EC

[Bayes]

Now i must know what programming language you used for that!  Pascal?  Power Basic?

You've probably never heard of it, it's called Euphoria

There are two versions and I'm using the older one (3.1.1) because support was dropped for DOS with version 4.x. There are tutorials on the site, but to be honest you don't really need anything other than the manual if you have any programming experience.

I used to use BASIC, but Euphoria is much nicer in my opinion. A little code goes a long way and the syntax is clear and simple, plus it's very fast for number crunching (you can even poke machine code directly into memory if you want to).

I had a look at bulls-eye broker some time ago, but it wasn't really adaptable to roulette  , so I had to write my own version, plus it's Windows only.

[GARNabby]

Does random really have any limits? mathematically speaking, it doesn't.

"N=2 Surprise" is one of many such limits.

In general, it comes down to the "premise" (which i'm just not proving here) that math and physics, etc, are all susceptible to a theory of everything.

Like Matty wondering aloud about the physics of roulette given its math.  Well, if there's no good math for it, then it follows that there's no good physics either.  Not to say that there aren't liberating mathematical equations for the roulette's properties of scatter, etc.

... this is what mathematicians call an "asymptote", meaning that it's a bit like a horizon which is ever-receding.

Such a curve reaches an asymptote at its limit over infinity.  Most believe that that represents another sort of balance, but it's just another limit.

If you believe that physics can follow math, than things are a bit more infinite than we might find intuitively comfortable.

And of course the danger of "chasing equilibrium" is that by that very selection, you have thereby excluded a large number of "average" sequences, so in a sense you're seeking out those runs from hell. Nevertheless, outcomes WILL balance out, and the method is dangerous only to the extent that you haven't done the research and are using a progression which hits the house limit too quickly. If you take it slow and don't progress too quickly, you'll be ok. 

If you guys could just for once begin to straighten out the above confusion, you might become dangerous.  LoL.

[GARNabby]

You've probably never heard of it, it's called Euphoria

I call it a "pencil and paper", and the glorious wonders you can work with that.

Computing should be a last resort, and then only to check your figures when life, or a lot of money, depend on those.  Otherwise, it's no longer only a tool.  (Recall all the earlier guys who were more amazed with the notion of a computer than with the results of one.  How do they enter code, and other enter mass data, now?)

[Bayes]

Don't feed the trolls. 

[GARNabby]

Don't feed the trolls. 

Were i a troll, by Bayes axioms-of-the-internet-troll... i'd be long dead.

P.S.  I'm not much on the winks, and kisses, either.

[Robeenhuut]

Equilibrium always changes...the more the things change the more they stay the same..
We don't need gun control, we need i.d.i.o.t control   

[Bayes]

What goes up must come down, and vice-versa. The question is, when?

@ GARNabby,

More gibberish dressed up as profound insight? and by the way, far from being a last resort, computers are the only way to crack the vast majority of nuts. Card-counting to name but one in gaming alone.

And don't forget we're dealing with real life gaming conditions here, not some abstract platonist realm. But I'm forgetting, you're not actually interested in making money are you? - too far beneath your towering intellect. 

I think Ego should take out the trash in this thread, including my posts. kiss kiss, wink wink.

[Still]

You've probably never heard of it, it's called Euphoria

There are two versions and I'm using the older one (3.1.1) because support was dropped for DOS with version 4.x. There are tutorials on the site, but to be honest you don't really need anything other than the manual if you have any programming experience.

Wow! I had never heard of it!  Dunno how it slipped under my radar.  I have it installed and took a look at the "ee" editor; very impressive.  My interest in character oriented programming goes back to an interest in an old 8 bit CP/M machine that came into our family back in 1983 that was trying to compete with the IBM PC but was too little too late; so you've probably never heard of the Visual Technologies V1050; a very advanced 8 bit for its day.    The idea is to fire it up and maximize it's relative usefulness; to somehow burn some 5.25" floppies for it to use.  I use DosBox to help bridge the gap between my Win7 system and the CP/M era.  With it, i've looked at a lot of old Dos programs and am impressed with what they were able to achieve with just ASCII characters. 

For your amusement, somebody has used Silverlight to make an online version of GW-Basic located at this link:

link:://:.addressof.com/basic/#/Home

[GARNabby]

What goes up must come down, and vice-versa. The question is, when?

Another glaring mistake from the self-declared resident "mathhead/computer guy" who can't welcome even a few simple corrections, to his own work; by someone like myself with a university degree, or two, who's obviously trying to help him just begin on a better path.

