the next attempt stays the same, 50-50, even if all the flips before have gone against you. So, on that basis, Dreamers can make an attempt, despite the long odds.

[UyZia⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛PYBol]

If you think carefully, the outcome of the next flip of a coin is not
exactly 50/50. It actually depends on the outcome of past flips.

We all know that the outcome of flipping a coin is 50/50 in the long
run, but for the short term there can be 2 in a row, 3 in a row, 4 in a
row, .......

Because there is an invisible hand guiding the outcome toward 50/50 in
the long run, that means in the short term the chance of having a tail
after 2 heads in a row, 3 heads in a row, 4 heads in a row, ,... should
be progressive higher.

After 5 heads in a row, the chance of having a tail will be higher in
the next 10 or twenty flips to even out the outcome.

I will bet my money on tails in the next 10 flips if there is already a
5 heads in a row.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 09:27:34 -0700, If 6 Was 9 <is...@er.net> wrote:

>>
>>Odd....it would appear that the kids parents fucked them over
>
>Nope. The parents gave them a shot at a better life. Y

By breaking the laws and putting them in very precarious position.

So if your daddy takes you on a bank robbery...and you get shot...its
not your daddys fault?

[Gunner Asch]

Here for 20 yrs..no attempts made to apply.

Again you prove you are a mindless dick.

[rbowman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

They even have a name for your half-assed thought process...

[bookburn]

Robert the Bruce, Scots warrior chief in retreat, had to decide whether to fight again. Watching the attempts of a spider to swing into a new position, he saw that the spider failed two times. He decided to let his fate be determined by whether the next attempt by the spider was successful. The spider did succeed, and so did Robert the Bruce in his next battle.

[Tiayh⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛DzJGc]

The discussion in that "Gambler's Fallacy" article seems to have
forgotten about the even outcome of heads and tails in the long run.

You and Bookburn can flip a coin 100 times. I have tried that myself
long time ago. The outcome is very close to 50/50.

Both of you should try it.

We all know that it is impossible to have 100 heads, 90 heads, 80 heads,
70 heads, or even 60 heads in 100 flips.

If the total outcome of flipping a coin 100 times should be close to 50
heads and 50 tails, then it is reasonable to expect that if there are
already many more heads than tails in the first 10 flips, the subsequent
flips will need to have more tails than heads so that after 100 flips
the total outcome will be close to 50/50. Therefore, there seems to be
an invisible hand guiding the outcome based on the history of past flips.

[Zinger]

So...Abandoning their children is giving them a better life ...in a
country that doesn't want them? No guiding hand to help them achieve
a meaningful adulthood? I can see that you are the kind that would dump
your children into unknown circumstance or sans that capability would
simply abort them and be on your merry way. Or maybe you aren't man
enough to stick around to see if you have children. If you children were
starving and you had one piece of bread, would you give it to a
strangers child? Especially a stranger that may hate your guts and plots
your death? I know exactly how to help these people. Send the Birth
control...And lots of it! If I had a time machine...I would make damned
sure your parents got lots of Birth control to save them the grief of
having you. Now trot your Marxist ass to a country that would be more
accepting of takeover by your kind.
>


--
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

[PaxPerPoten]

Not if its my coin.... But I like manufactured house odds. ;-)

[PaxPerPoten]

No! Shit fort brains...They are Usurping our hospitality and laws.
Forcing us to care and feed people from elsewhere when such charity is
much needed among our own patriotic and deserving people.
Which we are now doing on borrowed money...About 19.9 Trillion and counting.

[bookburn]

I'm not a gambler, but when I drove to Las Vegas one Christmas I decided to try the system I read about, where you simply double up every time you lose, betting on either red or black roulette. Evidently, it does employ the logic of odds as about 50-50, except for the house numbers, but you can start betting at any turn of the wheel.

What I did was wait until it seemed either red or black was overdue, then started doubling my bet when I lost. Starting with just $2, a couple times I had to double up to bet like $64, just to get my $2 back; but after several hours I was up some $50 and cashed in. Croupier was not happy with me, kept telling me how to do it, but I gave him a small tip, and he snatched it up. When I cashed in, the cashier was also stone faced, slowly counted out about 50 old silver dollars which I had to carry out; wouldn't give me anything to carry it in.

Long and the short of it is that, evidently the professional gambling houses don't like to see anyone playing the odds like that. Actual name of the system is something like "the phoenix."

[bookburn]

Think I found the system, named the Maringale, at https://www.bettingexpert.com/casino/roulette/strategy/martingale-system

[CanopyCo]

What is stopping them?
Nothing?
Immigration has not been totally cut off, so what is the problem?

And with the nice education they got here, shouldn’t they be high paid back where they came from?
If they came from a war place, wouldn’t they qualify to immigrate to Mexico where they would be valuable?

Most of this sounds like the same bitching that justified them breaking in the first time.

[CanopyCo]

I used that exact thinking to win at roulette back in 1975.
I bet red, black, even or odd depending on what it had done, based on the idea that more than 3 in a row of anything would be unlikely.

Managed to win enough to pay for the trip.

[CanopyCo]

And yet the odds that a coin will land heads 50 out of 50 tosses is clearly not 50 – 50.
Thus the flaw in math vs reality.

[CanopyCo]

Or, if the previous flips have no effect on the odds, then why aren’t the odds of getting heads 10 times in a row 50 – 50?

[CanopyCo]

Hay, we should have forced sterilization of illegal immigrants before deportation.
Think that would slow them down?

[rbowman]

On 09/10/2017 08:58 PM, Tiayh⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛DzJGc wrote:
> If the total outcome of flipping a coin 100 times should be close to 50
> heads and 50 tails, then it is reasonable to expect that if there are
> already many more heads than tails in the first 10 flips, the subsequent
> flips will need to have more tails than heads so that after 100 flips
> the total outcome will be close to 50/50. Therefore, there seems to be
> an invisible hand guiding the outcome based on the history of past flips.

If you ever took a statistics course you should demand your money back.

[rbowman]

On 09/11/2017 08:11 AM, CanopyCo wrote:
> Or, if the previous flips have no effect on the odds, then why aren’t the odds of getting heads 10 times in a row 50 – 50?

You are confusing two different things. An individual flip of a coin is
always 50/50. The probability of a sequence of events is another matter.

[yLtwY⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛RKZCE]

The math in that Wikipedia article on the "gambler's fallacy" is fixated
on the 'probability' aspect (the outcome of each individual of flip is
50/50 chance), but neglected the statistical fact that the long term
outcome should also be 50/50.

I surmise that taking 100 samples of a 50/50 event is large enough to be
considered "long term".

If you try flipping a coin 100 times and register the outcome, you will
understand and agree with my argument that if you see a temporary bias
toward one side of an outcome (i.e. too many heads or too many tails) in
the short term will predicate a shift in the trend toward the opposite
side so that the statistical requirement to have 50/50 in the long term
will be met.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 13:36:34 -0400, yLtwY?? ?????? ? ??????? ??RKZCE
<jU...@tdAMl.com> wrote:

>rbowman wrote on 9/11/2017 1:01 PM:

>> On 09/10/2017 08:58 PM, Tiayh?? ?????? ? ??????? ??DzJGc

The way you're thinking about this is a key the reason the house
always wins in the long run. It's called the gambler's fallacy, or the
Monte Carlo fallacy, because gambling houses depend on a lot of people
thinking the way you're thinking. It's how they get rich and gamblers
wind up broke.

The a priori probability of any future flip has no relationship to
previous flips. With a fair coin, it's still 50/50, even if you just
had 100 "heads" in a row before the next flip.

If you need another explanation of it, look up Monte Carlo fallacy.
You'll find it in the context of stock investing as well as in
gambling.

--
Ed Huntress

[WROfT⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛outnp]

No, the house always wins because the game is designed to have 'house
edge' or 'house sdvantage'.

If the casino is really running a game of tossing a single coin (and
give you 100% return for a win). The rule of probability and statistics
dictates that the casino will always break even in the long run. The
casino will be wasting time and labour.

Every casino game has some sort of 'house advantage' built into the game.

<https://www.problemgambling.ca/EN/ResourcesForProfessionals/Pages/GamblingandtheHouseAdvantage.aspx>

>
> The a priori probability of any future flip has no relationship to
> previous flips. With a fair coin, it's still 50/50, even if you just
> had 100 "heads" in a row before the next flip.

It is impossible to have 100 heads in a row if you have a fair coin. Not
even 20 in a row.

Why don't you try flipping 100 coins yourself. It is not that difficult.
The outcome should be close to 50/50.

If you really get close to 50/50 after a few sets of 100 flips, then go
back and read my argument again.

>
> If you need another explanation of it, look up Monte Carlo fallacy.
> You'll find it in the context of stock investing as well as in
> gambling.
>

A link was posted by 'rbowman' a few posts back.

[Ed Huntress]

You're right that the house's statistical edge (the house edge) is the
reason they come out ahead. But the house wins much more than that
edge overall, because people gamble irrationally. Many million-dollar
winners wind up giving it all back to the house. Almost all smaller
winners do. Those factors, driven largely by the gambler's fallacy, is
"how they [the casinos] get rich," as I said. More particularly, it's
why so many gamblers wind up broke.

The percentage that the casino collects of the money that people
initially bet is known as the "hold percentage" -- which, typically,
is many times the house edge, because winners keep betting their
winnings through a combination of "hot-hand" fallacy (irrational
exuberance) and gambler's fallacy (irrational optimism). It's not
unusual for the hold percentage to be many times the house edge. As
people keep re-betting money they've won, the total amount of money
crossing the table (known as the "drop," or the "handle") becomes a
multiple of the money originally bet. The casino makes its edge each
time that money crosses the table.

