KasinoKing's SlotBeater Strategy

[4 of a kind]

Thanks! am I really the luckiest player on the planet?
I hope so!
KK

Of course not. Please KK don't take my posts as a personal attack. I only know you from your contributions to this site, and would rate you as aces. I'm just an aging old gambling man, with more experience then I wish I had.

I've through out the years invested in and studied systems and theories on how to beat the house. When I went to casinos I treated it like a business, or investing on wall street. Fortunately I was blessed through out my life with the financial backbone to truly enjoy gambling and eventually realize and respect the house odds.

I find it sad that newbies or young gamblers at this forum might read your slots-beater system and actually believe in it.

It might work for you and great for now or however many years your doing it. But the real truth is it's just luck.

 

[gloria460]

This has turned out to be one helluva thread on this forum. JHV might not be liked by a lot of you but you have to admit anything that he has put his fingers or thoughts on has brought out numerous posters and all kinds of points of views.

He threw a slant at me but I didn't take it personal or thought about it being malicious. I personally would love to see him come back but how in the world do you contain that kinda energy..you can't so it would be somewhat chaining him into what we perceive is the right or wrong way to post something. I agree that some of what he said was harsh but to ban him to me was wrong and that is my opinion.

 

[bryand]

This has turned out to be one helluva thread on this forum. JHV might not be liked by a lot of you but you have to admit anything that he has put his fingers or thoughts on has brought out numerous posters and all kinds of points of views.

He threw a slant at me but I didn't take it personal or thought about it being malicious. I personally would love to see him come back but how in the world do you contain that kinda energy..you can't so it would be somewhat chaining him into what we perceive is the right or wrong way to post something. I agree that some of what he said was harsh but to ban him to me was wrong and that is my opinion.

JHV seems to have knowlegle and intellect but apparently lacks the ability to color within the lines. Maybe welcoming him back would offer him a chance for personal growth?

 

[RobWin]

Jeezus Krist people, what are you guys missing here regarding JHV??

The kid has been banned not once, not twice, but THREE (3) times now already and you peeps want to give this guy another chance here even though the last two (2) chances Bryan gave him obviously didn't work out for him either!

I don't get your logic here wanting this kid back, someone please enlighten me to your train of thought on that.

Have you guys totally missed the fact that this was his third (3rd) time of being banned from the forum here...WTF!!

Why not go ahead and allow Lojo back as well and all of his drunken rants, even though I liked Lojo, is that what type of forum you guys really want here??
____
____

 

[bryand]

OK, I vote for Lojo to be reinstated too Funniest guy ever.

 

[RobWin]

OK, I vote for Lojo to be reinstated too Funniest guy ever.

Lojo was funny but tim5ny was funnier, so lets allow him back as well. I know of at least one person here that would just love to see tim5ny come back on here. Oh and I'm sure some of the other ladies too would love to see tim5ny come back!
____
____

 

[4 of a kind]

I don't get your logic here wanting this kid back, someone please enlighten me to your train of thought on that.

I agree that JHV could have been softer on his approach, and does show signs of arrogance. But most of his points regardless of the delivery are insightful, and obvious from a great deal of gambling experience.

Yet, some people here just love to fire him up. Take your first post for example on this thread. You didn't once mention the actual content in question in OP. Several times JHV tried to persuade posters to stay on topic, but that didn't happen till he was banned.

We could only express our opinions while the final decision rests with Brian. And from what I gather it's a done deal.

 

[RobWin]

I agree that JHV could have been softer on his approach, and does show signs of arrogance. But most of his points regardless of the delivery are insightful, and obvious from a great deal of gambling experience.

Yea, like this very insightful thread of posts he made here maybe...

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/jhv-the-movie.32810/

I especially like this line in his first post in that thread where he said...

" Through decades of experience dealing with people who lack the intelligence to read "

Decades of experience?? The kid is 28 years old for crying out loud!!

Yet, some people here just love to fire him up.

Or egg him on like I think you did with your first post in that thread here...

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/jhv-the-movie.32810/

Take your first post for example on this thread. You didn't once mention the actual content in question in OP.

