It was over 40%

[New2vp]

New, Im sure you knew you would get cover from the sharpie group here Since you appear to like to use the bolded word as an insult, is it your contention that it is better to be dull than to be sharp?  Rhetorical.  You have more difficult questions to answer from the other post.

[backsider]

Too much info to read it all once again. Do you ever learn?

Bottom line from what I did read, what you mentioned first was superceded by my clear explanation of what I remembered about the far more valid results he reported on the wizzards site. Had you, in your inimitable and overly wordy but insecure wisdom, responded to THAT instead of those other comparatively trivial examples that to a scientist would mean nothing (and I did run the stats by one of our statisticians, who concurred) you wouldnt have known how to present one of your silly dissertations that few bother reading.

I also put several of your long, ramble-on posts into our program. Thats where I got the word "insecure" from. It also mentioned "unsure" and "has trouble finding the handle". Taking 3 consecutive posts to try and explain yourself doesnt really seem to be helping you either.   

See how easy it is getting under someones skin when you stick to the facts, say it in 10,000 words or less,and without having to make multiple babbling color-schemed posts or needing to solicit the help of other "sharpies"?

[New2vp]

What I have written thus far stands on its own.  When making a claim that is contrary to theory, the burden of proof lies with the person making the contradictory claim. A.  You asked why I used a figure > 40%.B.  I gave references that were reported by 4 sources: Webman, Wizard of Odds, John Brokopp, John Grochowski.  If you look through them, you will see the number of 1-card draws and the number of rank duplications with which you can form a ratio.  It is over 40%.  Purportedly this was done at a number of casinos in Nevada.C.  Both tests conducted with witnesses (Webman and the Wizard of Odds) had NO rank duplication; thus no corroborrated evidence for the claim.D.  IS THE FOLLOWING WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?  IF the ONLY source you saw was at this site, I guess you feel that the information reported from other 4 sources, all of which quoting your hero, which you claimed in this thread to know nothing about, is trumped by the single sentence there:  "I simulated 2,314,340,258 hands, and the flip-over rate was almost double."  Gee, that's really compelling evidence!  Here you will note that the number of 1-card draws in those 2.3 billion hands and the number of rank duplications to calculate a ratio are not given, so the new number claimed cannot even be determined, except that it evidently is less than 6/47, with no explanation as to why it differs from the earlier study.  And no explanation as to why simulations run in a garage are more credible than play in actual casinos or play in front of witnesses. (There is more evidence, not mentioned here, which causes doubt to be cast on the credibility of the later study, but I'll save that for later since it would lengthen this post.  Maybe it will also cause you to wonder what other inconsistency you/he failed to account for.  Oh, what a tangled web we weave! ...)E.  Is the size of the study what does it for you?  What would you say if I claimed to have done a simulation of 40 billion hands?  Would that automatically be more credible than the others without explaining what was wrong with the earlier studies.  Oh, that's right, you "never cared one way or the other about [the flipover study]" F.  You claim not to be aware of the earlier studies.  As stated earlier, that is simply not credible.  THE EARLIER STUDIES ARE EVEN MENTIONED IN THE wizard's blog WHERE YOU GOT YOUR INFORMATION!G.  You state: youll see he wanted to show it to wizzard and friends
until people wanted him to pay their airfare etc. just so they could
duck it all.
  Well, I read the first page (of what goes on for 23 pages, so much for your inability to read long posts) and within 4 hours of the challenge being issued, the Wizard of Odds stated "Personally, I will accept the challenge if it is based strictly on the ratio of getting the same suit on the replacement card. If said Ratio is outside of statistical norms, which will be clearly stated in advance, Rob will win."  That seems like a fairly straightforward acceptance except for typos.  But I confess to not reading through the last 20 pages.  If there is something there relevant, direct me to the page and I'll be happy to review it and interpret it for you.H.  I apologize about the length of the posts...but what can I say, you (and/or he) have a LOT of unexplained inconsistencies. 

[New2vp]

Too much info to read it all once again. Do you ever learn?Oh, that's right, you can't read longer posts, unless you later decide that you can.  Translation:  You have no reasonable defense.By the way, the source you are quoting from appears to be 23 pages long.  How did you ever get through it?

I also put several of your long, ramble-on posts into our program. Thats where I got the word "insecure" from. It also mentioned "unsure" and "has trouble finding the handle".I wonder what it would say if there were a witness to corroborate your statements.

[New2vp]

Had you, in your inimitable and overly wordy but insecure wisdom, responded to THAT instead of those other comparatively trivial examples that to a scientist would mean nothing (and I did run the stats by one of our statisticians, who concurred...Riight, when did you run this by one of your statisticians?  What was the question and what was the response?  Sorry, but if someone told you that a study run under different conditions with 2.3 billion hands showing a 12% rank duplication rate automatically explains and invalidates a different study with over 40,000 hands showing a 40% rank duplication rate, he or she made a serious error.  I would advise that you might not want to trust their judgment on more relevant military intelligence matters. But let's give him or her the benefit of the doubt.Maybe...since (1) you were not the person that completed either study, (2) one study of which you were unaware prior to 24 hours ago, and (3) a study for which you really didn't care about one way or the other 72 hours ago, just maybe, you might have omitted some relevant information that the statistician would need to form a valid conclusion.Of course, that's the ticket!  Deeper and deeper!

[shadowman]

I do wonder how someone whose job it is to analyze information (or so he claims) cannot even read a couple of paragraphs of .... information. Seems kind of weird.
 
It also seems interesting that BS uses phrases like "angry", "insecure" and "unsure". (just to mention a few) that just happen to be used by his hero on a regular basis. But hey, I suppose that's just coincidence ... just like occasionally inserting those nasty apostrophes when you don't actually use them.
 
It seems that someone in military intelligence should be able to tell us the likelihood of someone who supposedly doesn't use a particular character to accidentally use it on occasion. It would seem to me that people just might drop keystrokes once in awhile, but adding in ones? Yup, sounds real likely. Make sure to pass it by your statistician.

[New2vp]

s-man, thanks for your post.  It's nice to read something here that makes sense from time to time.  By the way, I sent you a pm a day or two ago.  The balloon telling me when I've received new messages there doesn't seem to be working for me; I have to give credit to faygo for telling me I have to watch the envelope near the facebook icon to see when such messages appear.

[backsider]

Make fun of the job, the intelligence, solicit the assistance of another angry person.......and where would shadow be without the constant insinuating that Im RS?

All because New got caught pretending I didnt say a thing about the wizzards forum and thought it would be cute to bring up other small meaningless testing I didnt even know existed. Those darn facts, oh how they always seem to get in the way.

At least New now appears to have learned his lesson about the irrelevancy of too many words!

[New2vp]

Post unable to migrate