For example, the house edge in American stye roulette is 5.26%. But
the hold percentage for roulette in Nevada casinos, from 2004 to some
time in 2017, was 18.72%

http://gaming.unlv.edu/reports/nv_table_hold.pdf

The hot-hand falacy and the gambler's fallacy are similar in effect,
but more or less the opposite in reasoning. People who believe in one
often believe in the other, however, because they're both based on
similar misunderstandings of gambling statistics.

I'm from New Jersey, BTW. We teach this in elementary school here. We
don't have 7-11s. We have 7-COME-11s. d8-)

>
>If the casino is really running a game of tossing a single coin (and
>give you 100% return for a win). The rule of probability and statistics
>dictates that the casino will always break even in the long run. The
>casino will be wasting time and labour.

Right.

>
>Every casino game has some sort of 'house advantage' built into the game.
>
><https://www.problemgambling.ca/EN/ResourcesForProfessionals/Pages/GamblingandtheHouseAdvantage.aspx>

Right. That's the house edge. It is NOT the usual hold percentage.
It's not why casinos make so damned much money.

>
>
>>
>> The a priori probability of any future flip has no relationship to
>> previous flips. With a fair coin, it's still 50/50, even if you just
>> had 100 "heads" in a row before the next flip.
>
>It is impossible to have 100 heads in a row if you have a fair coin.

No, but the chances are vanishingly small. Specifically, 1/(2^100). In
other words, not in our lifetimes. d8-)

>Not even 20 in a row.

1/(2^20).

>
>Why don't you try flipping 100 coins yourself. It is not that difficult.
>The outcome should be close to 50/50.

I don't need to. I did a lot of that in several statistics courses in
college. It's boring. <g>

>
>If you really get close to 50/50 after a few sets of 100 flips, then go
>back and read my argument again.

I only needed to read it once to recognize the Monte Carlo fallacy.

>
>
>>
>> If you need another explanation of it, look up Monte Carlo fallacy.
>> You'll find it in the context of stock investing as well as in
>> gambling.
>>
>
>A link was posted by 'rbowman' a few posts back.

Good for him. I should have checked back in the thread. It just seemed
to be going on too long if you actually understood the subject.

--
Ed Huntress

[uuVnY⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛ZwjAm]

>> edge' or 'house advantage'.

>
> You're right that the house's statistical edge (the house edge) is the
> reason they come out ahead. But the house wins much more than that
> edge overall, because people gamble irrationally.

You are wrong again. The house wins totally on 'house advantage'
designed into the game.

What you claim as 'people gamble irrationally' is also a random event,
much like the flipping of a coin. The outcome will even itself out with
a large number of people gambling irrationally in the long run.

What the casino doesn't like is the people who don't place their bets in
a random manner. Smart gamblers use my principle of 'statistics' based
on the history of previous outcome.

For games with a random outcome of 50/50, then you can beat the house
using my principle of statistics that the long term outcome should also
be 50/50.

> Many million-dollar
> winners wind up giving it all back to the house. Almost all smaller
> winners do. Those factors, driven largely by the gambler's fallacy, is
> "how they [the casinos] get rich," as I said. More particularly, it's
> why so many gamblers wind up broke.

No, so many gamblers wind up broke because of the 'house advantage'
built into the game, they don't have a correct system and they play for
too long.

Please tell me when it had ever happened, 20 or 100 in a row. I am sure
if it had ever happened, it would have been reported and the whole world
would have known about it (probably we can read about it in Guinness).

>
>>
>> Why don't you try flipping 100 coins yourself. It is not that difficult.
>> The outcome should be close to 50/50.
>
> I don't need to. I did a lot of that in several statistics courses in
> college. It's boring. <g>
>
>>
>> If you really get close to 50/50 after a few sets of 100 flips, then go
>> back and read my argument again.
>
> I only needed to read it once to recognize the Monte Carlo fallacy.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If you need another explanation of it, look up Monte Carlo fallacy.
>>> You'll find it in the context of stock investing as well as in
>>> gambling.
>>>
>>
>> A link was posted by 'rbowman' a few posts back.
>
> Good for him. I should have checked back in the thread. It just seemed
> to be going on too long if you actually understood the subject.
>

I actually understand the subject. My field of study in university was
Electrical Engineering. I actually immersed myself for many years in
'Advanced Calculus' and 'Probability & Statistics'.

The problem you have is that you have a closed mind due to what you've
read before.



If you can come to your senses that the statistical outcome of a 50/50
event in the long run is also 50/50, then you will understand that
people like 'bookburn' and 'CanopyCo' testified earlier in this thread
that they made money in the casino using this statistics method to beat
the house.



Do you know that principle of 'Probability & Statistics' is also applied
in Nuclear Physics?

You must've heard about the 'Critical Mass' in an atomic bomb. That
Critical Mass is based on neutrons from the radioactive decay are flying
out in random directions. That's why it is in the study of 'Probability
& Statistics'. This discipline is also employed in the design of the
spacing of fuel rods to adjust the reaction rate in nuclear reactors.

The 'Critical Mass' is the mass of the radioactive material required to
have enough random neutrons flying out to split enough atoms to trigger
a runaway reaction.

If your 20 heads in a row idea can materialized from a supposedly random
event of tossing a fair coin, then there won't be such thing as
'Critical Mass' because too many of the random neutrons will suddenly
all point in the same direction and trigger a runaway reaction.

[Ed Huntress]

Tell us first, when it became "impossible." While you're at it, tell
us on which universe that occurred.

20 in a row is only, roughly, one in a million. Certainly coins have
been flipped 20 times in a row more than one million times.

> I am sure
>if it had ever happened, it would have been reported and the whole world
>would have known about it (probably we can read about it in Guinness).
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Why don't you try flipping 100 coins yourself. It is not that difficult.
>>> The outcome should be close to 50/50.
>>
>> I don't need to. I did a lot of that in several statistics courses in
>> college. It's boring. <g>
>>
>>>
>>> If you really get close to 50/50 after a few sets of 100 flips, then go
>>> back and read my argument again.
>>
>> I only needed to read it once to recognize the Monte Carlo fallacy.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you need another explanation of it, look up Monte Carlo fallacy.
>>>> You'll find it in the context of stock investing as well as in
>>>> gambling.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A link was posted by 'rbowman' a few posts back.
>>
>> Good for him. I should have checked back in the thread. It just seemed
>> to be going on too long if you actually understood the subject.
>>
>
>I actually understand the subject. My field of study in university was
>Electrical Engineering. I actually immersed myself for many years in
>'Advanced Calculus' and 'Probability & Statistics'.


>
>The problem you have is that you have a closed mind due to what you've
>read before.

I'll bet you were a hell of a student.

>
>
>
>If you can come to your senses that the statistical outcome of a 50/50
>event in the long run is also 50/50, then you will understand that
>people like 'bookburn' and 'CanopyCo' testified earlier in this thread
>that they made money in the casino using this statistics method to beat
>the house.

I don't believe them.

>
>
>
>Do you know that principle of 'Probability & Statistics' is also applied
>in Nuclear Physics?
>
>You must've heard about the 'Critical Mass' in an atomic bomb. That
>Critical Mass is based on neutrons from the radioactive decay are flying
>out in random directions. That's why it is in the study of 'Probability
>& Statistics'. This discipline is also employed in the design of the
>spacing of fuel rods to adjust the reaction rate in nuclear reactors.
>
>The 'Critical Mass' is the mass of the radioactive material required to
>have enough random neutrons flying out to split enough atoms to trigger
>a runaway reaction.
>
>If your 20 heads in a row idea can materialized from a supposedly random
>event of tossing a fair coin, then there won't be such thing as
>'Critical Mass' because too many of the random neutrons will suddenly
>all point in the same direction and trigger a runaway reaction.

You are seriously fucked up.

Have a nice day.

--
Ed Huntress

[frCTB⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛mHefX]

And yet you cannot find any example of 20 heads in a row had ever happened.

Something mathematical possible doesn't mean it can happen.

Please tell us if you really believe the odds of a nomad living in the
middle of Gobi Desert getting attacked and killed by a shark are 1 in
3,748,067 in a lifetime.

I will say that should be zero, but of course you will argue with me
because of the math:

<https://www.thewildlifemuseum.org/exhibits/sharks/odds-of-a-shark-attack/>
//
The odds of getting attacked and killed by a shark are 1 in 3,748,067.
In a lifetime, you are more likely to die from fireworks (1 in 340,733),
lightning (1 in 79,746), drowning (1 in 1,134), a car accident (1 in
84), stroke (1 in 24), or heart disease (1 in 5). There are 70 to 100
shark attacks worldwide every year, 5 to 15 result in death.
\\

>> If your 20 heads in a row idea can materialize from a supposedly random

[Ed Huntress]

Of course it's happened. Don't you think that 20 coins or more have
been flipped at least one million times throughout history?

I thought you said you know statistics.

>
>Something mathematical possible doesn't mean it can happen.

Yeah, it does.

>
>Please tell us if you really believe the odds of a nomad living in the
>middle of Gobi Desert getting attacked and killed by a shark are 1 in
>3,748,067 in a lifetime.

I beginning to think you're really nuts.