You are correct and the reason I did not was because I was quoting Bryan but I did address it later with him several times but he never could give a direct answer to any of the questions that I or Jetset asked of him, all he wanted to do was flame KK.

Several times JHV tried to persuade posters to stay on topic, but that didn't happen till he was banned.

JHV could not even stay on topic himself. He continued to flame even after he was warned.
____
____

 

[chuchu59]

TBH, I would vouch for welcoming back Kakata instead of JHV. At least he speaks his mind and would not use his intelligence to try to manipulate others.

 

[bryand]

TBH, I would vouch for welcoming back Kakata instead of JHV. At least he speaks his mind and would not use his intelligence to try to manipulate others.

Ahhhh, what good times I remember when Lojo, Tim and Kakata were active on this forum. It is a real shame all 3 had to break the rules and get banned.

Pardon the derail.

 

[gloria460]

Jeezus Krist people, what are you guys missing here regarding JHV??

The kid has been banned not once, not twice, but THREE (3) times now already and you peeps want to give this guy another chance here even though the last two (2) chances Bryan gave him obviously didn't work out for him either!

I don't get your logic here wanting this kid back, someone please enlighten me to your train of thought on that.

Have you guys totally missed the fact that this was his third (3rd) time of being banned from the forum here...WTF!!

Why not go ahead and allow Lojo back as well and all of his drunken rants, even though I liked Lojo, is that what type of forum you guys really want here??
____
____

I don't know those other two and I certainly didn't know he was banned three times but I do know he wasn't liked and every freaking word he said was scrutinized and sometimes he was provoked..hell I'm not taking up for his choice of language but I'm also not blind to what I read from other posters.

 

[suzecat]

I agree that JHV could have been softer on his approach, and does show signs of arrogance. But most of his points regardless of the delivery are insightful, and obvious from a great deal of gambling experience.

Yet, some people here just love to fire him up. Take your first post for example on this thread. You didn't once mention the actual content in question in OP. Several times JHV tried to persuade posters to stay on topic, but that didn't happen till he was banned.

We could only express our opinions while the final decision rests with Brian. And from what I gather it's a done deal.

Bryan?

 

[maxd]

... he wasn't liked and every freaking word he said was scrutinized ....

Lest there happens to be the impression that the lad was unfairly singled out for 'dislike' and 'scrutiny' I'd like to point out that as a moderator a significant part on one's job is to identify and keep an eye on the troublemakers. That's basically the job description of any policing and enforcement activity be it on the forums, in the streets or wherever.

It's exceedingly rare indeed where someone is singled out for such surveillance without having first done something to warrant it. We do have other things to do.

In the case at hand he not only required constant surveillance he actually went around provoking us by knowingly and repeatedly violating the Forum Rules. If that doesn't qualify that person as someone deserving scrutiny and being disliked for what they get up to I don't know what does or would.

At the risk of belaboring the point they're called 'troublemakers' because they make trouble.

 

[jetset]

I think some of the posters here are confusing "personal vendetta" and "past history" with a simple dislike for perceived arrogance and deliberate discourtesy.

The OP may well have had a valid argument on KK's personal strategy and whether it constitutes a danger to others, but does that entitle him to ambush another member of the forum with abrasive posts that belittle, insult and badger - in this case specifically KK?

I don't believe it does, and imo (and we all clearly have opinions on this) there were far better ways in which he could have broached the matter.

Sometimes, as others have frequently commented here, we need to carefully consider the words we have committed to writing before we hit the 'submit' button. And the OP's command of the language suggests that he knew exactly what he was doing when he launched his attack.

In the event, he chose a style which in my opinion - opinion again - was designed to not only belittle KK and his ideas, but to bolster his image of himself as a "cleverer (and definitely holier) than thou" poster here.

I don't hold any particular brief for KK or his system, and I have no disagreement with a decent debate or discussion on its pros and cons - as this thread turned out to be once it settled down....but by the same token I believe that the motivation and method the OP chose to drive his agenda were part and parcel of the thread, and therefore fair game.

Regarding reinstatement, the OP has on three occasions now demonstrated his disdain for self-discipline, brushing aside mod cautions and pushing his luck in what appears at times to be a desire to be banned. Maybe he craves notoriety, feels he can prevail or just can't help himself - who knows?

