vpFREE2 Forums

Best Randomness Analogy Contest

#1

I would like to start a contest for the best analogy to explain why it's a bad idea to look for patterns in random events. My own offering on the subject was Highway to Hell.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/110977

So far in life, I have never been able to bring anyone over to my side of thought, that patterns in randomness are meaningless, if they were of the belief that "everything happens for a reason". I'm not running this contest as a promotion, or even to necessarily to educate others. I would just really like to have a good indisputable way of explaining this for my own personal use.

I'll award a free copy of my book and Dan Paymar's OpVP. or $50 bucks credit on my website, which ever you prefer, as well as dinner for two with me. That is, if whoever wins it, would like to have dinner with me.

Post all month and then we'll vote on Feb 1st.

Try to keep this thread for single analogy entries, and post rebuttals or comments in a separate thread.

~Frank Kneeland www.progressivevp.com

P.S. If any of this is against vpFREE policy please ignore me.

#2

Sounds interesting, if I can find time in my schedule of thinking and choosing not to, I will certainly be game.

~ ¤(¯`*•.¸(¯`*•.¸ Meredith ¸.•*´¯)¸.•*´¯)¤ ~
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car.

···

--- On Tue, 1/4/11, Frank <frank@progressivevp.com> wrote:

From: Frank <frank@progressivevp.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Best Randomness Analogy Contest
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 6:12 AM

      I would like to start a contest for the best analogy to explain why it's a bad idea to look for patterns in random events. My own offering on the subject was Highway to Hell.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/110977

So far in life, I have never been able to bring anyone over to my side of thought, that patterns in randomness are meaningless, if they were of the belief that "everything happens for a reason". I'm not running this contest as a promotion, or even to necessarily to educate others. I would just really like to have a good indisputable way of explaining this for my own personal use.

I'll award a free copy of my book and Dan Paymar's OpVP. or $50 bucks credit on my website, which ever you prefer, as well as dinner for two with me. That is, if whoever wins it, would like to have dinner with me.

Post all month and then we'll vote on Feb 1st.

Try to keep this thread for single analogy entries, and post rebuttals or comments in a separate thread.

~Frank Kneeland www.progressivevp.com

P.S. If any of this is against vpFREE policy please ignore me.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#3

What if we might desire to dispute this theory instead ? I think it should be either to prove or disprove.

~ ¤(¯`*•.¸(¯`*•.¸ Meredith ¸.•*´¯)¸.•*´¯)¤ ~
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car.

···

--- On Tue, 1/4/11, Frank <frank@progressivevp.com> wrote:

From: Frank <frank@progressivevp.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Best Randomness Analogy Contest
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 6:12 AM

      I would like to start a contest for the best analogy to explain why it's a bad idea to look for patterns in random events. My own offering on the subject was Highway to Hell.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/110977

So far in life, I have never been able to bring anyone over to my side of thought, that patterns in randomness are meaningless, if they were of the belief that "everything happens for a reason". I'm not running this contest as a promotion, or even to necessarily to educate others. I would just really like to have a good indisputable way of explaining this for my own personal use.

I'll award a free copy of my book and Dan Paymar's OpVP. or $50 bucks credit on my website, which ever you prefer, as well as dinner for two with me. That is, if whoever wins it, would like to have dinner with me.

Post all month and then we'll vote on Feb 1st.

Try to keep this thread for single analogy entries, and post rebuttals or comments in a separate thread.

~Frank Kneeland www.progressivevp.com

P.S. If any of this is against vpFREE policy please ignore me.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#4

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Meredith And Kenny <meredithandkenny@...> wrote: What if we might desire to dispute this theory instead? I think it should be either to prove or disprove.

I sure wish you hadn't said that. You have opened up a can of worms, we may never put the lid on again. And it's going to require me to share something far from my normal comedic banter, and something I really didn't want to ever again talk about or think about. It was such a disturbing experience, I had forgotten about it, and blocked it from my mind until I read your reply.

THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE FUNNY, AND IS 100% TRUE. THIS TOPIC CAN BE A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE FOR SOME PEOPLE.

The belief that "everything happens for a reason" is a primary grief mechanism for humans after tragedy. Removing it can cause severe depression and even suicide. Psychologists never challenge this belief in depressed patients without first putting into place other psychological defense mechanisms to replace it.

I was unaware of that when I wrote the first draft of my book. Since I did not grow up with these beliefs, I had no way of knowing how their removal could effect the psyche. Here's what happened:

One of my test readers who didn't believe in randomness attempted suicide after getting halfway through the original chapter 2 of my book. After her recovery she told me that she could not continue reading my book because she was afraid that I was right and, if so, there was no point to her life. She stated to me in no uncertain terms that it was reading my description of randomness that prompted her to attempt suicide.