>
>I will say that should be zero, but of course you will argue with me
>because of the math:
>
><https://www.thewildlifemuseum.org/exhibits/sharks/odds-of-a-shark-attack/>
>//
>The odds of getting attacked and killed by a shark are 1 in 3,748,067.
>In a lifetime, you are more likely to die from fireworks (1 in 340,733),
>lightning (1 in 79,746), drowning (1 in 1,134), a car accident (1 in
>84), stroke (1 in 24), or heart disease (1 in 5). There are 70 to 100
>shark attacks worldwide every year, 5 to 15 result in death.
>\\

How many are nomads? <g>

[Zinger]

>> enough to stick around to see if you have children. If your children were

>> starving and you had one piece of bread, would you give it to a
>> strangers child? Especially a stranger that may hate your guts and plots

>> your death? I know exactly how to help these people. Send them Birth

>> control...And lots of it! If I had a time machine...I would make damned
>> sure your parents got lots of Birth control to save them the grief of
>> having you. Now trot your Marxist ass to a country that would be more
>> accepting of takeover by your kind.
>>>
>>
>>
>
> Hay, we should have forced sterilization of illegal immigrants before deportation.
> Think that would slow them down?

lots of motion lotion!
But no motion potion!

[CanopyCo]

Thus the previous flip results influences the next flip.
Thus the following flips are no longer 50 – 50, due to the outcome of the previous flip.

After all, every flip is a single flip, so for me to bet heads every time should be 50 -50 that I am right.

[CanopyCo]

So, bet me that you will get 10 heads in a row.
No?
Why not?
It wouldn’t be because you know that if you got heads three times in a row the odds are long for heads from then on?

[CanopyCo]

Casino odds are never 50 – 50.
I think the best odds offered are roulette at 48 you – 53 them.

[CanopyCo]

How is that possible if the previous flip did not influence the odds of following flips?

Shouldn't it be 50 - 50?

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 08:27:39 -0500, Red Prepper <r...@red.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 18:02:04 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 17:34:01 -0400, uuVnY?? ?????? ? ??????? ??ZwjAm
>> <UV...@ELgjY.com> wrote:

>

>Anyone in RCM lose a cunt in a dress? Over the fence with the troll!

Save your breath, nanny. You've posted 38 messages to RCM in just the
last month, none of which have anything to do with metalworking. No
one is going to take you seriously.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 07:23:19 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
wrote:

I don't understand your question. No previous flips have any influence
on the following flips.

>
>Shouldn't it be 50 - 50?

After the fact, given enough flips, you can look back and chances are
that they came out close to 50:50. But before any individual flip,
there is nothing that will influence what the next flip is going to
be.

This is all illustrated in any good explanation of the Monte Carlo
Fallacy.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 07:11:20 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
wrote:

If it was sufficently interesting, I would work out the odds of that
happening (it's 1:1,024), make a fair-money bet (if you win, I pay you
$1; if I win, you pay me $1,024). Then, if we flipped the coins 1,024
times, your chances of coming out ahead versus my chances of coming
out ahead will be 50:50.

But we'd both be really bored. d8-)

>Why not?

See above.

>It wouldn’t be because you know that if you got heads three times in a row the odds are long for heads from then on?

If I got heads three times in a row, the wager would reduce to the
odds of getting 7 more heads in a row, which would be 1:128.

That's all you know. You have no idea at that point what the next
flip, nor any future flip, is going to produce. All you know is the
odds for the next flip (again, 50:50), and the odds for future
combinations of flips (1:128, for the next seven in a row), and the
*previous* results. You don't know anything about the future except
the odds.

And the odds for any individual flip will continue to be 50:50, right
to the end of the sequence.

--
Ed Huntress

[tsuuy⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛lqodc]

If previous flips have no influence on subsequent flips, then how come
the outcome of flipping a coin 100 times is always close to 50 heads and
50 tails?

Does it mean the outcome of previous flips is influencing the outcome of
subsequent flips to drive the outcome toward 50/50 in the long run?

Please revisit my argument from my earlier post:

"If the total outcome of flipping a coin 100 times should be close to 50
heads and 50 tails, then it is reasonable to expect that if there are
already many more heads than tails in the first 10 flips, the subsequent
flips will need to have more tails than heads so that after 100 flips
the total outcome will be close to 50/50. Therefore, there seems to be
an invisible hand guiding the outcome based on the history of past flips."


>
>>

[If 6 Was 9]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 06:47:02 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Sunday, September 10, 2017 at 11:28:15 AM UTC-5, If 6 Was 9 wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 07:01:14 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If they are in fact a asset to their community, why don’t they apply for legal entry and citizenship?
>>
>> That's exactly what they're trying to do, canopy von winkle.
>>
>>
>
>What is stopping them?

<sigh> Spell out exactly what you think they should be doing. And
provide links to the legal docs, and the experts who agree with you.

Bottom line, you are driven and stuck trying to rationalize your
hatred.

[If 6 Was 9]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 23:39:23 -0500, Zinger <Zin...@badSoSad.com>

wrote:

>On 9/10/2017 11:27 AM, If 6 Was 9 wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Sep 2017 22:16:09 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 06:16:36 -0700, If 6 Was 9 <is...@er.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 17:12:19 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Trump is proving himself a heartless bastard by dashing to hope and
>>>>>> dream the dreamers dream.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ayup! Wonderful isnt he?!!!
>>>>
>>>> Newsflash for all the dopey cunts like Wieber: Fucking over the
>>>> innocent
>>>
>>>
>>> Odd....it would appear that the kids parents fucked them over
>>
>> Nope. The parents gave them a shot at a better life. You want to
>> demonize them as part of your disgusting strategy of rationalizing
>> your own failure by fantasizing that everyone else can be brought down
>> to your level. Still a good chance the dreamers will succeed, but
>> worst case, they did their best, something you'll never be able to
>> claim.
>
>So...Abandoning their children is giving them a better life ...

They aren't abused. They were given the best chance available.

>in a country that doesn't want them?

It remains to be seen if the country wants them.

> I can see that you are the kind that would dump
>your children into unknown circumstance or sans that capability would
>simply abort them and be on your merry way.

I can see that you are the kind of hypocrite who has a deep emotional
need to offer BS rationalizations to defend your lack of empathy.

[If 6 Was 9]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 14:07:46 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 09:28:03 -0700, If 6 Was 9 <is...@er.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 07:01:14 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>If they are in fact a asset to their community, why don’t they apply for legal entry and citizenship?
>>
>>That's exactly what they're trying to do, canopy von winkle.
>
>

>Here for 20 yrs..no attempts made to apply.

Dreamers are doing everything they can within existing law. You would
know that if you weren't a racist asshole trying to rationalize your
need to drag everyone down to your level.

[ndTjP⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛UtTtm]

The problem you have is that you are fixated at the 50/50 odds of a
single flip, and ignore the statistical outcome of 100 flips should also
be (or close to) 50/50.

Try to have an open mind and revisit my argument from an earlier post:

[If 6 Was 9]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 14:06:41 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 09:27:34 -0700, If 6 Was 9 <is...@er.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Odd....it would appear that the kids parents fucked them over
>>
>>Nope. The parents gave them a shot at a better life. Y
>

>By breaking the laws and putting them in very precarious position.
>
>So if your daddy takes you on a bank robbery...and you get shot...its
>not your daddys fault?

So if a daddy takes his kid to a bank robbery, the kid joins him in
jail? Your logical fallacies, and the time you waste making them, are
the diarrhea icing on the turdtcake that is Mark Wieber, lifelong
loser.

[Ed Huntress]

Because the chance of heads on any one flip is always 50:50. If you
keep flipping, and if each flip has a 50:50 probability, the long-run
statistic is that you (probably) will have something close to 50:50
for the whole sequence.

It never matters what a previous flip produced.

>
>Does it mean the outcome of previous flips is influencing the outcome of
>subsequent flips to drive the outcome toward 50/50 in the long run?

No.

>
>Please revisit my argument from my earlier post:
>
>"If the total outcome of flipping a coin 100 times should be close to 50
>heads and 50 tails, then it is reasonable to expect that if there are
>already many more heads than tails in the first 10 flips, the subsequent
>flips will need to have more tails than heads so that after 100 flips
>the total outcome will be close to 50/50. Therefore, there seems to be
>an invisible hand guiding the outcome based on the history of past flips."

No. If you keep flipping a fair coin, and your percentage of heads
starts skewing away from 50%, all you know is that you've been
flipping a low-probability sequence.

Every possible sequence has a statistical probability, and the
probability curve is the familiar bell curve. Previous flips don't
influence it. Probabilities are the only issue.

-
Ed Huntress

[tGjSE⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛XsILU]

You still ignore that statistical outcome that after 100 flips you
should always get close to 50 heads and 50 tails.

That means the outcome of all previous flips somehow have influence on
the outcome of each subsequent flip to drive the long term statistical
outcome to 50/50.

If the outcome of all previous flips have no influence on the outcome of
subsequent flips, then there is no reason to have close to 50 heads and
50 tails after 100 flips.

You know that it is close to impossible to have 80 heads and 20 tails
after 100 flips.

We all know the odds of a single flip is 50/50, and he long term outcome
should be close to 50/50. Why is that, if the outcome of previous flips
have no influence on the outcome of subsequent flips? Why don't you
always end up with wildly random outcome like 90/10, 75/25, 99/1, 85/15
........ ?

[Winston Smith]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 12:00:53 -0400, Mighty Whackadoodle wrote:

>If previous flips have no influence on subsequent flips, then how come
>the outcome of flipping a coin 100 times is always close to 50 heads and
>50 tails?

Psychic coins from the fuzzy fringes of Fairness Land that have a
command and control plan for the overall world situation. The whole
natural world as thinking, feeling Mother Gaia leading her ignorant
children to the grand plan.