But if we all ignored the commonly accepted standards of conduct which have made this forum one of the most balanced, informative and successful in the industry, it would be devalued. That would be a real pity in my view.

The forum has prospered despite the disruptions of a few others with a similar disregard for the basics here, and it will continue to do so.

When a member is banned here it is only after repeated warnings and continued indiscipline...and I guess there will always be members who oppose a ban for what they consider to be valid reasons.

It's their right to say so, but this is the 'Meister's house and livlihood, and the call is rightfully his as he strives to maintain the forum's success.

 

[maxd]

I too am in favor of reinstating OP as a member of this forum based on the content of his posts.

If a guy comes into your house, abuses your family, breaks your valuables and craps on the carpet but happens to make good pancakes every now and again you soon realize that a little skill at the grittle just isn't [strike]work[/strike] worth the hassle.

Bottom line: what one contributes to a forum has to be taken as a whole, the good stuff and the bad stuff. If the bad outweighs the good then they've gotta go, simple as that. Yes, you lose a little something by giving them the heave-ho but not as much as you'd lose if you didn't.

OK, I vote for Lojo to be reinstated too Funniest guy ever.

Maybe, but also a nutcase and a nightmare insofar as the forums were concerned. Sorry, 'funny' only gives you so many passes before it just isn't so funny anymore.

Frankly I don't get where you're coming from with this stuff. It's like you're saying "I liked him, giggled at his jokes, whatever" so tough shit if he messed things up on the boards and didn't give a toss for the Rules. WTF???

 

[paulyt]

I used to be a moderator at a large general discussion forum (livingwithstyle, not around any more but some people here may have heard of it) We had lots of people like the OP who would sign up again and again after being banned just to start trouble. They love the attention and notoriety.

We used to allow some of them back from time to time because they were quite witty and entertaining but soon or later (normally sooner) they would go straight back to constant trolling and starting trouble just for the sake of it.

For the members these sorts of posters are fun and entertaining (unless they have a personal agenda against you), for moderators they are a nightmare.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

Max I can see why you have come to that conclusion about JHV, that the bad outweighs the good. But as a visitor here in terms of content I rate him in the top five posters here so for me I have an opposite conclusion.

I have also exchanged a few PM's with JHV and he was always very helpful and generous with his replies.

Would you ban john Daly from golf?

Just a different angle.

 

[3Dice]

Hiya guys,

It is painfully obvious that JHV had set out to be banned. But, it wasn't over the maths issue - nor over KK (who's a very nice person btw) - it was over something totally different that up to this point has been completely overlooked.

Now I said I had told myself I wasn't gonna get involved in this thread at all - and I stepped in only to clear the maths - but I would feel sorry for JHV if what he was trying to question now completely gets ignored. I'll be biting my fingernails and fingers not to respond to this again, but I hope for JHV that someone notices what he was really trying to say.

Also, JHV would be dissapointed if he wouldn't be banned over this. All rude people should be banned. I'm confident he feels the same way.

Cheers,

Enzo

 

[RobWin]

Hiya guys,

It is painfully obvious that JHV had set out to be banned. But, it wasn't over the maths issue - nor over KK (who's a very nice person btw) - it was over something totally different that up to this point has been completely overlooked.

Please enlighten us here Enzo?

Now I said I had told myself I wasn't gonna get involved in this thread at all - and I stepped in only to clear the maths - but I would feel sorry for JHV if what he was trying to question now completely gets ignored. I'll be biting my fingernails and fingers not to respond to this again, but I hope for JHV that someone notices what he was really trying to say.

Again, please enlighten us, although I have a fairly good idea what you are hinting at but since you were the one to bring it up and all..

Also, JHV would be dissapointed if he wouldn't be banned over this.
Cheers,

Enzo

I'm not sure that I agree with you on that one though.
____
____

 

[paulyt]

:eat:

 

[gloria460]

In the case at hand he not only required constant surveillance he actually went around provoking us by knowingly and repeatedly violating the Forum Rules. If that doesn't qualify that person as someone deserving scrutiny and being disliked for what they get up to I don't know what does or would.