As you can imagine, this isn't the sort of thing I want as publicity, even if my only crime was explaining something really well. I hope you appreciate that stating it here could cost me sales. Even though I haven't taken the Hippocratic oath, I live by it.

After this experience I took 2 years away from writing to study relevant aspects of psychology, then rewrote chapter 2 to make it less confrontational. This substantial delay is one of the reasons it took me nine years to finish my book.

The test reader who had this issue was also an addicted non-professional gambler. Those types of people do not normally buy and read books on gambling. It was only because I hired her as a paid test reader that this situation arose. I did not expect to find people with even slightly similar beliefs here, since I thought vpFREE was exclusively for advantage players.

The doubt you have placed in my mind that someone similar might be on vpFREE has necessitated that I cancel the contest and strongly discourage any further discussion that could potentially be harmful to people. This sort of thing is best left to certified psychologists.

I'm sorry I brought it up. It is frustrating to know something so completely and have people disagree with you. But this has ceased to be about proving who is right and who is wrong, but is now about doing no harm.

I cannot in good conscience continue posting in this thread, and I encourage no one else to as well. Let's just let sleeping dogs lie.

Think of it like this - if a belief is responsible for making someone happy and getting them through their day, does it really matter if it's true or not? It's effect on them is good, and that's enough.

Most sincerely,

Frank Kneeland

#5

What a tragedy and I completely concur and thanks for letting me know that you aren't speaking this to me as a person. I cannot be shaken like that and am firm in knowing who I am, what I say and do along with never 'learning' something aside from the sake of finding things out by myself along with a wonderful opportunity to either relearn based on factual evidence or, that what I learn in my own research might confirm what I thought to be true.

nevertheless, I do not confuse this type of knowledge nor any belief in this type of knowledge with my self worth.

I respect and confirm that those that may be less grounded, might take this to heart and your decision for the forum is correct.

I am still going to fully study this issue and hopefully, call on you for your position on any area that I have a sincere inquiry about. There is always a catalyst for learning and your words got my innate curiosity going to the point of deep study and that alone, is a great feat in my dealing with individuals on the whole. So, I will continue and enjoy for what it is and nothing more.

Thanks Frank - you are a good man whether 'they' tell me otherwise or not..hehe. JK ! I saw your book today at the Press Bldng. Nice big book ! Sorry, I am not ready to buy it yet, I have a few to finish first. But, I will.

~ ¤(¯`*•.¸(¯`*•.¸ Meredith ¸.•*´¯)¸.•*´¯)¤ ~
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car.

···

--- On Tue, 1/4/11, Frank <frank@progressivevp.com> wrote:

From: Frank <frank@progressivevp.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 11:05 AM

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Meredith And Kenny <meredithandkenny@...> wrote: What if we might desire to dispute this theory instead? I think it should be either to prove or disprove.

I sure wish you hadn't said that. You have opened up a can of worms, we may never put the lid on again. And it's going to require me to share something far from my normal comedic banter, and something I really didn't want to ever again talk about or think about. It was such a disturbing experience, I had forgotten about it, and blocked it from my mind until I read your reply.

THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE FUNNY, AND IS 100% TRUE. THIS TOPIC CAN BE A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE FOR SOME PEOPLE.

The belief that "everything happens for a reason" is a primary grief mechanism for humans after tragedy. Removing it can cause severe depression and even suicide. Psychologists never challenge this belief in depressed patients without first putting into place other psychological defense mechanisms to replace it.

I was unaware of that when I wrote the first draft of my book. Since I did not grow up with these beliefs, I had no way of knowing how their removal could effect the psyche. Here's what happened:

One of my test readers who didn't believe in randomness attempted suicide after getting halfway through the original chapter 2 of my book. After her recovery she told me that she could not continue reading my book because she was afraid that I was right and, if so, there was no point to her life. She stated to me in no uncertain terms that it was reading my description of randomness that prompted her to attempt suicide.

As you can imagine, this isn't the sort of thing I want as publicity, even if my only crime was explaining something really well. I hope you appreciate that stating it here could cost me sales. Even though I haven't taken the Hippocratic oath, I live by it.

After this experience I took 2 years away from writing to study relevant aspects of psychology, then rewrote chapter 2 to make it less confrontational. This substantial delay is one of the reasons it took me nine years to finish my book.