I love it. Would we expect anything else from our beloved, boy wonder,
liberal, Canadian troll. No diversity for this boy, no sir. Mother
Gaia is on the scene.

[Ed Huntress]

Actually, no, I don't have a problem. There is a statistical
probability of each of the possible sequences of events. If it was
worth it, you could posit any such simple event and I could calculate
for you the chances of that happening, as a prior event or as a
hypothetical future event. That's what casinos do.

It doesn't change the basic fact that each individual, future flip
will have the same probability, which is 50:50.

Stay away from blackjack, however. That one gets REALLY hairy when
you're playing with more than one deck. d8-)

>
>Try to have an open mind and revisit my argument from an earlier post:
>
>"If the total outcome of flipping a coin 100 times should be close to 50
>heads and 50 tails, then it is reasonable to expect that if there are
>already many more heads than tails in the first 10 flips, the subsequent
>flips will need to have more tails than heads so that after 100 flips
>the total outcome will be close to 50/50. Therefore, there seems to be
>an invisible hand guiding the outcome based on the history of past flips."

Ok, here's the open-minded answer: If you had more heads than tails
(say 7 heads, 3 tails) on your first 10 flips, the odds are that, at
the end of 100 flips, your result at the end of flipping that sequence
will be 54 heads, 46 tails.

That's the most likely outcome. The possibility from that point
forward, at the end of 10 flips, that you will wind up with 50 heads
and 50 tails for the whole 100-flip sequence is something I don't do
anymore -- binomial distributions make my head hurt. I remember having
to do them with formulas and a slide rule. (Yes, I'm that old. <g>)

But today we have these wonderful calculators on the Web, and this one
is easy. Go here:

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

Plug in these numbers: Probability of success (heads) on a single
trial is 0.5. Number of trials is 90 (100-10). Number of successes (to
achieve 50 heads overall, including the 7 we already got) is 43. Hit
"calculate." Ta-da! Here's the probability:

0.0768 (roughly).

That's the binomial probability of getting 7 heads on your first 10
trials, and then 43 on the next 90, for a total of 50 on all 100
trials.

You can learn a lot by plugging in different numbers. Say you'd allow
for 49 heads and 51 tails, and vice-versa. Plug in 42 and then 44 copy
and paste all three binomial results into your favorite spreadsheet,
and then add all three numbers. That gives you the total probability
of getting 49 to 51 heads, after you've gotten 7 heads on your first
10 flips.

Easy. But I doubt if it will convince you that you're on the wrong
track, because your problem is not that you can't do the calculation,
but rather that...you're on the wrong mental track.

Have fun.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

I'm going to make one final attempt, and then you're on your own.

Use that calculator to which I just posted a link, and figure out the
actual probabilities of any range of possible outcomes you want. It is
NOT true that you always get something close to 50:50. As you get
farther from that outcome (say, 40:60 or 60:40; same thing), you'll
see what the probability is of that occurring.

There probably is an online calculator that will give you the binomial
probabilities for *ranges* of possible outcomes, but I'm not going
looking for it. You can figure out a range for youself by adding the
probabilities of any one specific outcome, with the calculator, and
then adding up the probabilities for each value in your range.

>
>That means the outcome of all previous flips somehow have influence on
>the outcome of each subsequent flip to drive the long term statistical
>outcome to 50/50.
>
>If the outcome of all previous flips have no influence on the outcome of
>subsequent flips, then there is no reason to have close to 50 heads and
>50 tails after 100 flips.
>
>You know that it is close to impossible to have 80 heads and 20 tails
>after 100 flips.

The probability is very low, but not "impossible" for exactly 80
heads.

BTW, note that the calculator does *cumulative* probabilities, also.
The cumulative probability of 80 or *more* heads, for example, is
0.000001.

>
>We all know the odds of a single flip is 50/50, and he long term outcome
>should be close to 50/50. Why is that, if the outcome of previous flips
>have no influence on the outcome of subsequent flips?

Bell curve distribution of probabilities. This is not the same result
you get from putting a bell *jar* over your head and pumping the air
out.

>Why don't you
>always end up with wildly random outcome like 90/10, 75/25, 99/1, 85/15
>........ ?

Binomial distribution of probabilities.

-
Ed Huntress

[qRupY⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛cxHxM]

>> The problem you have is that you are fixated on the 50/50 odds of a

>> single flip, and ignore the statistical outcome of 100 flips should also
>> be (or close to) 50/50.
>
> Actually, no, I don't have a problem. There is a statistical
> probability of each of the possible sequences of events. If it was
> worth it, you could posit any such simple event and I could calculate
> for you the chances of that happening, as a prior event or as a
> hypothetical future event. That's what casinos do.
>
> It doesn't change the basic fact that each individual, future flip
> will have the same probability, which is 50:50.

Everybody knows that.

For you, the possibility of head or tail for a single flip of a coin is
50/50 if you don't know any of the previous events, but for someone who
has seen the 5 previous flips were heads, that someone knows 'tail' is
overdue, and the odds of having a tail is much higher, because the
outcome has to trend towards 50/50 for the long run.

Once again you are fixated on the mathematical possibility of a single
event, and ignore that there seems to be invisible hand guiding the long
term statistical outcome towards the same odds for a single event.

Please let me ask you this same question again: If the outcome of
previous events have no bearing on the outcome of future events, then
why would you always end up with close to 50 heads and 50 tails after
100 flips? Why not way off like 80/20?

Now why don't you try this experiment:

Put 100 pennies in a mason jar and shake real well.

Pour the 100 pennies out of the mason jar onto a table.

Line up the pennies on the table.

Confirm that the head/tail should close to 50/50.

Now pretend the line of pennies is the record of all your 100 individual
single flip of a coin.

That means you are playing God. You can see the future and you can see
the past.

Now look at the first 10 flips at the beginning of the line of 100
pennies. If there are a lot more heads than tails in the first 10
pennies, then you can tell the rest of the 90 pennies have more tails
than heads.

If each penny in the line of 100 pennies really represent the record of
each individual flip of the coin, then the outcome of past flips do seem
to influence the outcome of future flips.

Do I make myself clear?

[Ed Huntress]

No such thing. That's the Gambler's Fallacy.

>, and the odds of having a tail is much higher, because the
>outcome has to trend towards 50/50 for the long run.

No, it doesn't.

There are no invisible hands involved. There are only probabilities.

>
>Please let me ask you this same question again: If the outcome of
>previous events have no bearing on the outcome of future events, then
>why would you always end up with close to 50 heads and 50 tails after
>100 flips?

You don't.

>Why not way off like 80/20?

Because the chances of that are very small, no matter how many flips
you make.

>
>Now why don't you try this experiment:
>
>Put 100 pennies in a mason jar and shake real well.
>
>Pour the 100 pennies out of the mason jar onto a table.
>
>Line up the pennies on the table.
>
>Confirm that the head/tail should close to 50/50.
>
>Now pretend the line of pennies is the record of all your 100 individual
>single flip of a coin.
>
>That means you are playing God. You can see the future and you can see
>the past.
>
>Now look at the first 10 flips at the beginning of the line of 100
>pennies. If there are a lot more heads than tails in the first 10

>pennies than heads.

>
>If each penny in the line of 100 pennies really represent the record of
>each individual flip of the coin, then the outcome of past flips do seem
>to influence the outcome of future flips.
>
>Do I make myself clear?

You do, but you're still trapped in the Monte Carlo fallacy.

Look, you're combining several ideas. The fact that non-binomial
distributions occur more frequently in small samples is studied in
statistics as "the law of small numbers." The problem you have with it
is that the distributions occur randomly and don't tell you what you
think they tell you.

This is all answered in the matter of Poisson distributions and
"convergence." You'd have to spend some time with it to understand it.
We couldn't do it here so I won't even try. It can take a while to
sink in.

If you're really interested and want to study it, I've given you the
keywords above. Otherwise, you're a casino owner's dream. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[FgJha⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛GfYKJ]

Just the opposite. Casinos hate smart people like me who have a system,
and don't place random bets at the roulette table, because the odds are
stacked against the player due to the 'house advantage' built into the
game. If you keep placing your bets at random for a long time, then you
are guaranteed to lose money.

If you understand the idea that flipping a coin 100 times will always
result in close to 50 heads and 50 tails, then you will understand what
I have been trying to tell you.

If you have just arrived at the roulette table, then the odds of
red/black for you is 50/50, but for the gamblers around you who have
seen too may reds in the last few times, they know that black is overdue
and the odds for black is better than 50/50. That means the other
gamblers are playing with knowledge, and you are playing with blind luck.

[Ed Huntress]

Oh, boy. A gambler with a "system" based on the Monte Carlo Fallacy.

I'll bet they see you coming, and make sure you have a good seat, and
lots of free drinks. d8-)

Enjoy your delusions.

--
Ed Huntress

[bookburn]

I have heard that casinos are on the lookout for people who seem to have a system, maybe not the kind deduced from probabilities, permutations, and semi-permiables, but something rather psychic. Example might be someone, perhaps a brain injured or autism, like the brother in the movie.

Maybe a very few people can observe a gaming table in a special way and get an insight what will happen?

Impossible, you may say, yet in particle physics there is this experiment with shooting photons through a mask that seems to show the particles all going through the same slot, as if they were communicating somehow; impossible, if photons are infinitely speedy. Last I heard, there were far-out explanations for this, including Dr. Kaku's String Theory, where on "Coast to Coast" I heard him
postulate that all of the Dark Matter is made of of these "points," which are "COMMUNICATING WITH EACH OTHER." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

Not sure if particle physics can assume that the Photon Mask Experiment can be explained that way, but unless some better explanation is offered, it seems to be a mystery. Maybe behind Dark Matter there is intention and purpose that one can pretend to?

