Would you like to explain how to scientificly measure your ''evidence'' because im a bit lost, thanks. To translate, because he's that brainwashed BADecker has rewritten the definition of a scientist so it fits his religion better, kind of like how religious people try to re-write history and everything else in order to make the world try and fit in their respective religions, why do you think that they always try to wipe out other cultures' and beliefs? Too bad for him the real world doesn't ever work like that, otherwise why would all these other religions and beliefe systems exist in the first place if his was so perfect? It gets better than that. On more than probably 1-2 dozen occasions now, I've had to remind BadDecker that i believe in God. And on more than probably 1-2 dozen occasions now, BadDecker has responded to my criticism of his reasoning by basically saying I'm wrong because I don't believe in God. It goes like this: Him: "Blah blah blah, BS evidence, therefore God." Me: "Um no, because blah blah." Him: "You wouldn't understand, because science blah blah." Me: "Still, no, not even close." Him: "Hey, it's your choice not to believe in God and blah blah." Me: "Um...I believe in God, remember? Him: "Well, that's a start! And blah blah, BS evidence, therefore God." Me: "Um, again, no, because blah blah." Him: "You wouldn't understand, because science blah blah." Me: "No. It's impossible. I've told you this. Everyone has told you this." Him: "Hey, it's your choice not to believe in God! Blah blah." Me: "'  " |
|
|
|
In the first place, the stuff written at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 isn't really the evidence. It only points at the evidence. When what is expressed at the link is examined in detail, then the evidence is brought out into the open in abundance just like the link states. God is within the universe as well as without. Therefore universe-style evidence can be used, and extra-universe evidence can be alluded to. Your end simply ends yourself, or ultimately will, if you don't change.  EDIT: Wow! Page 218 ! 1) So, it "isn't really the evidence." Well, I'm glad you finally agree it isn't proof. It's evidence of evidence? So, it's basically worthless on its own as far as reasoning about God. Yep, that's about right. 2) So, you're saying stuff in the Universe is evidence of stuff outside of the Universe. Are you drunk? 3) My end simply...what? What the hell? When you make up your own word meanings and (invalid) forms of reasoning, you just make meaningless statements. None of what you say is relevant to anything and anyone. Absolutely. You DO have a hard time figuring much of anything out, don't you? Especially the proofs listed at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, right? But you just told me they weren't proof(s). You said they weren't even evidence. You said that it was pointing to evidence. That's about as equivalent as me pointing to a a road sign and asking you what it means -- "STOP!" ...Please. |
|
|
|
God's existence doesn't need scientific proof.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after
the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Col 2:8 (KJV)
I've never referred to the Bible for support for anything. That being said, your statement is actually true, because it is logically impossible for scientific proof of God to exist in the first place. This is known 'a priori' based upon the limits of Empiricism. |
|
|
|
<Annoying babble>
By extended vocabulary, do you mean misspelling every second word (even with spell check) and making up others altogether? I feel sorry for your kids, that is if you really have any. Did your parents have any kids that lived? As far as my counter attacks on you goes, I've done so when you attack other people too, not just Vod. Is it my fault somehow that you have a hard on for him? ------------------------------------------- DUH! I'M GOD! <--- Dickexperiment You and I certainly don't agree on everything... maybe on few things. But you said this soooo well^^. You dont have the right to talk here until you disprove the sequoia Thanks for permission to post here - do I need it? - since the proof for God found in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 obliterates any sequoia ideas, whatever they might be. Yeah, that's not proof. How many times do we need to tell you this? That's called "really bad suggestive reasoning" with conclusions that in no way follow from the premises. There cannot be conclusive, empirical evidence for something that is, by definition, non-empirical. It's impossible. The end. Talk less, listen more. In the first place, the stuff written at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 isn't really the evidence. It only points at the evidence. When what is expressed at the link is examined in detail, then the evidence is brought out into the open in abundance just like the link states. God is within the universe as well as without. Therefore universe-style evidence can be used, and extra-universe evidence can be alluded to. Your end simply ends yourself, or ultimately will, if you don't change. EDIT: Wow! Page 218 ! 1) So, it "isn't really the evidence." Well, I'm glad you finally agree it isn't proof. It's evidence of evidence? So, it's basically worthless on its own as far as reasoning about God. Yep, that's about right. 2) So, you're saying stuff in the Universe is evidence of stuff outside of the Universe. Are you drunk? 3) My end simply...what? What the hell? When you make up your own word meanings and (invalid) forms of reasoning, you just make meaningless statements. None of what you say is relevant to anything and anyone. |
