Loose Change

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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 his fault that this evolved into a pissing match.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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 his fault that this evolved into a pissing match.

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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.