[pDAef⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛WRCxn]

I thought you belong to the intelligent type. Apparently I was wrong.

Now I have to give you another example, based on 'Russian roulette',
instead of casino roulette, to demonstrate to you that the odds of an
outcome is different for a person who knows the history of previous
events and a person who DOES NOT know the history of previous events.

Imagine you are sitting in a room with a 6-gun on the table with only
one bullet in the chamber.

You grab a guy (no.1) walking outside in the hallway and tell him to
shoot himself in the head.

The guy thinks his odds of blowing his head off is only 1/6 so he
willingly obliges. He lives to walk away.

You grab another guy walking outside in the hallway and tell him to
shoot himself in the head.

The guy (no.2) thinks his odds of blowing his head off is only 1/6 so he
willingly obliges. He also lives to walk away.

But you know the history, and his odds of dying is actually higher than 1/6.

You grab another guy walking outside in the hallway and tell him to
shoot himself in the head.

The guy (no.3) thinks his odds of blowing his head off is only 1/6 so he
willingly obliges. He also lives to walk away.

But you know the history, and his odds of dying is actually higher than 1/6.

You grab another guy walking outside in the hallway and tell him to
shoot himself in the head.

The guy (no.4) thinks his odds of blowing his head off is only 1/6 so he
willingly obliges. He also lives to walk away.

But you know the history, and his odds of dying is actually a lot higher
than 1/6.

You grab another guy walking outside in the hallway and tell him to
shoot himself in the head.

The guy (no.5) thinks his odds of blowing his head off is only 1/6 so he
willingly obliges. He also lives to walk away.

But you know the history, and his odds of dying is actually a lot higher
than 1/6.

You grab another guy walking outside in the hall way and tell him to
shoot himself in the head.

The guy (no.6) thinks his odds of blowing his head off is only 1/6 so he
willingly obliges. The gun goes 'bang' and he drops dead.

Because you know the history, the odds of the same event is different
for you, instead of the same theoretical odds of 1/6 for everybody
casually walking past the door.

[Ed Huntress]

Bad example. You start with six possibiities; you end with one. When
you flip a coin, it's the same two possibilities each time you flip.

In flipping coins, nothing that's happened before changes what will
happen next. In Russian Roulette, the percentages of possible outcomes
change with each pull of the trigger.

You've never studied probability, have you. You have it all wrong.

--
Ed Huntress

[iJJlV⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛stQYl]

I have changed to use the example of Russian roulette to see if you can
comprehend better.

Forget about the coin for now.

Please explain to me why you can better predict the result in the guy
dying because you know the history, when all the guys think their odds
of dying are the same 1/6?

[Ed Huntress]

Because you know what the odds have changed to: 1:6, then
1:5...finally, it's 1.

What if the gun went "bang" after the first shot? What good did it do
you to be the one who knew the odds?

You don't know that when you flip coins. The chance is the same each
time -- 1:2 that you will flip a head.

Think. This isn't hard. We had this level of introductory probability
in 7th grade, IIRC.

--
Ed Huntress

[Winston Smith]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 15:37:51 -0700 (PDT), bookburn wrote:

>I have heard that casinos are on the lookout for people who seem to have a system, maybe not the kind deduced from probabilities, permutations, and semi-permiables, but something rather psychic. Example might be someone, perhaps a brain injured or autism, like the brother in the movie.

The brother in Rainman was an idiot savant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome
Super fast with numbers and nothing else. No psychic forces involved.
He did not "deduce" anything, he was simply very fast at calculating
odds in the classic ways of mathematics.

No need to go to lala when simple facts will do.
-- Winston's 14th razor.

> on "Coast to Coast" I heard

Nearly as good a reference as The National Inquirer and Alex Jones.

[Winston Smith]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 19:33:21 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

>Think. This isn't hard.

Thank you for entertaining our group troll. Most of us gave up on him
and only correct him when what he writes could kill some other
ignorant fool.

>We had this level of introductory probability in 7th grade, IIRC.

You have to remember, he is a product of the Canadian education system
and he has suffered frost bite of the brain several times in the
Canadian winters.

[Red Prepper]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 19:33:21 -0400, Ed Huntress

There's also a chance of a misfire, so that changes the odds for
whoever ends up with the round in the chamber.

[Red Prepper]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 16:40:10 -0700, Winston Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 15:37:51 -0700 (PDT), bookburn wrote:


> >I have heard that casinos are on the lookout for people who seem
to have a system, maybe not the kind deduced from probabilities,
permutations, and semi-permiables, but something rather psychic.
Example might be someone, perhaps a brain injured or autism, like the
brother in the movie.


> The brother in Rainman was an idiot savant.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome
> Super fast with numbers and nothing else. No psychic forces
involved.
> He did not "deduce" anything, he was simply very fast at calculating
> odds in the classic ways of mathematics.


> No need to go to lala when simple facts will do.
> -- Winston's 14th razor.

In

> > on "Coast to Coast" I heard


> Nearly as good a reference as The National Inquirer and Alex Jones.

There are people who can count cards. Casinos know these people by
name and send security to escort them out as soon as they sit down at
the table. Most are in a database that makes the persona non grata at
casinos across the country.

[Red Prepper]

The trolls around here multiply like amoebae.

[MFdlV⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛FIatz]

Yes, because the odds of the SAME EVENT is different for a person who
knows the history and a person who doesn't know the history.

But you have been arguing it is always the same theological odds whether
you know the history or not.

So I am correct, and you are wrong.

You can actually develop a system to win at the casino roulette table
using the outcome of the previous events.

>
> What if the gun went "bang" after the first shot? What good did it do
> you to be the one who knew the odds?

Don't try to weasel out.

If you insist, then why don't you get another gun to start over again?

>
> You don't know that when you flip coins. The chance is the same each
> time -- 1:2 that you will flip a head.

I have explained to you many times, but you are too stupid to
understand, so I have to change to use the Russian roulette example.

>
> Think. This isn't hard. We had this level of introductory probability
> in 7th grade, IIRC.
>

I am sure I know more math than you do, but that's irrelevant. The
probability in coin toss or roulette wheel is really elementary.

Now, please answer the question why the odds of the same event (the guy
shooting himself in the head) is different for you (as an observer who
knows the history) and for the guys casually walk past your door (who
don't know the history).

Now I reprint my thought experiment below for your convenience. Please
think and answer the question.


RUSSIAN ROULETTE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT REPRINTED BELOW:

Now I have to give you another example, based on 'Russian roulette',
instead of casino roulette, to demonstrate to you that the odds of an
outcome is different for a person who knows the history of previous

events and for a person who DOES NOT know the history of previous events.

Now, please explain to us why the odds of the same event (the guy
shooting himself in the head) is different for you (as an observer who
knows the history) and for the guys casually walking past your door (who
don't know the history), when you insist they should be all the same 1/6.

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 16:51:06 -0700, Winston Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 19:33:21 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>Think. This isn't hard.
>
>Thank you for entertaining our group troll. Most of us gave up on him
>and only correct him when what he writes could kill some other
>ignorant fool.

HA-ha! Oh, that's a good dividing line. I'll be sure to practice that
in the future. <g>

>
>>We had this level of introductory probability in 7th grade, IIRC.
>
>You have to remember, he is a product of the Canadian education system
>and he has suffered frost bite of the brain several times in the
>Canadian winters.

Something peculiar is going on there, and I can't figure out why
anyone can't see the basic idea of odds in a series of flips versus
the odds in a series of trigger pulls in Russian Roulette. I would
think it's obvious, even without having a background in statistics and
probability.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

Sure. To be formal about the probability problem, the two
possibilities are that the hammer either falls on a loaded chamber or
an empty one. Whether the gun fires just adds a bit of drama to the
mathematical problem. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[bookburn]

Two possibilities in a deduction logic system might be 1) where someone figures out that the roulette wheel is rigged to defeat the big bets, so he can just bet against the big money; and 2) where someone deduces that the wheel is somehow off balance, so some numbers are coming up more often. I bet the casinos are aware of those like this who are winners too often.

[Ed Huntress]

It's not the same event. It's six different events -- if someone
doesn't get shot sooner.

Each event is *physically* dependent upon the outcomes of each
previous event.

In flipping coins, each event is *independent* of previous events.
There is no "guiding hand." Each flip has the same probability of
coming up heads as the previous events, no matter what their outcomes
were.

>
>But you have been arguing it is always the same theological odds whether
>you know the history or not.

Theology has nothing to do with it.

>
>So I am correct, and you are wrong.

Wanna bet? d8-)

>
>You can actually develop a system to win at the casino roulette table
>using the outcome of the previous events.

No.

>
>>
>> What if the gun went "bang" after the first shot? What good did it do
>> you to be the one who knew the odds?
>
>Don't try to weasel out.

Can't handle that one, eh?

>
>If you insist, then why don't you get another gun to start over again?

Why?

>
>>
>> You don't know that when you flip coins. The chance is the same each
>> time -- 1:2 that you will flip a head.
>
>I have explained to you many times, but you are too stupid to
>understand, so I have to change to use the Russian roulette example.

heh-heh...

>
>>
>> Think. This isn't hard. We had this level of introductory probability
>> in 7th grade, IIRC.
>>
>
>I am sure I know more math than you do, but that's irrelevant.

Obviously, you don't know probability and statistics.

>The
>probability in coin toss or roulette wheel is really elementary.

Yes it is, which leaves us wondering why you don't get it.