|
|
|
<Annoying babble>
By extended vocabulary, do you mean misspelling every second word (even with spell check) and making up others altogether? I feel sorry for your kids, that is if you really have any. Did your parents have any kids that lived? As far as my counter attacks on you goes, I've done so when you attack other people too, not just Vod. Is it my fault somehow that you have a hard on for him? ------------------------------------------- DUH! I'M GOD! <--- Dickexperiment You and I certainly don't agree on everything... maybe on few things. But you said this soooo well^^. You dont have the right to talk here until you disprove the sequoia Thanks for permission to post here - do I need it? - since the proof for God found in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 obliterates any sequoia ideas, whatever they might be. Yeah, that's not proof. How many times do we need to tell you this? That's called "really bad suggestive reasoning" with conclusions that in no way follow from the premises. There cannot be conclusive, empirical evidence for something that is, by definition, non-empirical. It's impossible. The end. Talk less, listen more. |
|
|
|
Here's an interesting question:
Based upon the number of car accidents resulting in death, we can calculate an estimated probability that a person will die while driving on his way to work.
"Winning" means driving to work successfully to earn a paycheck.
"Losing" means dying in a car accident (and thus rendering any past/future earnings valueless).
With infinite trials, you will die in a car accident.
Question: Why do you go to work?
(Note: I know I'm leaving a lot of wiggle-room for interpretation and caveats, but I just thought I'd toss it out there as a point of discussion).
You could say that ("You could die doing it") about literally everything on earth. Including drinking water. People do things because that's what living life is. It has zero bearing on making -ev bets. Well of course you can say that about anything, but that isn't the point. The point is that, as I mentioned previously, there is a difference when the bettor's goal is to simply profit rather than double his money against the odds. I would specifically argue that the reason we drive to work is because, although driving to work is essentially a -ev bet (life expectancy not withstanding), we do it because our goal is to make a profit, not to "beat the house." Hence, I think that is more often why people gamble, i.e. to "profit," and that's it. |
|
|
|
|
Here's an interesting question:
Based upon the number of car accidents resulting in death, we can calculate an estimated probability that a person will die while driving on his way to work.
"Winning" means driving to work successfully to earn a paycheck.
"Losing" means dying in a car accident (and thus rendering any past/future earnings valueless).
With infinite trials, you will die in a car accident.
Question: Why do you go to work?
(Note: I know I'm leaving a lot of wiggle-room for interpretation and caveats, but I just thought I'd toss it out there as a point of discussion).
|
|
|
|
...
Again, it depends on what you mean by "odds in your favour".
If you mean "more likely to win than to lose" then yes.
...
That was what I mean I of course agree with you that the stakes must be considered. The only reason I made the post was because it seemed to me as though people were treating "profit" and "doubling money" as equivalent. I felt it wasn't totally irrelevant or meaningless to point out that one's goal when betting is an important consideration. Practical scenario: Rent is due tomorrow and you owe BTC1.01 and you have BTC1.00 only. If you are late on your payment, you will face a 10% fee and will then owe BTC1.10. To avoid the 10% fee, you could gamble your BTC1.00 with somewhere between a 98-99% chance of profiting/winning BTC0.01 so that you can pay on-time and in full. Would you take that bet to make your rent payment on time? I'm guessing there would be mixed opinions depending on who you ask. In this case, the bettor's goal isn't to double his money. His goal is to make a minute profit. |
|
|
|
The point is that profit is profit regardless. Dooglus's example is an extreme case highlighting how the amount you stand to profit or lose is a secondary factor that must be considered. The greater the discrepancy of payout in relation to the odds, the greater this factor needs to be taken into account. But, if your starting pot allows you to use the Martingale strategy such that your odds of losing everything is, for example, 2^16, it may very well be worth a few trials to some people.
