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

[oej719]

No but it is not reasonable to gamble with the thought that the improbable will happen often enough too sustain an addiction, using a flawed strategy. Or to call a game rigged to put blame on ones loss, especially when one has declared bankruptcy(250k+) due to gambling losses using that same flawed strategy, then going into denial that it was due to gambling.
Makes sense to me.

[New2vp]

 
"I hope you don't believe that what is improbable is impossible".
We all know the difference in the two words, but here the difference is so razor-thin that it is insignificant.  We are way beyond what most people believe is an "improbable" assumption.  This is more than just "betting on the underdog."  When the evidence suggests that the odds are more than 5 septillion to 1, one should not reasonably be holding out for that one chance to occur while the 5 septillion chances do not materialize."Dumb and Dumber" was just a movie.  When the pretty girl said that the chances of her hooking up with the protagonist was more like one in a million and the moron said, "So, you're saying there's a chance," the reason people laughed at the line was because it was comedy.  There was not a chance.  And that was a subjective probability.  Presumably the girl knew there was no chance, but a million seemed like a reasonably large number to get her point across.Well here we're talking about odds that are objective rather than subjective and the odds are far worse, less than 1 chance in 5 million million million million.  It's far more likely in a situation like this that the person on the other side simply lied or made up the information.  You're aware that people sometimes lie, aren't you?  Probably more often than 1 in 5 septillion statements, too.  Especially when their very last tenuous shreds of credibility are on the line (although it's possible that ship has already sailed).  I'm going to assume that you are smarter than the fictional character in the movie and you would not be holding out hope against such odds without some additional information.What other set of circumstances that is in question with odds this great would you also believe?  I already asked if you could shed additional light on your reason for advocacy here.  Certainly in the face of this evidence, you wouldn't take the other side without additional information.  Actually, it strains credibility that you would decide to make your first post here in defense of the indefensible unless you had some reason to believe that you were right.  Unless you don't really want to convince others towards your viewpoint, because thus far, I doubt if you have accumulated any converts.  Sorry, unless you have additional evidence, the verdict is in.  It is way, way beyond a reasonable doubt that the 40% flipover rate was simply made up.  At this point the burden of proof, which can only be fulfilled by evidence as transparent as what we saw here, is on Fa La La La La.... La la la la and his supporters.         

[EDC1977]

I hope you don't believe that the impossible is probable?
The power of gravity is about to end.
Where is that pianoboy dude? He's touring the casinos of the world with his idol and Jedi knight rs.

[Eduardo]

This was a great way for Fa La La La La.... La la la la to prove wrong many of his critics, since they are here. It would have really been a great victory and turned a lot of things on their head. But something funny happened.
 
He did prove many of them wrong in actually showing up. Unfortunately showing up doesn't say anything about how to play video poker. It is amazing that he keeps bragging about that.
 
The results of the session demonstrated something very different. It doesn't matter what the original offer was... nobody is analyzing the offer, they are analyzing the results.
 
How he could be "wrong" in 40,000 tries should lead anyone to question anything he's claimed to observe.

[shadowman]

Here's a little thought experiment. What are the odds a local little league team could win a baseball game against the NYY? Would the answer be  ... impossible? I think that is what most people would say, but one could also call it improbable if they didn't understand the situation very well.



 
In the case of 40% hits in 40K hands those who do understand the situation, that is, math and statistics, know that the best word to describe the situation is impossible.

[seagreen33]

Since the author of the original "5th card challenge" clearly, and unequivocally stated in the original challenge that any and all results would be "inconclusive", then, if I still understand the English language, that has to mean that irrespective of any outcome, neither party could claim a win or loss, no matter the outcome.

So, at that point the "challenge" would have NO meaning.

Therefore, the challenge was meaningless on it's merit, but must have served a different purpose as constructed by it's author, who provides a biased platform to discuss this matter.

So why do some people feel anyone won or lost the challenge, when by definition in the challenge's rules, no one could win or lose?

See paragraph 3.