More gibberish dressed up as profound insight?  But I'm forgetting, you're not actually interested in making money are you? - too far beneath your towering intellect.

Someone who must, i suspect, play these ever-stranger emotional games with others out of a vain attempt to over-compensate for a more-basic deficiency.

As i wrote before, the more (non-contradictory) corrections, the better.  You don't even have to be able to follow a discussion (then), but you'll still be getting somewhere.  Can't make enough mistakes, until you find yourself at a finished viable product!

Anyway what's so-profound about being more concerned with "feeding" yourself?  Can't "bring home the bacon" with such fuzzy thinking.  But, as noted in each and every post of his, "No mistake like the one you know to be true but which ain't so."

Oh yeah, before i forget about the latest correction:  Modern cosmology is built around the fact of an exponentially-expanding universe.  What is going up, and apart, for all intents and purposes, IS NOT coming back down, together.  You'll have to come with a truly-profound definition of 'down' to make that one work out.

And don't forget we're dealing with real life gaming conditions here, not some abstract platonist realm.  And by the way, far from being a last resort, computers are the only way to crack the vast majority of nuts. Card-counting to name but one in gaming alone.

Yawn.  Didn't they basically do that, once, back in the early sixties?  Some guy named Thorp, among others, then, who quite otherwise observed that very-simple effect, and its approximate order of magnitude, enough to know to go on to perform some of the resource-laden field work, and quickly polish it off with some simulations in a small, but lucrative, paperback before publishing it.

Not so-surprisingly, it's the masses who "buy more into the polish" than the substance.  I mean, you can't rework the "polish".  And who of them wants to, pray tell, do the work?

But thanks for making my point, for example, that computers have changed little on the blackjack scene since, if ever.  Also the casinos thank you, i suspect, for perpetuating their own "polish".

I think Ego should take out the trash in this thread, including my posts. kiss kiss, wink wink.

Too bad you can't just delete all your "whoopsies", especially those at the local casino, the same way?  Maybe you should go back to being a volunteer moderator, to do some more of your own "handy work", yourself, here?  LoL.


P.S.  Now what on earth, for example, is that word which means the ability to recall and use the right word?  Anybody?

Such seemingly-lofty stuff just might make you a better programer!  Just say'n.

[Bayes]

Another glaring mistake from the self-declared resident "mathhead/computer guy" who can't welcome even a few simple corrections, to his own work; by someone like myself with a university degree, or two, who's obviously trying to help him just begin on a better path.

There you go again with flaunting your degree(s). I have my own thanks, not that it necessarily means anything. It just confirms my impression of you that you're here only to try and impress others, why the need to bolster your ego on an internet forum? it comes across as pretty pathetic.

I hope for your sake that your book is written more clearly than your posts here, because I don't have clue what you're on about most of the time, and I don't think anyone else does either.

You take statements out of context, twist words and conjure up straw men in order to further your own weird agenda. Why do you post on this forum?

I have never declared myself to be "mathhead/computer" guy, nor any kind of expert. I happen to know a fair amount of math/statistics and I also know how to program computers, sorry if you don't like it. if I see something I know to be wrong math-wise on this forum I'll jump in and correct it, but I'm not infallible, no-one is. Anyone is free to challenge me and is welcome to do so, besides, I often say "don't take my word for it - find out for yourself". That's the nice thing about this kind of study, it's mostly objective and doesn't depend on anyone's opinion.

Instead of the snide remarks and put-downs why don't you actually offer something constructive for a change? You can start with my "what goes up must come down" statement. It happens to be true, with limitations of course. You obviously see yourself as some kind of math wiz, so tell me exactly where I've made the mistake?

[GARNabby]

I have my own thanks, not that it necessarily means anything.

Was that so-hard to admit?  You're not another Unibomber, are you, LoL?  I don't know, maybe you're part of the new thinking in America, that a standard education will only hold you back.

Standard education can't give rise to genius, but, in virtually-all cases, it does carefully foster and speed its development and expression.  And, clever persons tend to thusly seek out the work, and guidance, of other clever persons.

It just confirms my impression of you that you're here only to try to impress others.  Why [else] the need to bolster your ego on an internet forum?  It comes across as pretty pathetic.  You take statements out of context, twist words and conjure up straw men in order to further your own weird agenda.

Draconian drivel (, likely from the "fun police".)  Besides, if, as you want to believe, in general, that a dim person can hold a university degree, then possibly a very-bright person could be an egotistical joker.  Heaven's sake, man, life's hard-enough.  It's only a gambling message-board, after all.  Have to come here to shut others out, then you're trying too-hard.

