Ignore Bait: Highest IQ, Many Questions, Odds makers invited...

[vapoolplayer]

Hell, a perfect example.

I’ve literally told you I’m only responding out of poking you for ridiculous responses for my own amusement.

And you keep responding.

The “math” says to either stop responding or blocking me so that you’re not just entertaining me with no value whatsoever.

 

[Fatboy]

Are we gambling yet?

Asking for a friend

 

[vapoolplayer]

Are we gambling yet?

Asking for a friend

I’ll give you the same odds i offered in the first few pages

 

[KissedOut]

It’s generally done within the concept of limits… More than happy to recommend a first year analysis text to assist….

Yeah, it was all covered in my math degree. But talking about infinity outside the concept of limits, which is what has been happening in this thread, acting as if it is the same as a number, I.e., "if you flipped a coin an infinite number of times", quoting you, is incoherent. And your analysis book is of little help because it is talking about a different flavor of infinity, non-countable, while this is about countable infinity, or in math talk the c infinity, not the aleph null infinity. I can refer you to a book on set theory if you're still confused.

 

[KissedOut]

Also, infinite is abstract.

Exactly. Which is why statements like "if we flip a coin an infinite number of times" are mathematically incoherent.

 

[KissedOut]

Nope…just trying to insert some rigor…obviously a total waste of time.

It is not bringing rigor when you say, as you did: "Fwiw … if you flipped a coin an infinite number of times,"

 

[KissedOut]

Also, it’s the opposite in reality.

If they would leave their minds at home except for math, casinos would be broke as no one would play.

Poker would be non existent for the most part, because people wouldn’t make retarded bets and calls.

Using math is the opposite of what you want players doing if you’re a dealer.

Poker is one of the games that would endure, because it is based primarily on psychology and body reading, while mathematical probabilities only play a relatively small part.

 

[BJTyler]

Yeah, it was all covered in my math degree. But talking about infinity outside the concept of limits, which is what has been happening in this thread, acting as if it is the same as a number, I.e., "if you flipped a coin an infinite number of times", quoting you, is incoherent. And your analysis book is of little help because it is talking about a different flavor of infinity, non-countable, while this is about countable infinity, or in math talk the c infinity, not the aleph null infinity. I can refer you to a book on set theory if you're still confused.

Sorry but you’re way over your skis… we can compare our math degrees all you want, but I’ve taught plenty of math undergrads who are barely proficient, the fact is, you really need to stop throwing around so much BS around here … it’s laughable! Mathematicians regularly speak about infinite number of trials….it is a well understood shortcut for performing something n times as n approaches infinity. i suggest you go back to debating the telepathy guy.

 

[BJTyler]

Poker is one of the games that would endure, because it is based primarily on psychology and body reading, while mathematical probabilities only play a relatively small part.

Again…way over your skis. “Poker is primarily based on psychology and body reading” … what f’n decade are you in? almost all of modern poker is centered around GTO (which is entirely based on mathematical probability)…. “Body Reading”??? FFS. You‘ve obviously been watching way too much YouTube.

 

[7stud]

For those that think it's a 50-50 proposition when choosing a new door AFTER 1 of the 3 doors is revealed, here's another explanation:

Assume there are 1,000 doors instead of 3 doors. Choose a door. Your odds of picking the door with the car behind it are 1/1,000. Now, would you rather stick with that pick or get to open ALL the other 999 doors to find a car. Of course, you would switch your pick and take all the other 999 doors, and your odds of winning the car would be 999/1,000. Simple, right?

Just because someone opens 998 of the doors in the 999 door group, which they know have a goat behind them, before you switch your pick, does not change the fact that you are getting to pick the whole 999 door group instead of the 1 door you initially chose. Whether the host opens 998 of the 999 doors or leaves all 999 doors closed--before you switch your pick--the host is offering you the whole group of 999 doors.

Dear Jay Helfert, if you try this game at home with a friend and as few as 10 beer cups with a coin under one of them, it will take you less than 5 minutes to realize you are the BIG sucker by sticking with your initial choice. The probability that you initially pick the right beer cup is 1/10, and not switching your pick means that you are stuck with that probability, yet you are only getting even money if you win. You say, "It's a 50-50 bet with only 2 cups remaining, so I can stick with my original choice and I will win 50% of the time." Wrong! You made your initial choice when there were 10 cups, so you only have a 1/10 probability that you chose the winning cup! With 10 cups, you need 9:1 odds to break even on your bet if you stick with your initial choice. Damn, it would have been fun to play that game with you for your ebony Ed Prewitt. With 10 cups, I could have given you 2:1 odds and robbed you.