>
>Now, please answer the question why the odds of the same event (the guy
>shooting himself in the head) is different for you (as an observer who
>knows the history) and for the guys casually walk past your door (who
>don't know the history).

Because I know how the odds have changed because of the *physical
dependency* of each sequential shot upon the results of the previous
shots. He doesn't.

There is no physical dependency in the case of coin flips. Each flip
is independent of any previous flips or future flips.

I've already explained this.

It's clear you have a weak understanding of probability. That wouldn't
be so bad if you were open to learning, but you're not. You got this
cockeyed idea in your head and you keep doubling-down on it.

So further discussion is fruitless. I hope you don't actually gamble,
because you'll have "sucker" written all over you if you follow your
thoughts about odds.

--
Ed Huntress

[CanopyCo]

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 10:25:20 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 07:23:19 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 5:02:24 PM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 17:34:01 -0400, uuVnY?? ?????? ? ??????? ??ZwjAm
> >> <UV...@ELgjY.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ed Huntress wrote on 9/11/2017 4:12 PM:
> >> >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 15:00:58 -0400, WROfT?? ?????? ? ??????? ??outnp

> >> >> <ZU...@aDyqx.com> wrote:

> >> >>> No, the house always wins because the game is designed to have 'house
> >> >>> edge' or 'house advantage'.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're right that the house's statistical edge (the house edge) is the
> >> >> reason they come out ahead. But the house wins much more than that
> >> >> edge overall, because people gamble irrationally.
> >> >
> >> >You are wrong again. The house wins totally on 'house advantage'
> >> >designed into the game.
> >> >
> >> >What you claim as 'people gamble irrationally' is also a random event,
> >> >much like the flipping of a coin. The outcome will even itself out with
> >> >a large number of people gambling irrationally in the long run.
> >> >
> >> >What the casino doesn't like is the people who don't place their bets in
> >> >a random manner. Smart gamblers use my principle of 'statistics' based
> >> >on the history of previous outcome.
> >> >
> >> >For games with a random outcome of 50/50, then you can beat the house

> >> >using my principle of statistics that the long term outcome should also
> >> >be 50/50.
> >> >

> >> >>>> The a priori probability of any future flip has no relationship to
> >> >>>> previous flips. With a fair coin, it's still 50/50, even if you just
> >> >>>> had 100 "heads" in a row before the next flip.
> >> >>>

> >> >>> It is impossible to have 100 heads in a row if you have a fair coin.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, but the chances are vanishingly small. Specifically, 1/(2^100). In
> >> >> other words, not in our lifetimes. d8-)
> >> >>
> >> >>> Not even 20 in a row.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1/(2^20).
> >> >
> >> >Please tell me when it had ever happened, 20 or 100 in a row.
> >>
> >> Tell us first, when it became "impossible." While you're at it, tell
> >> us on which universe that occurred.
> >>
> >> 20 in a row is only, roughly, one in a million. Certainly coins have
> >> been flipped 20 times in a row more than one million times.
> >>
> >
> >How is that possible if the previous flip did not influence the odds of following flips?
>
> I don't understand your question. No previous flips have any influence
> on the following flips.
>
> >

> >Shouldn't it be 50 - 50?
>
> After the fact, given enough flips, you can look back and chances are
> that they came out close to 50:50. But before any individual flip,
> there is nothing that will influence what the next flip is going to
> be.
>
> This is all illustrated in any good explanation of the Monte Carlo
> Fallacy.
>

> --
> Ed Huntress

Precisely the fallacy being discussed.
The Monte Carlo Fallacy theory is in itself a fallacy.

According to that theory, if you are tossing a coin 100 times, and the first 50 tosses are all heads, that the remanding 50 tosses will be 25 heads and 25 tails.
Because the odds of a toss are 50 – 50.
But that makes the odds of the exercise 25 – 75, not 50 - 50.
25 tails to 75 heads.

What we are saying is that if you get several heads in a row, then for the end to be 50 – 50 the following tosses must make up for the previous run.
Thus they will be tails for a sufficient run to make the outcome 50 – 50.

This all reminds me of the discussion quite some time ago where the smart guys were all saying that putting a mirror on a lamp did not increase the light put out by the lamp.
However, they totally missed the fact that it did increase the light hitting the target.

This discussion is demonstrating the same inability to get past teaching in order to see real world applications.

[CanopyCo]

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 11:05:10 AM UTC-5, If 6 Was 9 wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 06:47:02 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, September 10, 2017 at 11:28:15 AM UTC-5, If 6 Was 9 wrote:
> >> On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 07:01:14 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If they are in fact a asset to their community, why don’t they apply for legal entry and citizenship?
> >>
> >> That's exactly what they're trying to do, canopy von winkle.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What is stopping them?
>
> <sigh> Spell out exactly what you think they should be doing. And
> provide links to the legal docs, and the experts who agree with you.
>
> Bottom line, you are driven and stuck trying to rationalize your
> hatred.
>

They have been here for what, 40 years?
And during that time there was several presidents that aided in immigration.
But I am to feel sorry for them because they waited until everyone was sick of their refusal to become citizens and was tossing them out, before they decided to even try to become citizens?

And now that refusing to get up off their wet back and become a citizen has come back to bite them on the ass, I’m expected to feel bad for them and give them even more time to not become a citizen?

How does this differ from someone refusing to pay the rent until they are evicted, or refusing to buy something that was on sale until the sale was over?
You snooze, you lose.

As far as the rest of your request, get off your wet back and find your own immigration citizenship forms.
And if the time limit is over, then too bad.
They should have done it sooner instead of waiting until they were being evicted.

[CanopyCo]

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 11:09:36 AM UTC-5, If 6 Was 9 wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 14:06:41 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 09:27:34 -0700, If 6 Was 9 <is...@er.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>Odd....it would appear that the kids parents fucked them over
> >>
> >>Nope. The parents gave them a shot at a better life. Y
> >
> >By breaking the laws and putting them in very precarious position.
> >
> >So if your daddy takes you on a bank robbery...and you get shot...its
> >not your daddys fault?
>
> So if a daddy takes his kid to a bank robbery, the kid joins him in
> jail? Your logical fallacies, and the time you waste making them, are
> the diarrhea icing on the turdtcake that is Mark Wieber, lifelong
> loser.
>
>

Ignorant of the law concerning bank robbers that are minors?
Being less than 18 years old won’t keep you out of jail if you try to rob a bank, regardless of the age of your accomplice.

[rbowman]

On 09/11/2017 11:36 AM, yLtwY⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛RKZCE wrote:
> rbowman wrote on 9/11/2017 1:01 PM:

>> On 09/10/2017 08:58 PM, Tiayh⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛DzJGc

>> wrote:
>>> If the total outcome of flipping a coin 100 times should be close to 50
>>> heads and 50 tails, then it is reasonable to expect that if there are
>>> already many more heads than tails in the first 10 flips, the subsequent
>>> flips will need to have more tails than heads so that after 100 flips
>>> the total outcome will be close to 50/50. Therefore, there seems to be
>>> an invisible hand guiding the outcome based on the history of past
>>> flips.
>>
>> If you ever took a statistics course you should demand your money back.
>
> The math in that Wikipedia article on the "gambler's fallacy" is fixated
> on the 'probability' aspect (the outcome of each individual of flip is
> 50/50 chance), but neglected the statistical fact that the long term
> outcome should also be 50/50.
>
> I surmise that taking 100 samples of a 50/50 event is large enough to be
> considered "long term".
>
> If you try flipping a coin 100 times and register the outcome, you will
> understand and agree with my argument that if you see a temporary bias
> toward one side of an outcome (i.e. too many heads or too many tails) in
> the short term will predicate a shift in the trend toward the opposite
> side so that the statistical requirement to have 50/50 in the long term
> will be met.

We're not talking about the long term or even two flips. One coin, one
flip. What are the odds it will be heads. Loki is not looking over your
shoulder taking notes. There is no history just heads or tails for a
single toss. If you believe in some hidden hand controlling event find a
Mormon missionary and convert.

[rOrLP⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛RJEQj]

You have your odds of the guy shooting himself dead, and the same guy
has his odds of shooting himself dead. The two of you are looking at the
same event of the guy pulling the trigger.

Are you really that illogical?

>
> Each event is *physically* dependent upon the outcomes of each
> previous event.
>
> In flipping coins, each event is *independent* of previous events.
> There is no "guiding hand." Each flip has the same probability of
> coming up heads as the previous events, no matter what their outcomes
> were.

Yes, if you don't know the history of previous flips.

I have explained to you many times. Pay attention!

>
>>
>> But you have been arguing it is always the same theological odds whether
>> you know the history or not.
>
> Theology has nothing to do with it.

Late at night. The typing assistant (software) thought I was typing this
and I failed to spot it.

The odds never changed for each guy you grabbed from the hallway.

Do you know what "Russian roulette" is?

You are supposed to SPIN THE CYLINDER.

So for every guy pulling the trigger, the odds are always the same 1/6
in getting the bullet.

But for you, probability and statistics predict that every six guys
pulling the trigger, one will get the bullet.

So if you have already grabbed five guys from the hallway to pull the
trigger and they all survived to walk away, then you know the bullet is
OVERDUE.

The odds of each subsequent guy getting the bullet are getting higher
and higher, because you know the history.

No, you haven't

The same as usual, you Google shit up and present something you don't
even understand to back you up.

>
> It's clear you have a weak understanding of probability. That wouldn't
> be so bad if you were open to learning, but you're not. You got this
> cockeyed idea in your head and you keep doubling-down on it.

You Google something that faintly looks like your misguided idea and you
think that's gospel.