Ah, I see. I mean yes, technically profit is profit but I disagree with the "regardless" point. Playing something with a lower house edge means more profit more often (although obviously still -ev overall). Saying "I won money therefore it was a good bet" is faulty logic.
You're right, this is fairly obvious, but the answer to subject question should also be fairly obvious, and we're on page 45 already.
That is the nature of gambling and why fair sites can make hundreds and thousands of coins while ripoff sites will always be able to steal a few. People are always looking for the quick "answer" that will lead to them winning large sums of money. It's why every time someone makes a post about winning a large sum, there are ALWAYS a handful of people who post right after asking what his strategy was or how he did it. People will always think that martingale is some sort of secret strat because they don't understand that they are really just wagering a huge amount in order to win a small amount, and giving the site a fortune in theoretic profit via the house edge. Yep. I think people just have a hard time imagining that they could ever lose when those losing odds are 1:2^16 or something equally unimaginable, even if they bet thousands of times. They think, "Well, every trial is independent of every other, so let it ride!" I'm also guessing these are the same people that buy scratch-off tickets and have never won anything significant, and so they equate their odds of losing anything significant from multiple trials to their experience of never winning anything significant from multiple trials. |
|
|
|
|
I'm in PM communication with the winner, so I will lock this thread.
Thanks, everyone! I will be re-auctioning my signature space in the future, where I will likely extend the auction beyond 24 hours and implement an anti-sniping rule.
|
|
|
|
|
EcuaMobi wins @ BTC0.08
Congrats!
Will PM you shortly.
Thanks, everyone!
|
|
|
|
My point is best demonstrated by imagining that a hypothetical secondary bet is placed on top of the original bet. Using your example, let's say I had a 5:6 chance of winning $1 and a 1:6 of losing $100, and I guarantee a roll according to these odds. Now imagine that you are a spectator who is asked to bet as to whether I will profit or if I will lose. Someone says, "Hey, I'll bet $50 that he (i.e. me) loses." You have a spare $50 in your pocket. Do you take the bet? Of course you would, so the point holds. Though, as you point out, the odds of profiting alone might not be the only thing you want to take into account... ...what is your point? That if you have an 83.3% chance of winning that you'll win more often than you lose? I don't think anyone is arguing that point, as it is fairly obvious. What people are telling you if that how OFTEN you win doesn't matter. What matters is the odds you are getting/laying and what your equity is in these bets. The point is that profit is profit regardless. Dooglus's example is an extreme case highlighting how the amount you stand to profit or lose is a secondary factor that must be considered. The greater the discrepancy of payout in relation to the odds, the greater this factor needs to be taken into account. But, if your starting pot allows you to use the Martingale strategy such that your odds of losing everything is, for example, 2^16, it may very well be worth a few trials to some people. You're right, this is fairly obvious, but the answer to subject question should also be fairly obvious, and we're on page 45 already. |
|
|
|
BTC0.08
Less than two-minutes! EcuaMobi is current high bidder at BTC0.08 |
|
|
|
how about using preroll on dice so we can get some starter to save some money? so it will hold last longer
Prerolling doesn't work either. That's where you roll tiny bets until you've seen 20 losses in a row, then start martingale betting from a larger base. The logic "since we just saw 20 losses in a row there probably isn't much of the losing streak left". That logic is faulty. The odds of seeing a streak of any given length in the next few bets are the same whether you've just rolled until you saw 20 losses in a row or not. Because all rolls are mutually independent. The odds are in your favor if you quit early...for life.
