[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Vincent Letroll
[/ QUOTE ]
Is this retaliation for showing you up in your specialty on the probability forum,
[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't show me up. You exposed your ignorance of undergraduate-level probability, though you might not understand the
discussion. You made repeated false statements, and claimed that you "stood by your words," but
you refused offers by me and by Alex/Mugaaz to bet real money on whether the statements where we disagreed with you were correct. I'm still willing to bet.
Here are some of your false statements (typos etc. left as in the original):
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] "The cap on betting is the reason that the martingdale system cannot work."
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] "While it is true that there is no one with an infinite bankroll it is also true that there are people with bankrolls large enough to beat a casino with a doubling up system that is given a large number of double ups."
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] "that is close enough to %100 in my favor as to be accepted as the expected result."
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] "The fact is that the only way to clasiify a game as a negative EV game is to do so by using an infiite number of Trials...when the pass line is evaluated in the Game of craps that to show that it is a -EV bet one must use an infinite number of trials."
Again, everyone stipulates that a martingale system might work in some sense if you have an infinite bankroll, but that no one has an infinite bankroll. Where we disagree is the statements you have made about finite bankrolls and buying in to a real poker table with a finite number of chips.
You were called an idiot in the Mid-High Stakes NL forum and told to go look up the math behind the martingale. You asked for a second opinion in the Probability forum, and were told again that you don't understand the math behind the martingale.
Now you have quoted a respected authority out of context to try to start another contentless argument (whose resolution will involve restoring the context), as you have done many times in the past. (I'm not the only one who has pointed out that this is a habit of yours.) You are abusing the trust of those who assume that you might be quoting people in context. You are a troll.