Offer to Fa La La La La.... La la la la: Results (5th card flip)

[seagreen33]

According to the author of the challenge, in their own words, and I quote,
 
"Even though this session would not be conclusive, I think it would be an interesting endeavor........................."
 
So, it was an interesting, inconclusive endeavor.
 
That's all it was. 

[New2vp]

According to the author of the challenge, in their own words, and I quote,
 
"Even though this session would not be conclusive, I think it would be an interesting endeavor........................."
 
So, it was an interesting, inconclusive endeavor.
 
That's all it was. Welcome to the forum.I can't speak for Webman, he may have thought that the results would not be conclusive.  Certainly, truth would never stand in the way of a Fa La La La La.... La la la la claim, so nothing would ever be conclusive per his definition.  But what would a rational disinterested third party consider conclusive?I don't know what dog you have in this hunt, but if you were a Fa La La La La.... La la la la
supporter and unwilling to admit to his failure, I can understand why
you would be embarrassed and be willing to say anything to make this
experiment go away.
Nevertheless, it is time to broaden your horizons beyond quoting others' prose and examining that which is quantifiable.  The statistics here are not difficult to comprehend.  The odds of obtaining 11 or fewer 5th card flipovers out of 180 trials if the true rate
were actually as high as 40% are about  5,681,029,479,728,847,156,766,976.46944 to 1.  I have seen very few experiments that were more conclusive than this in suggesting that there is essentially no possibility that the flipover rate was anywhere near 40%.   I earlier suggested that it was 300,000 times more likely that the next three attempts at a single-line vp game
would each result in dealt spade royal flushes.  When you have accomplished this feat 300,000 times, come back and post that achieving such odds is possible in a single lifetime.   Otherwise, live with the results or explain them.  I've previously posted in this thread how you can check my calculations.  Just copy and enter the symbols between the quotes in the formula bar of any cell in an Excel spreadsheet "=1/BINOMDIST(11,180,0.40,1)" and you will see something close to the number indicated above.  With a little effort, I think you could see the pertinence of each of the entries in the above formula even if you had never used it before.I fully understand that neither Fa La La La La.... La la la la nor you must have understood the ramifications of what he was doing or he would not have agreed to meet and go through this humiliating defeat of his now defenseless claim.  It is clear that he is trying to change the subject to the fact that he actually showed up.  Although it is important to make it to class or work, the real product is what you do once you're there.  And what Webman and he did was to totally undermine Fa La La La La.... La la la la's claims.You may not call these results conclusive, but whether you change your print to italics, bold, or even larger font size, it's undeniably clear that the numbers indicate that the prior unaudited claims were unfounded and not repeatable by a reputable disinterested party.Does this have to be spelled out further?  The reason that these 180 observations are more conclusive than the 40000 attempts quoted by Fa La La La La.... La la la la is that the 180 observations were verified by an outside party and the 40,000 were not.  At this point, there is considerable evidence to confirm the suspicion that the 40,000 repetitions were simply made up.Why do you believe at this point that the 40,000 repetitions were bona fide?  Where did you come from and why is this thread the only one you are interested in?  If you have more information about Webman's and Fa La La La La.... La la la la's experiment or the other 40,000 repetitions, enlighten us.

[faygo]

new2vp, methinks someone was just handed a new one and deservedly so.  

[cddenver]

So, it was an interesting, inconclusive endeavor.
 
That's all it was. 
 
Support that statement!  The test was certainly conclusive enough to show that his claim of a 40% flip rate is a fabrication, probably just a simple attention-getting device.  New2vp has gone through the math on that twice that I know of.  RS's waffling and backsliding since then on the issue shows that he knows how damaging it was to him, so you should take the results seriously as well.  He showed no such uncertainty before the test. 
 
The test also showed the importance of checking up on RS's claims.  If it hadn't been conducted he would still be claiming that all machines are rigged, whereas now he's had to back off on that.  So hopefully he won't do too much complaining in the future about people questioning his claims, good can come out of it.   From the last sentence of his recent e-letter it's still unclear whether he feels that the machines are rigged (intentionally set to be unrandom), whether they're flawed (unintentionally unrandom), or whether they meet regulatory standards but fail the TFT test (Trans-Fat Theory) for randomness.  That's on draws of course, currently we all agree that deals are random.  Since the beginning of the year he's "flip"-flopped several times on what he believes the cause is.  There's an old saying about a moving target being harder to hit, I hope he decides soon to hang his hat on one of those three scenarios.  It would make rebuttals a little easier.
 