If you quit while you're ahead then you're likely to end up ahead. Is that what you're saying? It's true, like how "2 equals 2" is true. For example, -1-2-4-8+16 = 1
For example, -1-2-4-8+32 = 17 You skipped the bet of 16. I didn't skip the bet of 16. The sequences of numbers you and me wrote earlier are losses and wins, not bets (the minus sign for a loss, the plus sign for a win). If you want me to write down just the bets, the sequence will be as follows: 1; 2; 4; 8; 16; 32... I'm writing down the profit per bet. When you bet 16 and win, that's a "+16" profit. When you bet 16 and lose, that's a "-16" profit. You didn't write +16 or -16 and went straight from -8 (a losing bet of size 8 ) to +32 (a winning bet of size 32). "near 50/50 chance" means that it slightly favors the house. this is enough to make sure that the house comes out ahead of all of these schemes.
No, it isn't. It makes it likely that the house comes out ahead but doesn't make sure of it. Players can get lucky and be ahead. If your objective is to profit, then the odds are in your favor.
Would you like to explain that to me? I dont see how your odds are in your favor if you want profit For example, place one bet at 90% win chance and you have a 90% chance to profit, and a 10% chance of losing. After that bet, walk away and never look back. This depends on what you mean by "the odds are in your favour". I offer you this bet: * give me $100 * roll a dice * if you roll 1 you lose * if you roll 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, I'll give you $101 Are the odds in your favour? 5 times out of 6 you win. You're 5 times more likely to win than to lose. But when you win you only win $1, and when you lose you lose $100. I would say that the odds are not in your favour. Just because your chance of winning is greater than 50% doesn't make it a good bet (for you, at least). Similarly with the 90% bet. To see if the odds are in your favour or not you need to multiply the payout by the chance of winning. If you get over 100 then the odds are in your favour. So if they're paying you more than 1.11111 times your stake at 90% risk, the odds are in your favour, otherwise they aren't. Based upon a strict interpretation of my point, then yes, the odds are in my favor. My point is best demonstrated by imagining that a hypothetical secondary bet is placed on top of the original bet. Using your example, let's say I had a 5:6 chance of winning $1 and a 1:6 of losing $100, and I guarantee a roll according to these odds. Now imagine that you are a spectator who is asked to bet as to whether I will profit or if I will lose. Someone says, "Hey, I'll bet $50 that he (i.e. me) loses." You have a spare $50 in your pocket. Do you take the bet? Of course you would, so the point holds. Though, as you point out, the odds of profiting alone might not be the only thing you want to take into account... |
|
|
|
If there are bids right before the end of the auction would it be extended? Or is the end time fixed?
Hmm...I suppose I should've addressed that earlier. Seeing as how there is less than an hour remaining, I think the fair thing is to keep the time fixed. Since there have been multiple bettors, I'm not counting on every one of them catching a last-minute change of rules. The auction will still end exactly 24 hours from the time the thread was posted. I will take this into account the next time I advertise my signature. |
|
|
|
.07
Quickseller is current high-bidder BTC0.07 |
|
|
|
0.04BTC
marcotheminer is current high-bidder at BTC0.04 |
|
|
|
The odds are in your favor if you quit early...for life.
The odds are never in your favor no matter what That depends on your objective. If your objective is to double your money, then you are correct, the odds are never in your favor. If your objective is to profit, then the odds are in your favor. Would you like to explain that to me? I dont see how your odds are in your favor if you want profit For example, place one bet at 90% win chance and you have a 90% chance to profit, and a 10% chance of losing. After that bet, walk away and never look back. but that almost never works as people are very greedy. doesnt matter what outcome would be most people would bet again. if they would loose they would want to get their money back and if they win they would want to get more and more Lol well, the math works just fine...greed not withstanding |
|
|
|
The odds are in your favor if you quit early...for life.
The odds are never in your favor no matter what That depends on your objective. If your objective is to double your money, then you are correct, the odds are never in your favor. If your objective is to profit, then the odds are in your favor. Would you like to explain that to me? I dont see how your odds are in your favor if you want profit For example, place one bet at 90% win chance and you have a 90% chance to profit, and a 10% chance of losing. After that bet, walk away and never look back. |
|
|
|
|
Bump. Only a couple hours left.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