At the risk of belaboring the point they're called 'troublemakers' because they make trouble.

I can't argue with you there and I won't even try but there is more to this guy than meets the eye and I'll leave it alone.

Hiya guys,


Now I said I had told myself I wasn't gonna get involved in this thread at all - and I stepped in only to clear the maths - but I would feel sorry for JHV if what he was trying to question now completely gets ignored. I'll be biting my fingernails and fingers not to respond to this again, but I hope for JHV that someone notices what he was really trying to say.
Bingo and it's not me agreeing with that statement it's pretty much what he said in his email.
Also, JHV would be dissapointed if he wouldn't be banned over this. All rude people should be banned. I'm confident he feels the same way.

Cheers,

Enzo

He didn't think he was going to get banned and ok I said I would leave it alone ) "Maybe when people agree that I occasionally have a point " Ooops I do have one more thing to add..for those of you that wanted to know what his website looked like or whatever it's actually very nice and professional... There's a forum but I didn't see any post from him and actually I don't know if that's his forum or not..I think he just contributes there as a blogger..Rob you're right...he's grown but he looks so young.

 

[KasinoKing]

Sad I know, but I've been thinking about this puzzle most of the weekend.
Previously I finally agreed with Enzo, but now I'm doing a complete U-turn and will prove him wrong!

It wasn't a trick question - it was a trick answer!

Say I have a closed bag with in it two colored chips. One is red on two sides, and the other is green on one side and red on the other. I take one chip out of the bag and show you one side. You see red. What are the odds that I picked the chip with the green ?

I'm sorry KK. The pick is totally blind and random.
yet the answer is NOT 1/2.
and its NOT 1/4.

How is

"what are the odds that I picked the chip with the green"

different from

"what are the odds that the backside of this chip I picked, which I have not yet shown you the backside of is the one green side from the remaining three sides you didn't see ?"

Jasmine ?

The answer is 1/3, I was very careful in how I posed the question. There is no room for discussion. The answer is 1/3.

OK, so the answer was that there were 4 "sides" in the bag; 3 Red and 1 Green.
You pick 2 sides from the bag (1 chip) and show 1 side is Red.
The answer therefore states that of the 3 sides you haven't seen, one is Green, so the odds of any of those sides being Green is 1 in 3. That is true.

But what Enzo seems to have missed (deliberately?) is that it was not 4 individual sides in the bag, but 2 pairs - joined together by being on one chip.
So although you have only seen 1 Red side, you also know without seeing it that there is another Red side still in the bag, since at least one side of both chips is red.
So now you know there is one Red in Enzo's hand and one Red in the bag.
That only leaves 2 unknown sides - one Red and one Green. One in the bag & one in the hand.
Therefore the odds that Enzo picked the Green-sided chip is 1/2.

There is no room for discussion. The answer is 1/2

KK

 

[gloria460]

KK it is 1-in-3...you are thinking after the fact...what are the odds that I picked the chip with the green You don't count the red side if he ask what are the odds of picking the green side. sides is the key word not amount.

 

[Jufo]

So now you know there is one Red in Enzo's hand and one Red in the bag.
That only leaves 2 unknown sides - one Red and one Green. One in the bag & one in the hand.
Therefore the odds that Enzo picked the Green-sided chip is 1/2.

There is no room for discussion. The answer is 1/2

Even though there are only two possibilities they are not equally likely. If you see a red side, it is more likely that it belongs to a RED-RED chip than RED-GREEN chip.

If you still don't believe that the answer is 2/3, why don't you do an experiment? Take two pieces or paper and write RED-RED to both sides of first paper and RED-GREEN to both sides of second paper. Then pick one paper at random, if you see GREEN then pick again. When you see RED, guess what reads on the other side of paper and you will eventually see that 2/3 of the time the other side reads RED.

Here's another one:

"I have two children. One of them is called John. What are the odds that I have two boys?"

 

[RobWin]

Even though there are only two possibilities they are not equally likely. If you see a red side, it is more likely that it belongs to a RED-RED chip than RED-GREEN chip.

How about this one:

"I have two children. One of them is a boy. What are the odds that the other one is a boy as well?"