I don't have clue what you're on about most of the time, and I don't think anyone else does either.

What utimately matters to me is that i have a clue (without contradiction.)  You ought to be more concerned with that if you want to make things personal, thank you very much.  Focusing so-much on others, especially in such an environment as this, will leave you a very-unhappy person.  How else do you think i so-well "suffer" my time on these boards? 

Why do you post on this forum?  I happen to know a fair amount of math/statistics, and I also know how to program computers.  Sorry if you don't like it.  You obviously see yourself as some kind of math wiz.

"This forum" is YOUR forum?  Why else would you ask, and go on like that.

Anyone is free to challenge me and is welcome to do so, besides, I often say "don't take my word for it - find out for yourself".

I did find out for myself.

Instead of the snide remarks and put-downs why don't you actually offer something constructive for a change? You can start with...

On the contrary, i contend that it's you who have yet to offer up something of proved value on this board, given its overt objective.

... my "what goes up must come down" statement. It happens to be true, with limitations of course.

Oh, it just "happens to be true", but let it to crazy-old Garnabby to explain it!

Can't have 'up' without 'down', by definition.  But in no way does that relative defining imply, for examples, exactly what either is, or that "what goes up, comes down."

Lets suppose that 'down' is a gravity-thing.  But what is gravity?  Or then, 'up', in its true sense, if there's no such thing as anti-gravity?  Maybe 'down' has something to do with 'in', or 'together'?  Does 'in' mean, or imply, 'together'?

Come to think of it, how is anything defined, let alone understood absolutely?  Well, all-at-once.  None of the definitions, etc, shall be finalized separate from the others.  What follows are a few bare-bones highlights from my very-own working theory-of-everything, by "iterating" from the aforementioned (strong) postulate, itself.  Feel free to ask an actual question, Bayes.  Alternatively, you can keep trying to "laugh me off", for whichever reason, if that's your "game".  Your choice.

Begin with the most-salient: what's absolute, defined; and what's not, namely the undefined, infinite.  Note that those are essentially opposites, beyond each as axis of the universe.  The absolute axis comprises: the point, nothingness, in the center; and the anti-pt, all beyond, or round, the point (in the center of the universe.  A point faces outward; anti-pt faces inward.)  Invert, ie, turn in-side-out, the absolute axis for the undefined pt, which is directed inward, startlessness; and the undefined anti-pt which is directed outward, endlessness.  (Endlessness is 'all' directed the other way, beyond plain-old all, hence with no prospect other than an endless reconfirmation of all, because all is all; startlessness is nothingness directed the other way, an attempt at inward of nothingness, likewise with no prospect other than a reconfirmation of nothingness.)  The reader may think of this as a trip from the center of the universe to its end, in whichever sense; and then beyond the end until "magically" back up, and out of, the center.  Indeed, the latter part of the trip involves the inverse of the straight-up topologies of either roundness, or straightness.  Turning a (center) point out through its anti-pt turning in from the other direction to produce those of the undefined axis is nothing like turning inside-out a floppy rubber ball with a big hole in it.  (Reminiscent of Einstein's "Steady State" concept.)

Inexactness or approximation occurs in the above paragraph through the incomplete inversion, whichever, from the perspectives of the absolute to that of the undefined.  Think of this as the universe catching on itself while performing some "magic".  Notably on either the relative, ultimately-theoretical; and/or the quantum-mechanical, probabilistic.  Specifically, the former is rooted in the absolute; the latter, in the undefined.  (Invert point outward to "emulsify" it to an infinity of equally-possible positions.  Invert all to "collapse" those positions back to the point.)  A "determination" of the parts of the universe which lay between, on, over, etc, its axes.  Carefully unpacked, naturally yields the physical/mental dimensions of those describable parts.  The "star" trade-off is an (limit-at-) infinity of such dimensions which unfold effortlessly in all ways, without the requirement of "fudged" ones to explain away new fields, etc, as for example, in finite theories like "N=8 supergravity", and as opposed to a wave-based "String theory"; and which are expressible solely in terms of the four (, nay, five,) dimensions which are perceivable and accessible.

_________________________________________________

Basta!  To be continued... still to bring this around to the "question" at-hand; and specifically roulette.