The test reader who had this issue was also an addicted non-professional gambler. Those types of people do not normally buy and read books on gambling. It was only because I hired her as a paid test reader that this situation arose. I did not expect to find people with even slightly similar beliefs here, since I thought vpFREE was exclusively for advantage players.

The doubt you have placed in my mind that someone similar might be on vpFREE has necessitated that I cancel the contest and strongly discourage any further discussion that could potentially be harmful to people. This sort of thing is best left to certified psychologists.

I'm sorry I brought it up. It is frustrating to know something so completely and have people disagree with you. But this has ceased to be about proving who is right and who is wrong, but is now about doing no harm.

I cannot in good conscience continue posting in this thread, and I encourage no one else to as well. Let's just let sleeping dogs lie.

Think of it like this - if a belief is responsible for making someone happy and getting them through their day, does it really matter if it's true or not? It's effect on them is good, and that's enough.

Most sincerely,

Frank Kneeland

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#6

Frank wrote:

The belief that "everything happens for a reason" is a primary
grief mechanism for humans after tragedy. Removing it can cause
severe depression and even suicide. Psychologists never challenge
this belief in depressed patients without first putting into place
other psychological defense mechanisms to replace it.

I was unaware of that when I wrote the first draft of my book.
Since I did not grow up with these beliefs, I had no way of knowing
how their removal could effect the psyche. Here's what happened:

One of my test readers who didn't believe in randomness attempted
suicide after getting halfway through the original chapter 2 of my
book. After her recovery she told me that she could not continue
reading my book because she was afraid that I was right and, if so,
there was no point to her life. She stated to me in no uncertain
terms that it was reading my description of randomness that
prompted her to attempt suicide.

As you can imagine, this isn't the sort of thing I want as
publicity, even if my only crime was explaining something really
well. I hope you appreciate that stating it here could cost me
sales. Even though I haven't taken the Hippocratic oath, I live by
it.

After this experience I took 2 years away from writing to study
relevant aspects of psychology, then rewrote chapter 2 to make it
less confrontational. This substantial delay is one of the reasons
it took me nine years to finish my book.

The test reader who had this issue was also an addicted
non-professional gambler. Those types of people do not normally buy
and read books on gambling. It was only because I hired her as a
paid test reader that this situation arose. I did not expect to
find people with even slightly similar beliefs here, since I
thought vpFREE was exclusively for advantage players.

The doubt you have placed in my mind that someone similar might be
on vpFREE has necessitated that I cancel the contest and strongly
discourage any further discussion that could potentially be harmful
to people. This sort of thing is best left to certified
psychologists.

I'm sorry I brought it up. It is frustrating to know something so
completely and have people disagree with you. But this has ceased
to be about proving who is right and who is wrong, but is now about
doing no harm.

I cannot in good conscience continue posting in this thread, and I
encourage no one else to as well. Let's just let sleeping dogs lie.

Think of it like this - if a belief is responsible for making
someone happy and getting them through their day, does it really
matter if it's true or not? It's effect on them is good, and that's
enough.

Frank,

The intensity of your sensitivities certainly appear to vie in strength with my own ... no small feat. But are you sure it's not sufficient to preface each related post with some type of advisory or, say, surgeon general's warning?

Seriously, I don't know the facts obviously, but I'm inclined to believe that no matter how dark the underlying message of your chapter might be to some, in this case this individual was prime for a gentle push of some type ... say, another "9/11" in the news, or finding that her morning's cereal milk had gone sour.

I'm not really being flippant here at all. In truth, I write this as a lifelong depression sufferer (bipolar illness, to be precise).

I simply find it ironic that someone who has taken it upon himself to advise others that there's no meaning to be found in random patterns would infer such strong casualty to what you wrote and her action.

Ok, I can get that were I personally connected with the incident you describe that my attitude might be "once bitten, twice shy". But the basic message re random patterns is very pertinent to adept vp play and bears airing. (Again, I don't know just how deeply you delved into it's implications re life at large ... I'd have steered clear of that message, in the same manner prudent people avoid topics of politics and religion when addressing general audiences.)

What immediately comes to mind are the "hot and cold" machine adherents. (That, indeed, is a small ball of wax that is a microcosm for a larger slice of life philosophy.) Typically, there's nothing that can be said to sway the perception once it becomes a fixed notion, for the holder's very own experience has borne the concept out (in their own mind, at least ... hell, on occasion, shades of this fixation temporarily take root in my own head). But I'm always hopeful.