>
> So further discussion is fruitless. I hope you don't actually gamble,
> because you'll have "sucker" written all over you if you follow your
> thoughts about odds.
>

It is fruitless because you have lost the argument.

The odds of the same event has different odds if you know the history of
previous events.

[rbowman]

On 09/11/2017 03:34 PM, uuVnY⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛ZwjAm wrote:
> For games with a random outcome of 50/50, then you can beat the house

> using my principle of statistics that the long term outcome should also
> be 50/50.

Why don't you take your money and head for Vegas? Or better yet head for
one of the Mohawk casinos in New York State. The war whoops will be
happy to school you.

[rbowman]

On 09/11/2017 04:02 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>
>>
>> If you can come to your senses that the statistical outcome of a 50/50
>> event in the long run is also 50/50, then you will understand that
>> people like 'bookburn' and 'CanopyCo' testified earlier in this thread
>> that they made money in the casino using this statistics method to beat
>> the house.
> I don't believe them.
>

I made money in a casino using a very sophisticated technique. I'd
parked the truck overnight in Jean, NV and went in the casino in the
morning for a cup of coffee. I had a quarter in change so I dropped it
in a slot. Imagine my surprise when the lights and bells went off. I got
$50. The girl behind the coffee counter was pissed since she'd been
tossing in quarters all night and knew the machine 'was due to hit'.

I grabbed the money and headed for California...

[rbowman]

On 09/11/2017 05:25 PM, frCTB⚛← Ｍｉｇｈｔｙ ╬ Ｗａｎｎａｂｅ →⚛mHefX wrote:
>
>
> And yet you cannot find any example of 20 heads in a row had ever happened.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/has-anyone-ever-flipped-heads-76-times-in-a-row/

[rbowman]

On 09/12/2017 10:16 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> Every possible sequence has a statistical probability, and the
> probability curve is the familiar bell curve. Previous flips don't
> influence it. Probabilities are the only issue.

The term has quite a different meaning in Catholic theology but I
believe we are dealing with invincible ignorance here.

[rbowman]

On 09/12/2017 09:39 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> If it was sufficently interesting, I would work out the odds of that
> happening (it's 1:1,024), make a fair-money bet (if you win, I pay you
> $1; if I win, you pay me $1,024). Then, if we flipped the coins 1,024
> times, your chances of coming out ahead versus my chances of coming
> out ahead will be 50:50.
>
> But we'd both be really bored. d8-)

Being what I am, I'd just write a computer simulation. 1 billion tosses
coming right up...

[CanopyCo]

Wrong, because in both instances the true odds were influenced by the previous outcome required to drive the end result to the correct odds.

With the gun each thought that his odds were 1 – 6, but because we knew the previous outcome we knew the real odds.
If the first guy got shot, then the following guys did not have 1 – 6 odds of getting shot.

With the coin you thought that the odds of getting heads was 50 – 50 because you didn’t know the outcome of the previous tosses. However we knew that the toss had already had a run of 5 heads. Therefore as you pointed out earlier, the odds of another head was way lower than 50 – 50.

> In flipping coins, nothing that's happened before changes what will
> happen next. In Russian Roulette, the percentages of possible outcomes
> change with each pull of the trigger.
>

And your odds of heads changes with each toss.
You already admitted that the odds of 5 heads in a row are way less than 50 – 50.
So how can the outcome of the next toss be 50 – 50 when I have already had 4 heads in a row?
Didn’t you say that the odds of a run of 5 in a row are far less than 50 – 50?

[CanopyCo]

What was that?
Did you really just say that, or did someone put out a fake post?

The outcome of a toss is 50 – 50, regardless of the outcome of the previous toss?
But the odds of my next toss being heads are 1 – 128 if the previous three tosses were heads?
But didn’t you just say that the previous tosses did not change the odds from their original 50 – 50?
So how is it that my next toss odds are anything but 50 – 50?

What we have been saying all along is that the odds of the next toss being heads is 1 – 128 if the previous 3 tosses were heads, not 50 - 50.

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 06:28:35 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>

Oh, Jesus, there are two of them... d8-)

>
>According to that theory, if you are tossing a coin 100 times, and the first 50 tosses are all heads, that the remanding 50 tosses will be 25 heads and 25 tails.
>Because the odds of a toss are 50 – 50.
>But that makes the odds of the exercise 25 – 75, not 50 - 50.
>25 tails to 75 heads.

Correct, if you're looking at the chances after the fact. The chance
of the first part -- 50 heads in a row -- happening is 1/(2^50). The
chances improve a lot for the next 50 flips producing 25:25 (taken by
itself, the chance of that happening is just over 11%).

But the chances for the overall "exercise," as you put it, are still
vanishingly small.

Nonetheless, it's many orders of magnitude greater than getting 50 in
a row to begin with.

>
>What we are saying is that if you get several heads in a row, then for the end to be 50 – 50 the following tosses must make up for the previous run.
>Thus they will be tails for a sufficient run to make the outcome 50 – 50.

No, they won't. There is convergence but no compensation. I mean that
in the technical sense, which requires some study of its own.

But you're confusing several things, as Wannabe is doing. To
understand it mathematically, you'd have to do a lot of studying, but
this discussion is summarized fairly well in this non-mathematical
explanation of the Gambler's Fallacy. In this one they discuss the
problem with "small numbers" in layman's terms, which gets really
hairy if you approach it instead from mathematics:

https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat100/node/46

>
>This all reminds me of the discussion quite some time ago where the smart guys were all saying that putting a mirror on a lamp did not increase the light put out by the lamp.

That's correct.

>However, they totally missed the fact that it did increase the light hitting the target.

I doubt if most people would miss that fact. The mirror has nothing
whatsoever to do with the light put out by the lamp.

>
>This discussion is demonstrating the same inability to get past teaching in order to see real world applications.

What it's demonstrating is that people easily fall for the Gambler's
Fallacy because they don't know about it or don't understand it, and
it contradicts things they *think* they've seen through selective
attention to small samples of events.

It's unlikely your mind will be changed. Casinos are counting on your
continued belief in the Gambler's Fallacy and the Hot Hand Fallacy,
which, together, make them piles of money.

You can try this if you have an open mind about it:

"Why Do We Fall for Gambler’s Fallacy?"

https://ignoranceanduncertainty.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/why-do-we-fall-for-gamblers-fallacy/

Or this:

"Who “Believes” in the Gambler’s Fallacy and Why?"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5215234/

Good luck! Enlightenment is still possible. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[CanopyCo]

I entered the question “in a two sided coin toss, what are the odds of getting 10 heads in a row?” into Bing.
Never did find a answer.

Anyway, this question is to anyone wanting to answer.

What are the odds of getting heads 10 times in a row?
For time’s sake, we will call that 1 – X, and clearly not 50 – 50.

So, if we have already tossed the coin 9 times and all of them were heads, then clearly the odds of the next toss are not 50 – 50, because we already determined that the odds of getting 10 in a row was not anything near 50 – 50.
The real odds of that single toss would be the 1 – X of the runs odds.

Thus the outcome of the previous tosses altered the odds of the following tosses.

Funny who and how many can’t see this obvious fact.

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 08:00:46 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

>On 09/11/2017 11:36 AM, yLtwY?? ?????? ? ??????? ??RKZCE wrote:
>> rbowman wrote on 9/11/2017 1:01 PM:

>>> On 09/10/2017 08:58 PM, Tiayh?? ?????? ? ??????? ??DzJGc

Wannabe is making another error, this time in statistical convergence.
Now he's getting into some deeper shit.

It's easy to miss the point in convegence: The statistics will
converge toward the theoretical probability with more trials, but NOT
toward a converging numerical result.

In other words, with that example of 10 trials that produces 7 heads
(70% "success"), the total result after another 90 trials is most
likely to be 52 heads (52% "success"). NOT 50 heads.

Probabilities converge; numerical variances do not.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 08:18:46 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

There's always hope, but the statistical probability of enlightenment
diminishes with each of Wannabe's posts. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[CanopyCo]

More of us then just two, and I appreciate you keeping a since of humor in this thread.
So many would have gone to insults by now.
So, thank you.
;-)

> >
> >According to that theory, if you are tossing a coin 100 times, and the first 50 tosses are all heads, that the remanding 50 tosses will be 25 heads and 25 tails.
> >Because the odds of a toss are 50 – 50.
> >But that makes the odds of the exercise 25 – 75, not 50 - 50.
> >25 tails to 75 heads.
>
> Correct, if you're looking at the chances after the fact. The chance
> of the first part -- 50 heads in a row -- happening is 1/(2^50). The
> chances improve a lot for the next 50 flips producing 25:25 (taken by
> itself, the chance of that happening is just over 11%).
>
> But the chances for the overall "exercise," as you put it, are still
> vanishingly small.
>
> Nonetheless, it's many orders of magnitude greater than getting 50 in
> a row to begin with.
>

Did you just say that the odds of getting 50 heads in a row was way less than 50 – 50?
Then how do you maintain that after I get 49 heads in a row, the odds of the next toss will be 50 – 50, if that made 50 heads in a row?
Didn’t that make the odds of the 50th toss being heads the same odds as getting 50 in a row because that one toss made the 50 in a row?

