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

[seagreen33]

This is a freakin' broken record.
 
I'd almost rather talk logic in person than over the Wonderful Worldl Wide Web, or talk to a box of rocks.
 
You can't prove or disprove statistical anomalies by trial, but they exist by definition.
 
Is that clear enough?
 
 
Probably not.
 
P.S. Anyone from New Haven or Cambridge care to offer an opinion?
 
Don't worry about it.

[cddenver]

You can't prove or disprove statistical anomalies by trial, but they exist by definition.
 
Is that clear enough?
 
 
Probably not.
 
P.S. Anyone from New Haven or Cambridge care to offer an opinion?
 
Don't worry about it.
 
Excellent!  We're finally getting somewhere.  So, as I see it, the official RS line on the only verified "flip" testing is that it was a statistical anomaly, and that the past and future unverified "flip" testing will be considered the "real" testing.  Excellent!
 
That also clears up the issue of any future impartial tests for "flips".  Ain't gonna be any.  Difficult enough to explain away the results of one test with verifiable results as a statistical anomaly, isn't it?  I don't think even RS would try that one again after 1..or..2..or..3..or..4 additional impartial tests.  Those darn statistical anomalies would just keep adding up!  So, I guess that's a wrap on the possibility of additional verified tests.  SM, please disregard my suggestion to try and "nudge" RS into more actual tests - he ain't gonna let it happen.
 

[New2vp]

Seagreen,In science, tests of hypotheses are performed all the time, including whether or not something is a low-probability event.  If the event has low probability, generally you may need a lot of observations to form a conclusion.  Hypothesis testing of a 40% flipover rate when the true flipover rate is less than 7% does not require a lot of observations because a 40% event is not a low probability event and is quite different from 7%.Seagreen, I agree that this is tiresome but you asked for agreement.  Although I don't believe this contradicts what you've said directly, I couldn't really agree with some of your statements below as you asked without rearranging some of the thoughts.  They may be clear to you, but the Ivy Leaguers that you're appealing to in the post referencing Harvard and Yale may have similar trouble that I had agreeing to the thoughts of yours listed below without clarification.you can't verify a statistical improbability, except on paper.Yes you can replicate what has never happened.I don't think you want to get so immersed in some logical fallacy that it is too difficult to extricate yourself from.  Please note that I'm not asking anything of you here, so you don't have to respond unless you have some inner compulsion to do so.

[seagreen33]

Exactly, what would be the point?
 
I n c o n c l u s i v e.

[shadowman]

I believe seagreen33 still misses the point. Fa La La La La.... La la la la did not just happen on the 40% hits in 40K trials. He stated he had previously noticed this event occurring and thought that might be a sign of non-randomness. He then set out on his own to verify whether it was happening or not. This is not anything like the craps run or any other event where the odds are computed post mortem.
 
So, this is completely different than a low probability occurrence. In addition, it was not just a single event. It was multiple days testing where each one came off with a spectacular low probability until the one event with webman where the claims were verified by another person.
 
Anyone who'd accept Fa La La La La.... La la la la's claims as anything but a lie is incredibly naive or has their own agenda. 

[damule]

I read the "Grandma" story and if you think Grandma just happened upon the craps table from penny slots, think again. These people work in obscurity just like card counters. The "Captain" did hold the record for the longest craps toss and was also part of Scoblete's inner circle until he passed away a few years ago, but no one knew who he was other than as a sweet old man who liked to play craps in Atlantic City occassionally while everyone else at the table got rich. Guaranteed in a decade or so we'll see a "Beating Vegas" show about these people.

[oej719]

Here is something I told myself I would not do before but have changed my mind.
I have met Fa La La La La.... La la la la face to face and spent several hours with him. By then he was in a stooper and my faked inexperience was getting to him.
He being fatigued and slurring at this point confessed to me he was a fraud and all his bs was just to scam what he could while he could.
This was many many years ago. He probably will not remember it do to his condition at the time.
Oh and he did say he uses alias's to post on all the different forums.

[cddenver]

Oh and he did say he uses alias's to post on all the different forums.
 
Thanks for bringing up the subject of aliases; it's been a while since I've posted my thoughts on his aliases which new forum members might make note of. 
 
He's categorically denied on several occasions that he's ever used an alias anywhere.  He has given one exception to that - I don't remember the specifics, but it wasn't on this site.  Most of us here don't use our real names to express our views, but in RS's case there's a big difference. 
 
He's used some of his aliases here and elsewhere to pose as one of his own satisfied clients who claim to have won serious money following his methods, and who then recommend that interested parties contact him for more info on how to do the same themselves.  Big, big, difference between that and our own run of the mill use of somewhat cryptic screen names - we're not selling anything for personal gain.  That should be looked at the same way as a contractor trying to get more business by falsifying references, or a job applicant doing the same on a resume.
 
Now on to the real reason for my post.  We got two e-letters from him yesterday.  Two in a day is a pretty rare occurence.  The second one came late last night while we were having the go-round with the latest "reflection" on the "flip" test done with WM and on his claimed "flip" results in general.  The second e-letter was all about what was going on here last night.  I'd say that would be conclusive proof that seagreen33 is another alias.   But since seagreen33 considers the 5 septillion to one likelihood that RS's unverified "flip" results of 40% are fabricated to be inconclusive.  ()  I'm sure he'll say (if he returns) that the timing and subject matter of that second e-letter are inconclusive as far as his being another alias goes.  But it will be fun to discuss, as always. 
 
In that second late e-letter, RS states flat-out that the numbers in the test with WM were "cooked" (his word).  Let's take a closer look at that.  Here's an Excel formula that New2vp posted that gives that 5 septillion to 1 likelihood that RS's numbers are simply made up:
 
=1/BINOMDIST(11,180,0.40,1)
 
I have years of experience working with Excel and was able to successfully paste that formula into a spreadsheet, and duplicated the 5 septillion value.  In the formula are only three values concerning "flips". The "11" flips in "180" opportunities during the test with WM, against a claimed flip rate of 40% ("0.40") by RS.  Three little numbers.  The first two were certified as accurate by WM and RS after their test.  The only number that could have been "cooked" is the 40% flip rate claimed by RS.
 

[New2vp]

I n c o n c l u s i v e.If you are not willing to accept something that has a probability of being true of more than 99.99999999999999999999998%, I have to agree that this would be inconclusive to you.  So, now we're in agreement!(I'm sure you manage, but I admit it's a bit of a mystery how one can make the day-to-day decisions required in life if one requires more than that amount of evidence before coming to a conclusion.)

[cddenver]

(I'm sure you manage, but I admit it's a bit of a mystery how one can make the day-to-day decisions required in life if one requires more than that amount of evidence before coming to a conclusion.)

 
He must be a stay-at-home.  Imagine the risk of crossing a street with only a 99.99999999999999999999998% chance of reaching the other side alive.    That would give anyone the willies!