Finally, if any of you 50-50 believers wants to bet, I'll bet any amount under $10k per game and I'll pay you 10 times your bet if you win. Here are the rules: 1 million cups per game with a penny under one of them. You make your initial pick, then I'll turn over 999,998 of the remaining cups, and you have to stick with your initial pick, then we'll turn over the cup you picked. Heck, I'll even turn over all 999,999 of the other cups, but you have to stick with your initial pick. It should be obvious that your initial pick has a 1/1,000,000 probability of winning, and if you stick with your initial pick, the probability that you win is set in stone--it won't magically change because of choices you are offered in the future.

 

[vapoolplayer]

Poker is one of the games that would endure, because it is based primarily on psychology and body reading, while mathematical probabilities only play a relatively small part.

Ummmm, no.

That all changed around 2005 or so.

Math is a much, much bigger role than any psychology. At least at the stakes 99% play at.

Nosebleed stakes can be a bit different.

But anything less than $500/$1k can easily be won via properly putting opponents on hand ranges and the proper EV.

 

[vapoolplayer]

Infinity definitely has value in the proper concept.

And he’s absolutely correct that infinity would by default include anything that has a probably over zero.

Though I don’t think this conversation is the proper context. But, it’s a true statement nonetheless.

 

[madmartigan]

For those that think it's a 50-50 proposition when choosing a new door AFTER 1 of the 3 doors is revealed, here's another explanation:

Assume there are 1,000 doors instead of 3 doors. Choose a door. Your odds of picking the door with the car behind it are 1/1,000. Now, would you rather stick with that pick or get to open ALL the other 999 doors to find a car. Of course, you would switch your pick and take all the other 999 doors, and your odds of winning the car would be 999/1,000. Simple, right?

Just because someone opens 998 of the doors in the 999 door group, which they know have a goat behind them, before you switch your pick, does not change the fact that you are getting to pick the whole 999 door group instead of the 1 door you initially chose. Whether the host opens 998 of the 999 doors or leaves all 999 doors closed--before you switch your pick--the host is offering you the whole group of 999 doors.

Dear Jay Helfert, if you try your bet at home with a friend and as few as 10 beer cups with a coin under one of them, it will take you less than 5 minutes to realize you are the BIG sucker by sticking with your initial choice. The probability that you initially pick the right beer cup is 1/10, and not switching your pick means that you are stuck with that probability, yet you are only getting even money if you win. You say, "It's a 50-50 bet with only 2 cups remaining, so I can stick with my original choice and I will win 50% of the time." Wrong! You made your initial choice when there were 10 cups, so you only have a 1/10 probability that you chose the winning cup! With 10 cups, you need 9:1 odds to break even on your bet if you stick with your initial choice. Damn, it would have been fun to play that game for your ebony Ed Prewitt. With 10 cups, I could have given you 2:1 odds and robbed you.

Finally, if any of you 50-50 believers wants to bet, I'll bet any amount under $10k per game and I'll pay you 10 time your bet if you win. Here are the rules: 1 million cups per game with a penny under one of them. You make your initial pick, I'll turn over 999,998 of the remaining cups, and you have to stick with your initial pick. Heck, I'll even turn over all 999,999 of the other cups, but you have to stick with your initial pick.

This is a helpful way to think of it. The 1/1000 chance that your initial pick was right hasn’t gone away. It’s extremely unlikely that your initial pick is the winner, not 50/50 as it might seem it this point.

 

[straightline]

Typical flood of arithmetic jocks.

 

[justnum]

The odds of getting someone to change their first pick, after saying look here, is not a 1/3 choice or a 1/2 choice.

Social Scientists have proven the first choice people make is the one they are most stubborn about.

Math experiments are well selected and in this case seems motivated to study first pick stubbornness.

Aside from calculating odds it would make sense to factor in sampling population and conditions the player is under.

Statistically the choices of 1/3 or 1/2 exist, but gameshows employ techniques to make you more predictable.