0% Chance since you already stated that one of them is a boy but the odds that the other one is a girl are 100%!
____
____

 

[Jufo]

0% Chance since you already stated that one of them is a boy but the odds that the other one is a girl are 100%!

Hmph I rephrased the question now...

 

[RobWin]

Hmph I rephrased the question now...

LOL..., good move..the other way was too easy, I won't play no more, I'll let KK answer..
____
____

 

[3Dice]

But what Enzo seems to have missed (deliberately?) is that it was not 4 individual sides in the bag, but 2 pairs - joined together by being on one chip. So although you have only seen 1 Red side, you also know without seeing it that there is another Red side still in the bag, since at least one side of both chips is red. So now you know there is one Red in Enzo's hand and one Red in the bag. That only leaves 2 unknown sides - one Red and one Green. One in the bag & one in the hand. Therefore the odds that Enzo picked the Green-sided chip is 1/2.

There is no room for discussion. The answer is 1/2

KK

{Edit} Actually, the bit about them being 2 sides on one chip is irrelevant - even if it were 4 separate items and he pulled out any 2 you would still know for sure that at least one of the 2 in the bag were Red, so the answer is still the same.

KK,

I think you need another shave . Lets rephrase the question. Instead of using chips and sides lets just use 4 marbles, 3 red ones, 1 green. Now surely you are not to claim there's a difference between pulling out two marbles at random in one time, or pulling out two marbles, at random, one after another.

In the chip example you pull out two marbles at once and only show one (= pick random chip, show side ..). But imagine you just picking out one marble, its red. Now guess the odds the next pick will be green.

There's three marbles left, so obviously the odds are now 1/3. Ok, we pick out a new random marble but don't look at it yet. Now we know at least one of the marbles left is red .. that doesn't exactly make the odds we picked the green one out 1/2 ... (which is what you claim now ..)

There's no trick KK, not in the question and not in the answer.

Cheers,

Enzo

 

[Zoozie]

I have another explanation for KK.
Let R1,R2 denote the two red sides on coin #1, and let R3,G1 denote the red and green side on coin #2.
Taking a coin at random and showing a side at random can result in 4 outcomes each with equal probability:

R1
R2
R3
G1

But the G1 possiblity is excluded since it was given that this event had not happened!

So we now only have 3 outcomes left with equal probability (R1,R2 and R3). And only in 1 of them (R3) will the other side be green! So probability is 1/3.

If you still doubt it simply find 2 coins and mark one of the sides. Then draw a coin and side at random and write down the outcome. Repeat 50 times

Learning Bayers Theorem will come in handy in many situations and it is not hard to use.

 

[4 of a kind]

What is the point everyone is trying to make here with all these explanations for the same answer?

Are you trying to prove someone is slow?

 

[just play]

What is the point everyone is trying to make here with all these explanations for the same answer?

Are you trying to prove someone is slow?

Isn't that how men are? Trying to "one up" all the time?





*runs fast out the door*

 

[bryand]

If a guy comes into your house, abuses your family, breaks your valuables and craps on the carpet but happens to make good pancakes every now and again you soon realize that a little skill at the grittle just isn't work the hassle.

Bottom line: what one contributes to a forum has to be taken as a whole, the good stuff and the bad stuff. If the bad outweighs the good then they've gotta go, simple as that. Yes, you lose a little something by giving them the heave-ho but not as much as you'd lose if you didn't.



Maybe, but also a nutcase and a nightmare insofar as the forums were concerned. Sorry, 'funny' only gives you so many passes before it just isn't so funny anymore.

Frankly I don't get where you're coming from with this stuff. It's like you're saying "I liked him, giggled at his jokes, whatever" so tough shit if he messed things up on the boards and didn't give a toss for the Rules. WTF???

When I posted to reinstate JHV I didn't realize he had been banned twice before. The comments about Lojo and Tim were merely bantering between Rob and I. We all knew the problems caused by Lojo and Tim and I never intended the post to be serious. For the record I respect the decisions of the moderators of this forum and apologize for derailing the post.