[GARNabby]

[Please excuse my editor, doesn't seem to be working tonight.  Couldn't make the paragraphs.]   Good, should be able to quickly "knock out" the remainder of discussion, after a few more off-the-cuff "scientific liberties" for the purpose of quick and easy clarity.  It would take considerably longer to put it into the standard, and thorough.  Even the absolute sort of stuff, which is unattainable, etc, in any meaningful way, presents its own complexities.  Words like "all" are very-limiting.    As to up, and down.  You could throw a ball straight up, and await its "return" but to neither the point in space nor time from which you launched it.  It's neither quite the same ball anymore, nor even the same you.  While things appear to you to even out, ie, the ball came back to you to the extent that you threw it straight up, that doesn't mean that that process, itself, evens out.  Space isn't really that empty, real, separate from time, or pure, as to allow a ball to just fall back to earth.  Einstein called that possibility "spooky action at a distance"; and theorized that space allows for different types, and degrees, of fields or "paths" to referee such actions.  He also realized that, likewise, time isn't so free because it keeps moving forward (, at least its process of which we are easily aware.)  But stopped short of trying to understand how things could be uniquely where those are when those are there.    So, what appears to be evening out, perhaps is not doing so to an observer in an appropriately-different frame-of-reference.  Trivially, from a higher dimension; or a transformational reckoning in this dimension of what such an observer would see.  (From the fouth dimension, were there a spatial one, you could observe our three-dimensional space in the form of a flat surface, or perhaps a curved surface.  A surface which would allow you to "see through things to other things".)  Or perhaps, according to the contemporary quantum science, quantum-random processes which, for example, keep time moving in one direction, are just that... thusly unknowable even to thoseselves.  But what if there's more to it, what if the quantum stuff relies on its own sort of axis, like the absolute?    Well, suppose that what goes up, doesn't come back down.  Would such a universe have a solution, if only an unobservable solution?  It certainly wouldn't be a fair universe unless it "came with" an observable solution... a "warranty" that it shall keep working out, after all.  So, i guess that it would at least be preferrable, for the sake of argument here, to have stuff come back down for all observers.    Anyway, back to my Indeterminance Theory, the idea is to focus on the intermediary "catches" between the absolute, and the undefined (, the absolute axis turned inside-out,) dimension by dimension until on the scale of the expansion of a universe.  And at each stage, have relativity play as much a basic role as the quantum.  Until, instead of a "bang"/"crunch" expansion/contraction to an impossible, infinitely-massive singularity, an expansion with a built-in contraction (all along).  If, for example, each and every particle of a given universe more-or-less becomes smaller along with its neighbors, the particles recede from each other to give the appearance of expansion; conversely, in the reverse, increasingly-larger particles give the appearance of universal contraction.  A universe which pulls through the "emptiness" of itself at the end of its expansion instead of at its infinitely-dense singularity; or which pushes ever-more slowly against itself at its singularity, to "re-bang" (in the accelerating manner observed by the modern telescopes.)  Also, the baseball analogy implies that nor can the universe "come back down" (in space-time) to the same singularity from which, apparently, it began with the "big bang".  But singularities come in only one kind... the same (infinite sort.)    Hence, i think it possible to at least determine a rule-of-thumb, or inherent pattern, to how the mathematical evening-out occurs.  (Even if the physics can "go where" the math goes, each can't manifest itself both ways at-once.  Like the wave-particle duality of light stops as soon as it interacts to manifests itself in either particle, or wave, form... but neither actually goes away.)

[Bayes]

Um... right. 

Another glaring mistake from the self-declared resident "mathhead/computer guy" who can't welcome even a few simple corrections, to his own work; by someone like myself with a university degree, or two, who's obviously trying to help him just begin on a better path.

Yeah, thanks for the "help".

Do you actually know how many degrees you have? as self-declared math guy (you were the one boasting about the math degree, not me) I assume you know how to count to two...

By the way, have you ever read this? I'd be interested in your opinion. It's not as long as it looks, most of the page is footnotes and references.

I really don't know why you're wasting time here with us knuckleheads, you should be posting on physics/philosophy forums (please?).