 

[straightline]

The odds of getting someone to change their first pick, after saying look here, is not a 1/3 choice or a 1/2 choice.

Social Scientists have proven the first choice people make is the one they are most stubborn about.

Math experiments are well selected and in this case seems motivated to study first pick stubbornness.

Aside from calculating odds it would make sense to factor in sampling population and conditions the player is under.

Statistically the choices of 1/3 or 1/2 exist, but gameshows employ techniques to make you more predictable.

This is more enlightening than "see spot add, add spot add..."

What, if anything, have they discovered?

 

[justnum]

This is more enlightening than "see spot add, add spot add..."

What, if anything, have they discovered?

Quantifying each post in this thread as the evidence for the study.

The greater volume of posts are in favor of convoluted concepts of counting. One type of post is more frequent than others its about fractions or percentages,

Discovery being people are still confused about how optimal game strategies in simple random scenarios. The most creative people are the ones that do not follow the tradition/conventional thinking. At some point the repeat robots stop responding and that is the critical point when creative differences show their superiority.

 

[vapoolplayer]

The odds of getting someone to change their first pick, after saying look here, is not a 1/3 choice or a 1/2 choice.

Social Scientists have proven the first choice people make is the one they are most stubborn about.

Math experiments are well selected and in this case seems motivated to study first pick stubbornness.

Aside from calculating odds it would make sense to factor in sampling population and conditions the player is under.

Statistically the choices of 1/3 or 1/2 exist, but gameshows employ techniques to make you more predictable.

Yea. This has been stated several times in the thread. For whatever reason, people feel disinclined to change their minds and many times they will openly criticize others for changing opinions and other such things.

This is very evident when both the left and right political sides post videos of the other candidates from 20 years ago. The implication being that either they must feel the same or implying that because they feel differently they must not be genuine.

When in fact, a trait of higher intelligence is often changing based upon the information at hand. Even at times doing a complete 180 when the new information dictates.


In this Month Hall problem, I don’t think they really need to do much to exploit this.

Basically it’s a “most (or many at least) people aren’t capable of taking the information at hand and making the correct decision to switch.”

It’s kinda like conspiracy theorists. The supposed shadow organizations really don’t have to conspire, because the conspiracy theorists will just make up their own narratives about normal stuff and will distract themselves without any extra provocation needed.

In the Monty Hall problem, why even attempt to sway them when the average person will mind fuck themselves anyway and many will stay with their first pick?

 

[straightline]

Quantifying each post in this thread as the evidence for the study.

The greater volume of posts are in favor of convoluted concepts of counting. One type of post is more frequent than others its about fractions or percentages,

Discovery being people are still confused about how optimal game strategies in simple random scenarios. The most creative people are the ones that do not follow the tradition/conventional thinking. At some point the repeat robots stop responding and that is the critical point when creative differences show their superiority.

The arithmetic is clear enough. No argument. It's cool to have a little ( a lot would be better) exobox thinking though.

VaPool brought up conspiracies and they're so easy to debunk because the means (of conspiracy) are off limits. Reminds me of The Amazing Randy vs Uri Geller on Carson a ways back. Occurred to me back then they could be using identical "powers" to prove their side. One to perform the trick and the other to debunk it. TV show... Frankly I have enough faith in the human intellect that the species' that spawned all the legends - and generically identical and global ones at that, had a pretty good idea of what their experiences were.

 

[vapoolplayer]

The odds of getting someone to change their first pick, after saying look here, is not a 1/3 choice or a 1/2 choice.

Social Scientists have proven the first choice people make is the one they are most stubborn about.

Math experiments are well selected and in this case seems motivated to study first pick stubbornness.

Aside from calculating odds it would make sense to factor in sampling population and conditions the player is under.

Statistically the choices of 1/3 or 1/2 exist, but gameshows employ techniques to make you more predictable.

Shit. Nvm. I didn’t realize who I was responding to. Lol.

All your posts sound intelligent but end up just running off the rails without providing a point or any data to back it up.

The most successful people in the world rarely work off “feel” or “gut.” They may look into those feelings, but in the end will be making decisions based on data. Even if the data is as simple as “this person isn’t a good manager base on XYZ and will hurt the company more than help.”

Thus why casinos and such employ many, many psychological countermeasures to keep you in or keep you losing.

As when humans default to their feelings and emotions, we typically don’t make the correct choices.