 

[zanzibar]

So here is another problem... you're playing Deal or No Deal. There's 20 suitcases with values ranging from 1 cent to $1 million in them. You choose suitcase #1 at the start then randomly eliminate the others one at a time until you have two left: suitcase #1 and suitcase #20. You know one of them contains $1m and the other contains 1c. Which one do you choose and why?

No-one bit so I'll give the answer and if you want to know the maths behind it let me know and I will share.

It's different to the monty hall problem because the intervening suitcases are chosen at random. This means in the final choice, it does not matter if you switch suitcases - your chances are exactly 50/50.

 

[Jasminebed]

I'd take the Banker's offer, even if $400,000. Not like I would risk $400,000 to win a million, I don't have the bankroll or the balls for it. Even if 50/50.

 

[CasinoKidd]

No-one bit so I'll give the answer and if you want to know the maths behind it let me know and I will share.

It's different to the monty hall problem because the intervening suitcases are chosen at random. This means in the final choice, it does not matter if you switch suitcases - your chances are exactly 50/50.

I are confused.

I was thinking about this, then compared it to the mathmatical situation in the movie "21". Wouldn't you stick with your case if it got you this far? Erh, I know I'm not good at maths, and probably don't understand the "21" situation anyways.

BTW KK, I think your site is wonderful and don't have a bad word to say about it.

 

[bryand]

Hiya guys,

It is painfully obvious that JHV had set out to be banned. But, it wasn't over the maths issue - nor over KK (who's a very nice person btw) - it was over something totally different that up to this point has been completely overlooked.

Now I said I had told myself I wasn't gonna get involved in this thread at all - and I stepped in only to clear the maths - but I would feel sorry for JHV if what he was trying to question now completely gets ignored. I'll be biting my fingernails and fingers not to respond to this again, but I hope for JHV that someone notices what he was really trying to say.

Also, JHV would be dissapointed if he wouldn't be banned over this. All rude people should be banned. I'm confident he feels the same way.

Cheers,

Enzo

"My issue here is that CasinoMeister forum is supposed to be a haven from scams, deceit and unethical business practice."

 

[jetset]

The quest for a gambling Utopia - idealistic and commendable but unfortunately not easy of achievement in the real world where some proof of wrongdoing is usually necessary to be fair, agendas have to be watched carefully and there are nasties and pitfalls around every corner - and I mean everywhere.

And with so many interesting albeit diverse opinions on a wide-ranging portal like this.

Flagging what a poster thinks may be a cause for ejection or pillory and actually investigating the issue and making a fair and balanced decision are two disparate activities with different levels of responsibility. And the mods and webmaster here in the meantime have to continue the daily grind of resolving PABs, finding new content and entertainment for us all, dealing with techie glitches and marketing issues, making their own contributions, seeing off spammers and charlatans....and dealing with posters who choose repeatedly to troll.

Generally speaking, I think Max, Dave and Bryan do a damn fine job here as they strive for the perfection that is so easily demanded but harder to achieve.

 

[Deeplay]

Damn I have been following this thread or trying to. Its just 1 persons views on what works best for him its hardly rocket science but niether is it harmfull. Chill pills I think. I enjoy reading KKs site and following his ups n downs and somtimes have looked at the stratergy win some / loose some. I enjoy his site no I dont work for him - and yep I think it has some usfull and informative info. thats the great thing about the net - you get a chance to shop around on any subject and digest the info that appeals to you. If it dont move on

 

[suzecat]

Damn I have been following this thread or trying to. Its just 1 persons views on what works best for him its hardly rocket science but niether is it harmfull. Chill pills I think. I enjoy reading KKs site and following his ups n downs and somtimes have looked at the stratergy win some / loose some. I enjoy his site no I dont work for him - and yep I think it has some usfull and informative info. thats the great thing about the net - you get a chance to shop around on any subject and digest the info that appeals to you. If it dont move on

We're all adults here with the ability to consider and reject or accept whatever pleases us. It is just tiresome to read threads such as the first part of this one where, yet again, a self-appointed brainiac thinks they could do a better job of this site than those who have already proven their success! Geesh Bryan, Max and Dave, I could never do your jobs ........ and keep my teeth and other body parts, in tact:notworthy

 

[The Dude]

A big thank you to everyone here getting this thread back on track. When the thread was initiated, I thought - great thread - bad delivery.