One can readily argue that the "hot and cold" notion does no real harm. If someone switches to another equivalent machine, they should be no worse off. But I've known people who've been prompted to switch to poorer paytables, or stop playing despite strong play circumstances, motivated by a sense that the machine they had been playing had gone "cold". Plus, I've periodically witnessed people engage in behavior which directly adversely affected others (in some cases merely a matter of distraction, in others by making good machines unavailable for use while held in reserve, waiting for them to "warm up").

So, to sum things up, Frank, I don't think it's a topic to be treated as untouchable; just one that needs to be handled with care. I've no doubt that you have the temperament for that.

- H.

#7

"So, to sum things up, Frank, I don't think it's a topic to be treated as untouchable; just one that needs to be handled with care. I've no doubt that you have the temperament for that.

*** I agree. I think it's an important topic for gamblers in general, who seem to be beset that, not only are machines built with a random number generator *not* random, but also that touching the screen may help; hitting the buttons harder may help; etc....(I remember when I would be running bad at poker some of the old-timers would always tell me to "get up and walk around the table a couple of times" to help fix my luck...).

"What immediately comes to mind are the "hot and cold" machine adherents."

*** An aside on this concept: I think every video poker and/or mathematics expert I've read concedes that perhaps especially in a random order you will find streaks, long or short. Even when flipping a coin you can get streaks of hitting heads many times in a row even when each flip is independent of the other. So I've always thought of it as hoping you might step into a "good" streak rather than an actual machine is really hot or cold on a regular basis. I think a problem starts when people begin to believe there is meaning in it, or predictable patterns.

"But I've known people who've been prompted to switch to poorer paytables..."

*** I have to laugh here and admit that the other day I was playing a $5 machine DDB: there were two that were 9/6 and one that was 8/5, which was a progressive (and the progressive had just been hit). I had in the past gotten good hands on the progressive machine. However I began to play one of the other ones due to the better paytable. After losing I did switch to the poorer pay table and voila: dealt four 4's. Ha ha! A superstitious belief can sprout from just this sort of thing! Again, I do like to change machines for the following reasons:

a) I want to have fun, and it isn't fun to continue to lose hand after hand - I'm not there to just grind it out.
b) Changing machines is exciting to me in the hopes that it may start off in a better "streak" of random hands than the one I was playing.
c) And sometimes I don't change machines, when I'm feeling lazy or like something about the machine I'm on (location, no one smoking near me, graphics) -

I do think this is an interesting topic.

Valerie

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5759 (20110104) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#8

"From immemorial time, and in all races, there has been current, especially
among minds more receptive and thoughtful than the average run, an intuition
persistent and ever-enduring, that there exists somewhere a body of sublime
teaching or doctrine which can be had by those who qualify to receive it by
becoming worthy depositaries of it. These intimations have frequently found
lodgment in legend and myth, and thus have become enshrined or crystallized
in the different religious and philosophical records of the human race.
There is probably no single group of religious and philosophical works which
does not contain some more or less clear record, given either in open
statement or by vague hint, of the existence of this wisdom-teaching. It is
one of the most interesting of literary pursuits to trace out and assemble
together these scattered and usually imperfect records, found everywhere;
and by juxtaposition to discover in them distinct and easily verifiable
proof that they are indeed but fragments of an archaic wisdom common to the
human race. The literary historian, the mythologer, the anthropologist, all
know of the existence of these scattered fragments of archaic thought, but
being utterly unable to make anything coherently sensible of them, they are
usually falsely ascribed to the inventive genius of so-called primitive man
weaving myths and legendary tales about natural phenomena which had occurred
and which, because of the fear and awe their appearance had aroused, were
thought to be the workings of gods and genii, godlings and demons, some
friendly and some inimical to man."

···

-------Original Message-------

From: Harry Porter
Date: 1/4/2011 11:16:17 AM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

Frank wrote:

The belief that "everything happens for a reason" is a primary
grief mechanism for humans after tragedy. Removing it can cause
severe depression and even suicide. Psychologists never challenge
this belief in depressed patients without first putting into place
other psychological defense mechanisms to replace it.

I was unaware of that when I wrote the first draft of my book.
Since I did not grow up with these beliefs, I had no way of knowing
how their removal could effect the psyche. Here's what happened:

One of my test readers who didn't believe in randomness attempted
suicide after getting halfway through the original chapter 2 of my
book. After her recovery she told me that she could not continue
reading my book because she was afraid that I was right and, if so,
there was no point to her life. She stated to me in no uncertain
terms that it was reading my description of randomness that
prompted her to attempt suicide.

As you can imagine, this isn't the sort of thing I want as
publicity, even if my only crime was explaining something really
well. I hope you appreciate that stating it here could cost me
sales. Even though I haven't taken the Hippocratic oath, I live by
it.