I'm sure he's wished many times since this all started that he'd put a little more thought into the specifics of his virtual experiment before writing about it.   In several of our threads on the subject we pointed out how unlikely it would be for casinos to implement such a clumsy gaff and offered several suggestions for less detectable ones.  The next time he invents a theory like this he should come here first for some better ideas. 
 
He's opened the door to several different escape routes; it will be interesting to see which one he settles on to extricate himself from the whole mess.   

[oej719]

I conclude that rs does not have the bankroll to play or test any far out ideas that he dreams up.
The man is broke as in busted-- bankrupt.
Look at his photo from webman, skid row material.

[seagreen33]

[QUOTE=seagreen33]According to the author of the challenge, in their own words, and I quote,
 
"Even though this session would not be conclusive, I think it would be an interesting endeavor........................."
 
So, it was an interesting, inconclusive endeavor.
 
That's all it was. 

Welcome to the forum.

I can't speak for Webman, he may have thought that the results would not be conclusive.  Certainly, truth would never stand in the way of a Fa La La La La.... La la la la claim, so nothing would ever be conclusive per his definition.  But what would a rational disinterested third party consider conclusive?

I don't know what dog you have in this hunt, but if you were a Fa La La La La.... La la la la supporter and unwilling to admit to his failure, I can understand why you would be embarrassed and be willing to say anything to make this experiment go away.

Nevertheless, it is time to broaden your horizons beyond quoting others' prose and examining that which is quantifiable.  The statistics here are not difficult to comprehend.  The odds of obtaining 11 or fewer 5th card flipovers out of 180 trials if the true rate were actually as high as 40% are about  5,681,029,479,728,847,156,766,976.46944 to 1.  I have seen very few experiments that were more conclusive than this in suggesting that there is essentially no possibility that the flipover rate was anywhere near 40%.  

I earlier suggested that it was 300,000 times more likely that the next three attempts at a single-line vp game would each result in dealt spade royal flushes.  When you have accomplished this feat 300,000 times, come back and post that achieving such odds is possible in a single lifetime.   Otherwise, live with the results or explain them.  I've previously posted in this thread how you can check my calculations.  Just copy and enter the symbols between the quotes in the formula bar of any cell in an Excel spreadsheet "=1/BINOMDIST(11,180,0.40,1)" and you will see something close to the number indicated above.  With a little effort, I think you could see the pertinence of each of the entries in the above formula even if you had never used it before.

I fully understand that neither Fa La La La La.... La la la la nor you must have understood the ramifications of what he was doing or he would not have agreed to meet and go through this humiliating defeat of his now defenseless claim.  It is clear that he is trying to change the subject to the fact that he actually showed up.  Although it is important to make it to class or work, the real product is what you do once you're there.  And what Webman and he did was to totally undermine Fa La La La La.... La la la la's claims.

You may not call these results conclusive, but whether you change your print to italics, bold, or even larger font size, it's undeniably clear that the numbers indicate that the prior unaudited claims were unfounded and not repeatable by a reputable disinterested party.

Does this have to be spelled out further?  The reason that these 180 observations are more conclusive than the 40000 attempts quoted by Fa La La La La.... La la la la is that the 180 observations were verified by an outside party and the 40,000 were not.  At this point, there is considerable evidence to confirm the suspicion that the 40,000 repetitions were simply made up.

Why do you believe at this point that the 40,000 repetitions were bona fide?  Where did you come from and why is this thread the only one you are interested in?  If you have more information about Webman's and Fa La La La La.... La la la la's experiment or the other 40,000 repetitions, enlighten us.
[/QUOTE]
 
Thank you for the welcome.
 
I hope you don't believe that was is improbable is impossible.

[cddenver]

I hope you don't believe that was is improbable is impossible.
 
It's much more likely that the 40% flip rate is an invention.  The odds of that is a number with 25 or so fewer digits than what New2vp gave for that high flip rate to be true. 

[oej719]

I hope you don't believe that the impossible is probable?
The power of gravity is about to end.
Where is that pianoboy dude?

[royal flush]

learning the truth about vp

[seagreen33]

[QUOTE=seagreen33]
I hope you don't believe that was is improbable is impossible.
 
It's much more likely that the 40% flip rate is an invention.  The odds of that is a number with 25 or so fewer zeroes than what New2vp gave for that high flip rate to be true.  [/QUOTE]
 
Just like to correct my above statement to read:
 
"I hope you don't believe that what is improbable is impossible".
 
It seems my ability to edit my own posts is not presently enabled.