Re: Loose Change
 

This thread is starting to end up like a car accident. Terrible but you can't help but rubberneck... :laughing2

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=Schneed10;423781]Yeah, I'm not going to get into a childish war involving namecalling because it's pointless. I'll continue to debate the notion that any gambling system can work until I'm blue in the face, but a namecalling match doesn't interest me.

I will, however, note that I've received recent rep points for my arguments within this thread. Someone, who shall remain nameless, referred to you as a nice guy jsarno, but seeing you so hardheaded and unwilling to listen to reason made them take some kind of pleasure in seeing a strong argument go against you. More than one person took enough pleasure in it to give me positive rep points.

The rep points aren't my goal, I could care less about them. But it makes a key point; while you're busy worrying about being friendly and getting along, I'm worried about being right.

Being right doesn't mean I have to be an ass about it, for sure. But there are people out there who are enjoying seeing you get dressed down, because you're more than just trying to be friendly, you're ignoring reason. And people don't like that. So if you want to have this wonderful family atmosphere here on the Warpath, where everybody loves you and gets you through tough times, try listening to them.[/quote]I also don't think anyone should be taking pride in being right on this issue.

Look, it takes guts to step outside of the box and try to develop a successful system where none has been developed before. I'm not going to bash Jsarno for trying to do to Roulette what I've been trying to do with football player eval for the last two years.

It, however, takes even more guts to admit that no matter how much thought you put into a system, that all the effort was for naught. People tend to develop psychological biases towards what they are doing, and it becomes temporarily impossible to think clearly and logically towards the situation.

You and I both know that he will come around eventually, and realize that he can't beat the odds in a large sample. You stated your position, backed it up with the cold facts, and then added your signature, and often unnecessary "charm" to your posts.

You are right, and he is wrong, but it's not [B]his[/B] fault that this evolved into a pissing match.

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=DynamiteRave;423785]This thread is starting to end up like a car accident. Terrible but you can't help but rubberneck... :laughing2[/QUOTE]

I want to see how many different topics we can come up with in one thread that bring it close to being locked...without actually locking it :)

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=GTripp0012;423788]I also don't think anyone should be taking pride in being right on this issue.

Look, it takes guts to step outside of the box and try to develop a successful system where none has been developed before. I'm not going to bash Jsarno for trying to do to Roulette what I've been trying to do with football player eval for the last two years.

It, however, takes even more guts to admit that no matter how much thought you put into a system, that all the effort was for naught. People tend to develop psychological biases towards what they are doing, and it becomes temporarily impossible to think clearly and logically towards the situation.

You and I both know that he will come around eventually, and realize that he can't beat the odds in a large sample. You stated your position, backed it up with the cold facts, and then added your signature, and often unnecessary "charm" to your posts.

You are right, and he is wrong, but it's not [B]his[/B] fault that this evolved into a pissing match.[/quote]

But see, it's not about a pissing match and simply trying to win an argument. I've got better things to do. I'm honestly turned off by the fact that he's writing a book about it. To me, it's no better than the scam artists from Nigeria who write countless spam email messages to 75 year old women telling them that they've been granted a royal inheritance.

I'll add some of the Schneed charm here and there throughout the site, but I'm sure you'll recognize that this level of charm was very different. I see jsarno as a scam artist looking to write, publish, and sell a book based on a mathematical fallacy. When it comes down to it, it's morally wrong.

Being right or wrong isn't even priority one here for me. Doing right or wrong is. And if this thread helped to educate even one person on The Gambler's Fallacy, then good.

Re: Loose Change
 

Something tells me he's not going to end up publishing the book (just my hunch).

Either way, I really think we can just drop it now.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=Schneed10;423793]But see, it's not about a pissing match and simply trying to win an argument. I've got better things to do. I'm honestly turned off by the fact that he's writing a book about it. To me, it's no better than the scam artists from Nigeria who write countless spam email messages to 75 year old women telling them that they've been granted a royal inheritance.

I'll add some of the Schneed charm here and there throughout the site, but I'm sure you'll recognize that this level of charm was very different. I see jsarno as a scam artist looking to write, publish, and sell a book based on a mathematical fallacy. When it comes down to it, it's morally wrong.

Being right or wrong isn't even priority one here for me. Doing right or wrong is. And if this thread helped to educate even one person on The Gambler's Fallacy, then good.[/quote]Like Smootsmack said, it takes a lot of work to publish a book when you have internal questions about the reception of your argument. Additionally, as you would probably say yourself, it's the consumers own damn fault for buying such a book when the Gambler's Fallacy is relatively common knowledge.

