Dyksexlic, proof of identity

[Skakus]

Ok, sorry, my bad.

But I am neither pesky nor a naysayer.

Happy life to you friend.

[esoito]

WARNING @KA2

You wrote: "As well I clearly remembered that you were one of the pesky naysayers on the VLS forum.  Luckily on this forum that kind of behaviour is not allowed!"


May I remind you that bad-mouthing and insulting other members is ALSO NOT ALLOWED!

Do it again and your posting priviledges will be at risk.

A sincere apology to Skakus would go a long way towards redemption...

[Skakus]

No apology necessary.

Ka2 is right, I did briefly get offside with Dyksexlic on the VLS forum, though not because Iââ,¬â,,¢m a naysayer, more because I like others felt he was leading members up the garden path and on a merry dance (still seems we were right).

Some of his followers became irate over the events that unfolded back then and notwithstanding the apparent vindication I guess I played my small part.

So it is I who will apologize to Ka2 and the others.

Sorry guys I should never have become involved in the Dyksexlic saga.

I hope he carries you all forward to great success. 

[Ka2]

WARNING @KA2

May I remind you that bad-mouthing and insulting other members is ALSO NOT ALLOWED!

         

Am I bad-mouthing? I'm sorry I did not know pesky was a bad word! Tssssssss

[chrisbis]

Pesky is ok till its directed at someone.

Direct it at something, and you should be alright, but just not at member/fellow.

That is what the Global mods mean by the warning.

(Just my advice I hope you don't mind)  


Edit- I think the naysayer didn't particularly sit well with a few either.
Just no need to be personal here, keep it to the task in hand- increase knowledge on the subject of Rugby............ sorry Roulette (forgot which brain I was usin then!)

[esoito]

Exactly so, chrisbis.  

Pesky is an ill-considered adjective to apply to a fellow forum member.

If members avoid making personal remarks or criticisms of others then peace and harmony will prevail.

We do NOT want this forum to degenerate into a battlefield as has happened elsewhere...

Moderators expect members to play the ball -- not the man, in other words.

[Dyksexlic!]

Who Do Men Say That I Am. . ?


@Skakus
I bear no grudges to those who persecuted me.

The weak minded can never forgive. 

Forgiveness is an attribute of a strong mind.

[Ka2]

Hey D,

Are you still here to help? I think it would be very helpful for everyone if you could answer my last question I asked you (pm.)

If you play your system. And the rng always choose the bet with the least amount of payment (or none) And I mean always (we are playing the rng from hell here) Would you still win?

[Dyksexlic!]

Hey D,

Are you still here to help? I think it would be very helpful for everyone if you could answer my last question I asked you (pm. )

If you play your system.  And the rng always choose the bet with the least amount of payment (or none) And I mean always (we are playing the rng from hell here) Would you still win?

Sorry, I missed your original question.

I have NEVER witnessed an RNG which played 100% against the player in that manner.

I challenge ANYONE to prove otherwise.

Even rogue casinos are mathematically beatable. 

However, don't expect a cash payout from Costa Rica anytime soon!

Its all too easy to blame a failing system on 'rigged' RNG software.

The 'secret' is that ALL gambling systems produce winning spins (EVENTually),

Just as ALL gambling systems produce losing spins (EVENTually).

Simple.

[Ka2]

Thats not really the point. You said your system is 100% mathematical fail proof, no matter what sequence of numbers!

You never witnessed it, but apparently (you just admitted it) you are still dependent on some wins, if they come or may not come, that's open for debate.

Don't get me wrong you still have my up-most respect, but like I told you before, I'm always playing the session from HELL. And playing that session I can NEVER win (neither can you), yes I created many systems that do win when I play a "fair" distribution of numbers, but that was not what I was looking for.

So in Essence you are still waiting for some sort event/frequency to happen. And your system is based on the Fact that you assume the RNG is not going to cheat that much...

So basically I don't have to search that hard any more

[redhot]

Hey D, nice to see you posting again

You said earlier,

"I would really like to start a thread explaining the pigeonhole principle in detail with some real mathematical examples."

Are you still planning to do so?

[Dyksexlic!]

@Ka2
What.  . 

No, that wasn't what I meant Ka2. 

You said you understood the system?

I'm not waiting for ANYTHING!!!

Now you sound more confused than ever!

If you want me to lie and tell you that a 100% winning system isn't possible,

And that the Pigeonhole Principle is somehow wrong.  . 

Then I'm sorry Ka2, but I wont do that. 

You need to go back to basics. 

Hey D, nice to see you posting again

You said earlier,

"I would really like to start a thread explaining the pigeonhole principle in detail with some real mathematical examples.  "

Are you still planning to do so?

Hey redhot,  that's an excellent idea. 

Maybe that would help members see 'the bigger picture'. 

[Bayes]

I think it's time to come clean about the pigeonhole principle, and set the record straight.

The PP states that if there are X pigeons and Z pigeonholes, and X is bigger than Z, then there must be at least 2 pigeons in some pigeonhole.

That's really all there is to it; it's so simple and obvious you might wonder why it even has a name.
Well it turns out that there are a lot of mathematical applications where it comes in handy, mainly in working out the number of possibilities in various scenarios (an area of maths called "Combinatorics"). For example, to use a "practical" example (well, practical for a mathematician  ) the PP can guarantee that the following assertion is true:

In New York City, there are two non-bald people who have the same number of hairs on their head.

Why? because The human head can contain up to several hundred thousand hairs, with a maximum of about 500,000. In comparison there are millions of people in New York City. Consequently, at least two of them must share the same number of hairs. Simple logic.

So what does all this have to do with roulette?

Well, it turns out, not a lot. It's a bit of red herring, because in no way can using the PP help you to win. Yes, it means that in 38 spins there must be at least 1 number which hits twice. Well whoopy-doo! it should be obvious that this isn't any kind of breakthrough.  For starters, the probability is billions to 1 that every number will hit in a cycle, so the PP will likely never get the chance of employment .

Secondly, even if such a stupendously unlikely event were to happen, then what? you have just seen 37 numbers hit in 37 spins. Which number is going to hit next? Your guess is as good as mine. 

No matter how authoritative they may sound, don't let anyone tell you that the PP is the gateway to roulette riches - it isn't.  Use your common sense.

[Dyksexlic!]

in no way can using the PP help you to win.  

No matter how authoritative they may sound, don't let anyone tell you that the PP is the gateway to roulette riches - it isn't.   

I beg to differ Bayes. 

Interesting post tho'.  

Albeit a little misleading. . 

Yes, the Pigeonhole Principle is somewhat intuitive, but do NOT underestimate its power!!!

Put simply, the Principle states that if more than n pigeons are placed into n pigeonholes, some pigeonhole must contain more than one pigeon.  

Big deal. 

So, what does that have to do with winning roulette.  .  ?

EVERYTHING!!!!

While the Principle itself is evident, its implications are astounding.  

The reason is that the Principle proves the existence (or impossibility) of a particular phenomenon. 

Another version states -

"the maximum value is at least the average value, for any non-empty finite bag of real numbers.  .  "

Hmmmmmmmm.  .   the plot thickens. 

For typical data sets, the average is the ââ,¬Å"middleââ,¬Â value, so clearly the maximum should be at least as big.  

Incidently, many forum members have asked me why I called myself 'Dyksexlic'

Simple. 

It was out of respect and admiration of the man who opened my eyes to the possibility of a 100% winning roulette bet. 

His name was Professor Dijkstra. 

Go ahead. 

Google it.  . 

[VLS]

Is it this one?:

link:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_Dijkstra

Thanks!