For those who want to give their thoughts on banning policies, please feel free to create thread(s) here:

If it's a suggestion:
Link Outdated / Removed

If it's a specific question (for ex: why was so and so banned? etc)
Link Outdated / Removed

For the record, JHV's account was suspended at least twice before the final permanent suspension. This is all a matter of public (CM public) record - no hidden agendas or favoritism/dislike. IMO, it was justified banning.

But like any membership ban or forum policy, if you want to debate this elsewhere I won't stop you.

 

[dendrite]

Hi Enzo,

You really started a great debate with your 'chips out the bag question'!

Got to say, when I first read your question, I immediately came up with the 1/3 answer and thought the question was a bit rubbish (i.e. too obvious). I thought it would be followed by a string of people telling you the 1/3 answer and asking for a more difficult one...

I really didn't expect so many people to be confused by it and coming up with a 1/2 answer!

But then it got me thinking back to my days in academia, the statisticians I worked with and more importantly, the fact that statistics is very very different from mathematics

It might seem incredible, but there really are people out there with PhDs in Mathematics that would struggle with the conceptual thinking required to solve statistical puzzles like this in their head. Indeed, I even know people with degrees in Statistics that struggle to solve puzzles like this without using a formula (most statisticians rely on formulas to solve puzzles, rather than understanding the concepts involved intuitively). The professional statisticians nearly all work like this, using formulas, rather than imagining and visualizing the concepts involved

The reason people struggle (apparently), is that to be able to solve these puzzles without using a formula takes another skill that might not be obvious. It is a skill associated with abstract thinking, that is very difficult to teach. You don't need any mathematical qualification to have it, luckily

You obviously have this skill. It's quite a rare skill. It's not 'hens teeth' rare, but nonetheless, an ability that doesn't come naturally to most people

All good stuff, keep the puzzles coming!

You could even create an 'enzo's puzzles' section! (of course, this would mean you would have to give up your day job to explain the answers!!)

 

[bryand]

We're all adults here with the ability to consider and reject or accept whatever pleases us. It is just tiresome to read threads such as the first part of this one where, yet again, a self-appointed brainiac thinks they could do a better job of this site than those who have already proven their success! Geesh Bryan, Max and Dave, I could never do your jobs ........ and keep my teeth and other body parts, in tact:notworthy

It is well established that Casinomeister is the gold standard by which all other gambling-related websites are compared. This means by nature it will be picked on and called out more than others. Whether JHV was trying to take a shot at CM or KK, simply promote his own site or some other motivation (apparently only Enzo knows for sure ) it seems clear that he chose to pick his fight with maximum exposure.

 

[The Dude]

Just so you know...

...I've been revisiting this issue(s) throughout the day - some meaty stuff. I just wanted to ensure everyone that I am looking at some possible ideas that should effectively deal with this. Thanks for your patience.

 

[RobWin]

Just so you know...

...I've been revisiting this issue(s) throughout the day - some meaty stuff. I just wanted to ensure everyone that I am looking at some possible ideas that should effectively deal with this. Thanks for your patience.

Damn, now you are alluding as Enzo did and never explained what exactly he was in fact alluding to. Can you please be a little more direct or specific on what exactly the issue(s) is/are?

And also what you mean by "effectively deal with this"...what exactly is "this"?
____
____

 

[jod5413]

Damn, now you are alluding as Enzo did and never explained what exactly he was in fact alluding to. Can you please be a little more direct or specific on what exactly the issue(s) is/are?

And also what you mean by "effectively deal with this"...what exactly is "this"?
____
____

Ditto for me, Rob!

 

[zanzibar]

I are confused.

I was thinking about this, then compared it to the mathmatical situation in the movie "21". Wouldn't you stick with your case if it got you this far? Erh, I know I'm not good at maths, and probably don't understand the "21" situation anyways.

Hmm I can't remember much about the 21 movie other than it was crap and contained some very bad blackjack advice heheh. But I think they talked about the Monty Hall problem and I think they did not give complete information i.e. the show host knows which door the prize is behind and he always picks a losing door for you, which is critical to the answer to the problem. Again I am not sure as my memory of that movie isn't the best.