I'd say the (im)probability that jsarno is a scam artist who tried to post his knowingly false ideas on a public fourm (after 6,500 posts) free of charge before actually making the decision to publish borders on "insane", but then again I'm not the logical guru in this neck of the woods.

Maybe you did convince one person of the Gambler's Fallacy today, but if that person doesn't post under the alias "jsarno", then I doubt you were successful.

Anyway, I think it's high time to call a spade a spade. IMO, when jsarno tried to pull the "it's not always about stats" argument, he was probably trying to pull the quiet cop out, because we all know it IS about stats when it comes to Roulette. IMO, the competence of this thread died right there, and since then, it's really been an unwarranted pissing match.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=SmootSmack;423798]Something tells me he's not going to end up publishing the book (just my hunch).

Either way, I really think we can just drop it now.[/quote]

Know what's funny, I was just getting ready for bed and as I took off my pants (down, ladies) I found 35 cents in the pocket.

And the thread comes full circle!

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=Schneed10;423804]Know what's funny, I was just getting ready for bed and as I took off my pants (down, ladies) I found 35 cents in the pocket.

And the thread comes full circle![/quote]

Now if only there was a penny minimum roulette table!

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;423804]Know what's funny, I was just getting ready for bed and as I took off my pants (down, ladies) I found 35 cents in the pocket.

And the thread comes full circle![/QUOTE]

Yes, but what happens if you take your pants off 10,000 times ;) I keed, I keed

(please no videotapes)

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=SmootSmack;423807]Yes, but what happens if you take your pants off 10,000 times ;) I keed, I keed

(please no videotapes)[/quote]

Didn't you hear? That's a proven method for enlarging your wee wee.

Too far?

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;423809]Didn't you hear? That's a proven method for enlarging your wee wee.

Too far?[/QUOTE]

Is "too far" some sort of slick double entendre? :)

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;423817]Is "too far" some sort of slick double entendre? :)[/QUOTE]

It wasn;t until you brought it up. Now...

Re: Loose Change
 

Back on topic to the video if we can, I think it raises some interesting points that are worth discussing, and in the end I think the basic message is to question authority.

Personally I find the theory that United 93 was shot down to be very interesting. I dunno, the heroic story is nice for movies but I'm just not sure that I buy it.

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;423861]Back on topic to the video if we can, I think it raises some interesting points that are worth discussing, and in the end I think the basic message is to question authority.

Personally I find the theory that United 93 was shot down to be very interesting. I dunno, the heroic story is nice for movies but I'm just not sure that I buy it.[/QUOTE]

It's interesting, but I think there is just too much evidence-even by the coroner who they "cite" (by chopping off portions of quotes of his), but never actually interview-to think there was some sort of conspiracy in play. I don't know maybe I'm just too close to this particular story to be very objective about it.

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;423861]Back on topic to the video if we can, I think it raises some interesting points that are worth discussing, and in the end I think the basic message is to question authority.

Personally I find the theory that United 93 was shot down to be very interesting. I dunno, the heroic story is nice for movies but I'm just not sure that I buy it.[/QUOTE]

I think there is enough audio from both air traffic control communications and the phone calls the passengers were making to support the idea that the plane was not shot down.

The last article on this page is probably the best I've read, detailing the events that occurred on Flight 93.

[url=http://www.september11news.com/Flight93.htm]September 11 News.com - Flight 93 - The Story of the Heroes of United Airlines Flight 93.[/url]

The heroes of Flight 93: Interviews with family and friends
detail the courage of everyday people.
By Kim Barker, Louise Kiernan, and Steve Mills © Chicago Tribune

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=cpayne5;423866]I think there is enough audio from both air traffic control communications and the phone calls the passengers were making to support the idea that the plane was not shot down.

The last article on this page is probably the best I've read, detailing the events that occurred on Flight 93.

[URL="http://www.september11news.com/Flight93.htm"]September 11 News.com - Flight 93 - The Story of the Heroes of United Airlines Flight 93.[/URL]

The heroes of Flight 93: Interviews with family and friends
detail the courage of everyday people.
By Kim Barker, Louise Kiernan, and Steve Mills © Chicago Tribune[/quote]

good link but it really doesn't clear things up for me, I still think there are more questions than answers with what happened to United 93. There are some interesting questions raised [URL="http://www.flight93crash.com/"]here[/URL]

Re: Loose Change
 

One thing I can't understand is why is there such a need to know? Why aren't the answers provided by the government, and other officials on site acceptable? I mean it just seems like some people are really pushing for some radical theory, but....Occam's Razor.