 
 
And see my second post as well. I want to repost these quotes because it is a brilliant, highly intelligent statement made by Webman in his original challenge. He's right 100% to say any results are inconclusive from a mathematical point of view.
 
And since I agree with all sides on this question, I will attempt to provide my reasons for not doubting any unlikely claim and also agreeing with most, if not all, the posts I've read here going way back.
 
Note I've never met, talked with, emailed or corresponded with Webman, Fa La La La La.... La la la la, or any one else here to my best knowledge.
 
Fa La La La La.... La la la la's claims are no less credible because he couldn't prove them. In fact they may be more credible, because they could not be replicated. The only real mystery is why bother to try to replicate something that did happen that was so improbable.
 
Now, anecdotal support. What event which recently occurred in gambling had the odds of 1in 1.56 trillion?
 
Right, so if I had posted that I just achieved this in my house, witnesses or not, would you tell me it didn't happen simply because the odds were 1 in 1.56 trillion? If you told me it didn't happen and that I was a liar, you'd be wrong.
 
Now, the crazy part of the challenge was for anyone to believe it could be replicated, even if in RS's "home trials", he obtained the results he said. That is why Webman's statement regarding inconclusiveness is brilliant.
 
The 1 in 1.56 trillion event I'm speaking of happened May 23 at the Borgata, AC and I guarantee you it happened and cannot be replicated by her again. But would you tell her it didn't happen and she'd have to do it again before you'd believe it happened the first time? Because it can't be replicated.
 
So that is why I didn't understand the challenge. Because what was being challenged was a mathematical improbability not going to repeat.
 
By the way, I of course am referring to the second time craps playing Grandma who rolled 154 times before sevening out, a 1:1.56 trillion event.
 
It happened, but she can't prove it to you by doing it again.

[cddenver]

Fa La La La La.... La la la la's claims are no less credible because he couldn't prove them. In fact they may be more credible, because they could not be replicated. The only real mystery is why bother to try to replicate something that did happen that was so improbable.

 
Now, sea_dude, come on!  Is our favorite expert about to claim that his 40,000 hand sample with 40% flips has just been a one-time extraordinary run on machines operating randomly?  For his own good, please tell him to just stay away from something like that, - run, don't walk! - there are other less far-fetched excuses that he can make.  If you're here to float that theory for him as a sort of trial balloon, tell him that's probably the worst explanation he can give.  I mean, really! 
 
We certainly agree that the run of 40,000 hands with 40% flips can't be duplicated.  But it's not because it was a most highly unusual one-time event, it's because it never happened in the first place.
 

[Eduardo]

[Fa La La La La.... La la la la's claims are no less credible because he couldn't prove them. In fact they may be more credible, because they could not be replicated.

 
Um.. what? If this is the logic you want to present, then I'm not sure there is any point in arguing.  He said these things happen 40% of the time. The fact that he failed to replicate anything close to this proves a lot. You are honestly saying that the ONE time he actually does this in front of someone reputable, he basically wins the lotto, by losing?
 And see my second post as well. I want to repost these quotes because it is a brilliant, highly intelligent statement made by Webman in his original challenge. He's right 100% to say any results are inconclusive from a mathematical point of view.
It's a well known fact around here that Webman is an idiot.
 
 
You go on to talk about 1.56 trillion. Do you know how many zeros are in a trillion? Now look how many zeros are in New2VP's stats on this experiement.
 
You have better odds of a video poker machine laying an egg and hatching a perfectly cooked burrito.

[seagreen33]

actually Eduardo, that happened to me one time, but I can't prove it because it was kinda unusual, but tasty.

[damule]

That 154 roll in craps by Grandma before sevening out was accomplished by a legendary dice controller whose name escapes me at this time. But you could research her and others like her on Frank Scoblete's website, Golden Touch Craps.



 
There is absolutely no comparison here as dice controllers have more of a house edge at craps than the best card counting teams do at blackjack.
 
Besides, I still think the likelihood of Grandma having another 154 roll before sevening out is much more probable than one pulling back to back royals on a single line VP machine, being that she has control of the dice and the vp player has no control over the RNG.