> >
> >What we are saying is that if you get several heads in a row, then for the end to be 50 – 50 the following tosses must make up for the previous run.
> >Thus they will be tails for a sufficient run to make the outcome 50 – 50.
>
> No, they won't. There is convergence but no compensation. I mean that
> in the technical sense, which requires some study of its own.
>
> But you're confusing several things, as Wannabe is doing. To
> understand it mathematically, you'd have to do a lot of studying, but
> this discussion is summarized fairly well in this non-mathematical
> explanation of the Gambler's Fallacy. In this one they discuss the
> problem with "small numbers" in layman's terms, which gets really
> hairy if you approach it instead from mathematics:
>
> https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat100/node/46
>

So, you are saying that the odds of getting 50 in a row are 50 – 50.
The outcome of previous tosses did not alter the odds of the following tosses.
Make up your mind, you are contradicting yourself.

I tossed a coin 49 times.
Are the odds of me getting heads on the next toss 50 -50?
Really?
That is pretty hard to believe, considering that the previous tosses all came up heads.
Didn’t you say that the odds of a run was way less than 50 – 50?
If I already have 49 heads, then how are the odds of the following toss 50 -50 when the odds of it being heads and completing a run was way less?

> >
> >This all reminds me of the discussion quite some time ago where the smart guys were all saying that putting a mirror on a lamp did not increase the light put out by the lamp.
>
> That's correct.
>
> >However, they totally missed the fact that it did increase the light hitting the target.
>
> I doubt if most people would miss that fact. The mirror has nothing
> whatsoever to do with the light put out by the lamp.
>

That was there hang-up, because I didn’t say it increased the output.
I said that increased the amount hitting the target.

You are falling into the same type of thinking.

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 07:57:36 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
wrote:

>I entered the question “in a two sided coin toss, what are the odds of getting 10 heads in a row?” into Bing.
>Never did find a answer.

It's a binomial probability, 1/(2^10), or 0.000977.

>
>Anyway, this question is to anyone wanting to answer.
>
>What are the odds of getting heads 10 times in a row?

See above.

>For time’s sake, we will call that 1 – X, and clearly not 50 – 50.
>
>So, if we have already tossed the coin 9 times and all of them were heads, then clearly the odds of the next toss are not 50 – 50, because we already determined that the odds of getting 10 in a row was not anything near 50 – 50.
>The real odds of that single toss would be the 1 – X of the runs odds.

No, the odds are 50:50 that the 10th flip will turn up heads.

>
>Thus the outcome of the previous tosses altered the odds of the following tosses.

Nope.

>
>Funny who and how many can’t see this obvious fact.

Well, it's funny, but plenty of people do "see" it. That's how casinos
get rich -- by the people gambling in their casinos seeing things that
aren't there.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 08:10:04 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Smart move.

I never played the slots, but I've seen old ladies bitch and moan in
Atlantic City when they got up from a bandit they'd been feeding
quarters all night, and then someone sitting down at "their" bandit
and hitting a jackpot.

In fact, my mother was one of those old ladies. My mother's
understanding of gambling was a lot like that of Wannabe. She was
immune to understanding until my son, who has a master's degree from
Georgetown in applied mathematics and statistics, straightened her
out. She ignored me, but him, she would believe. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

Yup, that's me...

>
>
>>
>> Each event is *physically* dependent upon the outcomes of each
>> previous event.
>>
>> In flipping coins, each event is *independent* of previous events.
>> There is no "guiding hand." Each flip has the same probability of
>> coming up heads as the previous events, no matter what their outcomes
>> were.
>
>Yes, if you don't know the history of previous flips.

Nope. It doesn't matter.

>
>I have explained to you many times. Pay attention!

If you weren't such a psychological curiosity, and thereby kind of
entertaining, I wouldn't still be here. d8-)

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> But you have been arguing it is always the same theological odds whether
>>> you know the history or not.
>>
>> Theology has nothing to do with it.
>
>Late at night. The typing assistant (software) thought I was typing this
>and I failed to spot it.

Let the software place your bets. You'll probably come out better.

They did. He just didn't know it.

>
>Do you know what "Russian roulette" is?

I've never played it. It's a health risk. They don't have that game in
Atlantic City casinos.

>
>You are supposed to SPIN THE CYLINDER.

Oh. I thought you were just letting each one pull the trigger in
sequence.

Then the odds are 1:6 for each of them.

>
>So for every guy pulling the trigger, the odds are always the same 1/6
>in getting the bullet.

Correct.

>
>But for you, probability and statistics predict that every six guys
>pulling the trigger, one will get the bullet.

Nope. The chance is 0.401877 that one will get the bullet.

The probability doesn't change for each one to get shot -- it's 1:6 or
0.166667 for each one. But the chance that ONE will get shot, out of
six, is 0.401877. That is, one and only one. You can't reload if one
gets shot. That would make it complicated <g>, but the odds for each
individual would remain 1:6, even if the second guy got shot and you
reloaded before the third one shot.

>
>So if you have already grabbed five guys from the hallway to pull the
>trigger and they all survived to walk away, then you know the bullet is
>OVERDUE.

Nope. The odds of any individual one of the six getting shot is still
1:6, or 0.16667, right up to the last one.

>
>The odds of each subsequent guy getting the bullet are getting higher
>and higher, because you know the history.

Nope. Now that we're spinning the cylinder each time, it remains 1:6
for each one of them and previous events don't change that.

Yeah, I did.

>
>The same as usual, you Google shit up and present something you don't
>even understand to back you up.

Uh, I understand it. I edited medical statistics for six years, and I
ran marketing studies (which use "social studies" statistics) for two
years prior to that. I did the statistics.

>
>
>>
>> It's clear you have a weak understanding of probability. That wouldn't
>> be so bad if you were open to learning, but you're not. You got this
>> cockeyed idea in your head and you keep doubling-down on it.
>
>You Google something that faintly looks like your misguided idea and you
>think that's gospel.

I had three courses in statistics and probability and I practiced it
for eight years. I even used to remember the binomial theorem. But now
I have to look it up.

>
>>
>> So further discussion is fruitless. I hope you don't actually gamble,
>> because you'll have "sucker" written all over you if you follow your
>> thoughts about odds.
>>
>
>It is fruitless because you have lost the argument.

But I won the pot. d8-)

>
>The odds of the same event has different odds if you know the history of
>previous events.

Nope.

--
Ed Huntress

[CanopyCo]

On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 10:30:08 AM UTC-5, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 07:57:36 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I entered the question “in a two sided coin toss, what are the odds of getting 10 heads in a row?” into Bing.
> >Never did find a answer.
>
> It's a binomial probability, 1/(2^10), or 0.000977.
>

You changed the way it was written, but that didn’t look like 50 – 50, so I am going to use mixed forms.

> >
> >Anyway, this question is to anyone wanting to answer.
> >
> >What are the odds of getting heads 10 times in a row?
>
> See above.
>
> >For time’s sake, we will call that 1 – X, and clearly not 50 – 50.
> >
> >So, if we have already tossed the coin 9 times and all of them were heads, then clearly the odds of the next toss are not 50 – 50, because we already determined that the odds of getting 10 in a row was not anything near 50 – 50.
> >The real odds of that single toss would be the 1 – X of the runs odds.
>
> No, the odds are 50:50 that the 10th flip will turn up heads.
>

Then the odds of getting a run are also 50 – 50, because that one toss determined the run or not.
And that is where you are messing up.
The formula for calculating the odds of a run change based on the odds of outcome of the previous flips.

> >
> >Thus the outcome of the previous tosses altered the odds of the following tosses.
>

Yes, look up the math.

The formula for calculating the odds of a run include the odds of each shorter run, thus the odds for a deciding toss is never 50 – 50 and is influenced by the outcome of the previous tosses.

Let me walk you through it.
You said that the odds of getting 10 in a row was 0.000977.
I just flipped 9 in a row.
You said that the odds of that next flip completing a run of 10 in a row was not 0.000977.
How do you come to that when you said that the odds of THAT toss being the same as the last 9 tosses was 0.000977, thus making a run of 10 in a row?

Another way to look at it.
What are the odds of a run of 10 in a row?
0.000977?
What about if my first three out of the 10 tosses were 1 heads and 2 tails?
The odds of me getting a run of 10 tosses still 0.000977?
What, you aren’t trying to tell me that the outcome of the previous tosses influenced the odds of the following tosses are you?

What formula are you using to determine the odds of a run?

I used this.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/widget/widgetPopup.jsp?p=v&id=431be63678172c25475de1cba50edeea&title=p%20value%20calculator%20two%20tailed&theme=blue&i0=10&i1=10&podSelect=&includepodid=Input&includepodid=ProbabilityOfAGivenNumberOfSuccessesInAGivenNumberOfBernoulliTrials&includepodid=StatedFrequencies&showAssumptions=1&showWarnings=1

It said that the odds of 10 in a row was .00097.
We are down to the last toss, and it said that the odds of all 10 being the same was .00097.
Therefore, after tossing 9 in a row, the odds of the next one making it 10 in a row was .00097, because that is the odds of getting 10 in a row and that last toss was part of that 10.
In other words, the odds of the 10th toss being the same as the last 9 tosses is .00097.

No?
Why?
The odds of 10 in a row is .00097, and that last toss was part of that 10.
Thus the odds of that toss being the same as the last 9 tosses is .00097 because the odds of al 10 being the same is .00097.

[If 6 Was 9]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 07:57:36 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk...@aol.com>
wrote:

>So, if we have already tossed the coin 9 times and all of them were heads, then clearly the odds of the next toss are not 50 – 50,

Uh, no. LOL

Ed, you have the patience of Job to be trying to teach logic here. You
are up against a trait that is as intractable as it old - the
insistence that what one "believes" based on personal anecdotal
observation and demonstrably unqualified "study," is undeniably equal
to what one should accept after reading the consensus of experts who
have studied a subject extensively and scientifically. Watching you
try to overcome the trait is both entertaining and painful.