Re: Loose Change
 

I don't even know if Occam's Razor really applies there, I just like it.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=SmootSmack;423880]One thing I can't understand is why is there such a need to know? Why aren't the answers provided by the government, and other officials on site acceptable? I mean it just seems like some people are really pushing for some radical theory, but....Occam's Razor.[/quote]

People will always (and should) challenge authority and isn't that the backbone of a democracy?

I'm not a fan of every wild theory associated with 9/11, but I do think there are some pretty significant questions out there that deserve to be discussed at the very least.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=SmootSmack;423882]I don't even know if Occam's Razor really applies there, I just like it.[/quote]

Caveat Emptor, etc., etc.

In my new book, I will reveal that UA 93 was actually brought down by triangulated fire involving "[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezuGskOWauU"]Badgeman[/URL]", Jack Ruby, and Clint Murchison, who is really still alive.

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;423885]People will always (and should) challenge authority and isn't that the backbone of a democracy?

I'm not a fan of every wild theory associated with 9/11, but I do think there are some pretty significant questions out there that deserve to be discussed at the very least.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, except I guess I don't think democracy means challenging and questioning for the sake of challenging and questioning. Which to me seems to largely be the case when it comes to many of the conspiracy theories tied to 9/11. It's like someone poses a question, an answer is given, and then that answer is never "good enough." And I just wonder what is "good enough?"

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=SmootSmack;423891]Yeah, except I guess I don't think democracy means challenging and questioning for the sake of challenging and questioning. Which to me seems to largely be the case when it comes to many of the conspiracy theories tied to 9/11. It's like someone poses a question, an answer is given, and then that answer is never "good enough." And I just wonder what is "good enough?"[/quote]

Yeah this is an excellent point, many conspiracy theorists are unwilling to listen to reason. They maintain a bias towards everything the government says, assuming it's all a lie. Based on this premise, it's pretty easy to keep circumventing what they say.

But a truly objective individual will keep an open mind to both wacky theories and dull government statements.

In the end, it comes down to the old adage: the simplest explanation is the most likely explanation.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=SmootSmack;423891]Yeah, except I guess I don't think democracy means challenging and questioning for the sake of challenging and questioning. Which to me seems to largely be the case when it comes to many of the conspiracy theories tied to 9/11. It's like someone poses a question, an answer is given, and then that answer is never "good enough." And I just wonder what is "good enough?"[/quote]

Are you 100% satisfied with the answers we've been given regarding 9/11?

Does the book on 9/11 deserve to be closed and never questioned?

If you think so more power to you. Personally I think there's more layers to peel back there.

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;423902]Are you 100% satisfied with the answers we've been given regarding 9/11? If so more power to you. Personally I think there's more layers to peel back there.[/QUOTE]

I'm about to say some things to you that might get me banned!

No seriously though, I have some questions. But minor ones, and not nearly enough to believe this was an "inside job"

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=SmootSmack;423904]I'm about to say some things to you that might get me banned!

No seriously though, I have some questions. But minor ones, and not nearly enough to believe this was an "inside job"[/quote]

I don't think that 9/11 was this mass gov't plot either, but it doesn't have to be in order to have some legitimate unanswered questions.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=Mattyk72;423902]Are you 100% satisfied with the answers we've been given regarding 9/11?

Does the book on 9/11 deserve to be closed and never questioned?

If you think so more power to you. Personally I think there's more layers to peel back there.[/quote]

It's good to peel back more layers. Problem is, sometimes you peel back a layer and the question doesn't get answered because not enough information is available. That's not a problem in and of itself, but when people start inferring the improbable and irrational to help them fill in the gaps created by lack of info, that's what leads to ridiculous conspiracy theories.

A lack of information does not necessarily mean, for example, that the government is covering things up. It could mean that 9/11 was a really chaotic day, with lots of government agencies scrambling to ensure the safety of the country, and with events taking place too quickly for all questions to get thoroughly vetted.

And I'm in no way saying you're guilty of filling in the gaps with the improbable and irrational. Asking the questions is good. Trying to answer them yourself without good information at hand is bad. In the end, it's OK to say "we just don't know."

Re: Loose Change
 

most of the questions that are raised can be put to rest with simple answers. why not give them to the people? it only adds fuel to the fire. to many inconsistencies, and to much silence create more inaccuracies. i think there is much more then the american government is letting us in on

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=dmek25;423911]most of the questions that are raised can be put to rest with simple answers. why not give them to the people? it only adds fuel to the fire. to many inconsistencies, and to much silence create more inaccuracies. i think there is much more then the american government is letting us in on[/quote]

That assumes the government has the answers. How do you know that they do?

Re: Loose Change
 

To me, 99.9% of the evidence tells me the plane went down on its own. Yes there is that .1%, but is that .1% significant enough to question the other 99.9%? To me, it's not.