As for the Deal or No Deal cases, when you first picked it was very unlikely that you picked the million dollar case i.e. 1/20.

So therefore the chance that you didn't pick the million was 19/20.

Then, when you go through and randomly eliminate another 18 cases, it turns out to be very unlikely that you would have eliminated everything other than the million dollar case.
Mathematically its (18/19) * (17/18) * (16/17) .... * (1/2) = 1/19.

So the total chance that swapping gives you the million is 19/20 * 1/19 which is exactly 1/20.

So you end up with 2 cases with a 1/20 chance of being picked - thus the choice is 50/50. Good luck if you ever get in that situation!

 

[jetset]

Damn, now you are alluding as Enzo did and never explained what exactly he was in fact alluding to. Can you please be a little more direct or specific on what exactly the issue(s) is/are?

And also what you mean by "effectively deal with this"...what exactly is "this"?
____
____

I agree.

IMO Bryan did a good job of summing up one issue in this thread when he said with an admirable economy of words: "great thread - bad delivery."

 

[est129]

Good morning friends,

I've read the whole thread from the beggining (took me some hour lol) but i cannot understand JUV's attack.

Slots are fun , every one of us has a good or bad point about gambling. Others play a lot others a little, others doesn't play.

If you believe you can win, just play and have fun. If you not, don't play. What's the meaning of his attack after as he said 'he lost a lot of money'?

I've lost some money many times to online casinos but i'm not going everywhere to start harrasing and filling up a forum with annoying phrashes to other members. It's just luck, other times you will win other not. If you can't control your gambling needs, then stop it.

Oh and as another friend said, it's GSOS guys!

 

[The Dude]

New Signature Guidelines

Damn, now you are alluding as Enzo did and never explained what exactly he was in fact alluding to. Can you please be a little more direct or specific on what exactly the issue(s) is/are?

And also what you mean by "effectively deal with this"...what exactly is "this"?
____
____

Obviously there is a problem here - with every problem there should be a solution. KK is promoting a site that claims to have a system or strategy and this system seems to be flawed. I know KK, and I don't think he'd would ever intentionally deceive people. But his system won't beat the house, it never will. It may make your bankroll last longer - but in the end the house wins - always.

JHV is right when he brings up the fact that this site - Casinomeister - needs to uphold certain standards and should be a safe haven for players. I agree - and webmasters should not be using this site to market anything questionable or unethical. So from this point on, there will new guidelines in place for signature links.

As we know, only senior members and above are allowed to have URLs (these aren't only for Webmeisters btw) - these rules are applicable for all:

4.2 - Content Restrictions: If you list URLs, please do not post any ad-copy or advertisial language. The text may not be deceptive. It must be one color and not have more than VB +2 font size.

4.3 - Pseudo Signatures Members who post "pseudo" signatures (fake signatures) will have them removed. These members will be spanked. Don't do it.

4.4 - Linked Websites The linked pages must not advertise casinos listed in the Rogue Pit. If Casinomeister subsequently rogues a casino, a webmaster is not obligated to remove that casino but will consider its positioning.

Strategy and System pages must not claim or imply that a player can beat a game with a house edge with this system or strategy. This refers to the Casinomeister Philosophy that all systems are bogus.

The websites linked via the signatures will not have any content that can be considered "offensive" (see rule 1.5). Linked-to sites must display ethical behavior. If members find questionable links, please contact Linkmeister Simmo! who will review the site.

As for slotbeaters.com, I have to say it does not meet the sig standards. The name itself implies that slots can be beat - they can't. So this needs to be removed. Thanks!

Simmo! will also be the one moderating the sigs btw.

It's a shame that JHV chose the "flame" route after being warned in the past not to. As I mentioned a bit earlier "great thread - bad delivery". He was working on a third strike - and my tolerance was nil when it came to his delivery - which yes, was troll-like. But other members let their emotions get the better of them as well - so I'm re-instating his account with the understanding that he will abide by our expectations.

Is there anything else, or did I miss something?

 

[hushda24]

Well no one cant say you aint a fair man casinomeister
I am impressed with this outcome