[Robeenhuut]

[Please excuse my editor, doesn't seem to be working tonight.  Couldn't make the paragraphs.]   Good, should be able to quickly "knock out" the remainder of discussion, after a few more off-the-cuff "scientific liberties" for the purpose of quick and easy clarity.  It would take considerably longer to put it into the standard, and thorough.  Even the absolute sort of stuff, which is unattainable, etc, in any meaningful way, presents its own complexities.  Words like "all" are very-limiting.    As to up, and down.  You could throw a ball straight up, and await its "return" but to neither the point in space nor time from which you launched it.  It's neither quite the same ball anymore, nor even the same you.  While things appear to you to even out, ie, the ball came back to you to the extent that you threw it straight up, that doesn't mean that that process, itself, evens out.  Space isn't really that empty, real, separate from time, or pure, as to allow a ball to just fall back to earth.  Einstein called that possibility "spooky action at a distance"; and theorized that space allows for different types, and degrees, of fields or "paths" to referee such actions.  He also realized that, likewise, time isn't so free because it keeps moving forward (, at least its process of which we are easily aware.)  But stopped short of trying to understand how things could be uniquely where those are when those are there.    So, what appears to be evening out, perhaps is not doing so to an observer in an appropriately-different frame-of-reference.  Trivially, from a higher dimension; or a transformational reckoning in this dimension of what such an observer would see.  (From the fouth dimension, were there a spatial one, you could observe our three-dimensional space in the form of a flat surface, or perhaps a curved surface.  A surface which would allow you to "see through things to other things".)  Or perhaps, according to the contemporary quantum science, quantum-random processes which, for example, keep time moving in one direction, are just that... thusly unknowable even to thoseselves.  But what if there's more to it, what if the quantum stuff relies on its own sort of axis, like the absolute?    Well, suppose that what goes up, doesn't come back down.  Would such a universe have a solution, if only an unobservable solution?  It certainly wouldn't be a fair universe unless it "came with" an observable solution... a "warranty" that it shall keep working out, after all.  So, i guess that it would at least be preferrable, for the sake of argument here, to have stuff come back down for all observers.    Anyway, back to my Indeterminance Theory, the idea is to focus on the intermediary "catches" between the absolute, and the undefined (, the absolute axis turned inside-out,) dimension by dimension until on the scale of the expansion of a universe.  And at each stage, have relativity play as much a basic role as the quantum.  Until, instead of a "bang"/"crunch" expansion/contraction to an impossible, infinitely-massive singularity, an expansion with a built-in contraction (all along).  If, for example, each and every particle of a given universe more-or-less becomes smaller along with its neighbors, the particles recede from each other to give the appearance of expansion; conversely, in the reverse, increasingly-larger particles give the appearance of universal contraction.  A universe which pulls through the "emptiness" of itself at the end of its expansion instead of at its infinitely-dense singularity; or which pushes ever-more slowly against itself at its singularity, to "re-bang" (in the accelerating manner observed by the modern telescopes.)  Also, the baseball analogy implies that nor can the universe "come back down" (in space-time) to the same singularity from which, apparently, it began with the "big bang".  But singularities come in only one kind... the same (infinite sort.)    Hence, i think it possible to at least determine a rule-of-thumb, or inherent pattern, to how the mathematical evening-out occurs.  (Even if the physics can "go where" the math goes, each can't manifest itself both ways at-once.  Like the wave-particle duality of light stops as soon as it interacts to manifests itself in either particle, or wave, form... but neither actually goes away.)

Can you post something that does not require Phd 2 understand it? 
I think we need 2 create a special category 4 yr posts.

[GARNabby]

... as self-declared math guy (you were the one boasting about the math degree, not me) I assume you know how to count to two...

Ah, my degree in math specifically means that i'm NOT a "self-declared" mathematician, but so-accredited by a separate, independent body of distinguished overseers in that field.

By the way, have you ever read this? I'd be interested in your opinion. It's not as long as it looks, most of the page is footnotes and references.

The upshot is that even a theory requires a universally-sound foundation.  However, i prefer, and think it best, to be able to put a theory across in rather-plain e*n*g*l*i*s*h (in two short posts, for example).  Fuzzy thinking won't "bring home the bacon".

Put into personal terms, do your best, and have no regrets.

I really don't know why you're wasting time here with us knuckleheads, you should be posting on physics/philosophy forums (please?).

Even "knuckleheads" deserve better, Bayes.  Not saying that the on-line majority are that, but only that most persons could do better, if they would only try.

And, most importantly, that there is something to learn from every one.  Except, according to a couple here like Bayes, from myself.  Go figure.

Just because Bayes over-compensates for his academic laziness with bullying, "snide remarks", etc, certainly doesn't mean others should "follow suit". 


P.S. Please let me know which board(s) you're at.

Can you post something that does not require Phd 2 understand it? 

The irony here is that no number of post-doctorate degrees will allow for the successful translation/application of almost any of the bulk of the work across the gambling boards such as this.

But it sure is a lot of fun trying, isn't it.