Re: Loose Change
 

Didn't I brilliantly answer the whole "Question Authority" issue back on page three?

Wait, "Question" "three" - It IS a conspiracy. See how the pieces fit neatly together?

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=Schneed10;423912]That assumes the government has the answers. How do you know that they do?[/quote]
i was always brought up where its alright to say you don't know, rather then make up something, or lie. that is definitely not the rule of thumb with this administration. to answer your question, i don't. but with all the money and resources available to them, if they really want answers, they can find them

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=dmek25;423934]i was always brought up where its alright to say you don't know, rather then make up something, or lie. that is definitely not the rule of thumb with this administration. to answer your question, i don't. but with all the money and resources available to them, if they really want answers, they can find them[/quote]

OK so now you're accusing the government of making something up, or lying, about 9/11? Can you be more specific?

Seems like there needs to be a basis for such an accusation.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=Schneed10;423948]OK so now you're accusing the government of making something up, or lying, about 9/11? Can you be more specific?

Seems like there needs to be a basis for such an accusation.[/quote]

I think he is saying that because the govt isnt giving a straight answer they are therefore hiding something.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=Schneed10;423948]OK so now you're accusing the government of [B]making something up, or lying, about 9/11[/B]? Can you be more specific?

Seems like there needs to be a basis for such an accusation.[/quote]
slow down, big guy. i really don't know all the facts about 9-11, therefore i cannot make an accurate judgement on the real story. what im trying to say is our government has been known to lie before( see W.M.D and the ties between Iraq and Al Quada- sp?) so, in my eyes, its not below them to stretch truths. when people have the combination of power and money, then can pretty much accomplish anything they want to

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=hooskins;423952]I think he is saying that because the govt isnt giving a straight answer they are therefore hiding something.[/quote]
and this is part of the reason that people always think bad things have happened. we, as the american public, can handle most truths. just give it to us, plain and simple.

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;423960]and this is part of the reason that people always think bad things have happened. we, as the american public, can handle most truths. just give it to us, plain and simple.[/QUOTE]

But it all depends on what you define as a "straight answer" I mean I think there are a lot of people who simply refuse to listen to the answers given because it doesn't jibe with their preconceived theories.

I mean if you already believe they are liars then why would you believe them if they even said the plane was shot down? Why wouldn't you think they're lying about that then?

Re: Loose Change
 

For all you skeptics - Would you want to see God if that meant you had to believe in Jesus, the devil and all the angels?

Deep thoughts pal. Deep thoughts.

Re: Loose Change
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;423976]For all you skeptics - Would you want to see God if that meant you had to believe in Jesus, the devil and all the angels?

Deep thoughts pal. Deep thoughts.[/quote]

yablabliblibli...

[yt]Eie5Ke4sGqI[/yt]

Re: Loose Change
 

Wow....Look WTF I started. I SOMEHOW got jsarno and Schneed into it over a gambling system and now it's come BACK to the "Loose Change" topic?

Wow. Would it be safe to say I MAY have started a thread that, if for nothing else, was entertaining? lol I feel bad because my [I]contribution[/I] was the canvas for Warpath on Warpath crime.....

Re: Loose Change
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;423579]The reason jsarno won't fully discuss his system publicly is because he's not confident enough in it himself to go out and make a living by using it.

Simple logic:

Per jsarno, the system works over the long haul. You may lose battles, but you'll win wars.

[B]Therefore, over the long haul, there is no risk. You will win in the long term.[/B]

So if there's no risk, why not quit the job you were complaining about a few months ago when considering moving to Denver, and just use your system in Vegas to get extraordinarily rich, and retire to do whatever floats your boat?

There's a reason people spend the time writing a book about these things. It's easier to dupe uneducated morons into believing in gambling systems than it is to get one to actually work, in the long haul, by yourself.

In my opinion, writing a book on the matter, trying to convince people it works, is unethical (unless you really are dumb enough to ignore the laws of statistics and actually buy into it, but given that you have an MBA you have been through stat classes, so either you flunked that class or you're just flat out unethical). That's why I'm so critical of you. What you're doing with the book is flat out wrong.[/QUOTE]

Precisely.

Furthermore, if it works so well and is as highly tuned and predictable as you say, how come you've only pulled in $13,000 in four years? That's a measly $3,250/year. If the system is that foolproof, why aren't you working it seven days a week and raking in the cash?

What's seems far more likely is that you have a moderate understanding of the game and probably just know when to quit when you're ahead. Anyone with the self-control and discipline to quit while they're ahead and cut their losses could amass $3,250/year.

EDIT: So apparently the topics in this thread change faster than I post. I apologize for my alarming lack of relevance.