After this experience I took 2 years away from writing to study
relevant aspects of psychology, then rewrote chapter 2 to make it
less confrontational. This substantial delay is one of the reasons
it took me nine years to finish my book.

The test reader who had this issue was also an addicted
non-professional gambler. Those types of people do not normally buy
and read books on gambling. It was only because I hired her as a
paid test reader that this situation arose. I did not expect to
find people with even slightly similar beliefs here, since I
thought vpFREE was exclusively for advantage players.

The doubt you have placed in my mind that someone similar might be
on vpFREE has necessitated that I cancel the contest and strongly
discourage any further discussion that could potentially be harmful
to people. This sort of thing is best left to certified
psychologists.

I'm sorry I brought it up. It is frustrating to know something so
completely and have people disagree with you. But this has ceased
to be about proving who is right and who is wrong, but is now about
doing no harm.

I cannot in good conscience continue posting in this thread, and I
encourage no one else to as well. Let's just let sleeping dogs lie.

Think of it like this - if a belief is responsible for making
someone happy and getting them through their day, does it really
matter if it's true or not? It's effect on them is good, and that's
enough.

Frank,

The intensity of your sensitivities certainly appear to vie in strength with
my own ... no small feat. But are you sure it's not sufficient to preface
each related post with some type of advisory or, say, surgeon general's
warning?

Seriously, I don't know the facts obviously, but I'm inclined to believe
that no matter how dark the underlying message of your chapter might be to
some, in this case this individual was prime for a gentle push of some type
.. say, another "9/11" in the news, or finding that her morning's cereal
milk had gone sour.

I'm not really being flippant here at all. In truth, I write this as a
lifelong depression sufferer (bipolar illness, to be precise).

I simply find it ironic that someone who has taken it upon himself to advise
others that there's no meaning to be found in random patterns would infer
such strong casualty to what you wrote and her action.

Ok, I can get that were I personally connected with the incident you
describe that my attitude might be "once bitten, twice shy". But the basic
message re random patterns is very pertinent to adept vp play and bears
airing. (Again, I don't know just how deeply you delved into it's
implications re life at large ... I'd have steered clear of that message, in
the same manner prudent people avoid topics of politics and religion when
addressing general audiences.)

What immediately comes to mind are the "hot and cold" machine adherents.
(That, indeed, is a small ball of wax that is a microcosm for a larger slice
of life philosophy.) Typically, there's nothing that can be said to sway the
perception once it becomes a fixed notion, for the holder's very own
experience has borne the concept out (in their own mind, at least ... hell,
on occasion, shades of this fixation temporarily take root in my own head).
But I'm always hopeful.

One can readily argue that the "hot and cold" notion does no real harm. If
someone switches to another equivalent machine, they should be no worse off.
But I've known people who've been prompted to switch to poorer paytables, or
stop playing despite strong play circumstances, motivated by a sense that
the machine they had been playing had gone "cold". Plus, I've periodically
witnessed people engage in behavior which directly adversely affected others
(in some cases merely a matter of distraction, in others by making good
machines unavailable for use while held in reserve, waiting for them to
warm up").

So, to sum things up, Frank, I don't think it's a topic to be treated as
untouchable; just one that needs to be handled with care. I've no doubt that
you have the temperament for that.

- H.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#9

In preemptive reply to Harry Porter's super duper post, I'm currently waiting for permission from the admin. Essentially, I'm doing it like presidential campaigns.

I'm not replying, I'm merely announcing that in intend to announce my possible reply later...or something like that.

We're sitting on a powder keg with this thread, and I'm not going to be the one giving off sparks.

~FK

#10

Full reply to Harry Porter's post:

Thank you you Harry for your support and praise; and your extremely well thought out and written reply. Before we proceed.

Disclaimer: We aren't talking negatively about religion in this post. It is a discussion about how to talk about randomness and pattern recognition WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT RELIGION and breaching vpFREE's policies. It is in fact in support of vpFREE's no religion policy.

Here's the problem as I see it: The best discussion I ever read on the subject of how risk assessment, the concepts of randomness, and probability assessment entered into human knowledge was a book entitled, "Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk" by Peter L. Bernstein. The fact that its author named it such says volumes. I believe, it is impossible to have a complete and comprehensive discussion on the topic without breaching vpFREE's no religious topics rule. At the very least we would need to move it to FREEvpFREE, where thus far I have not joined.

I'm quite embarrassed about this over site on my part. Further replies to your post in-line below.

Harry Porter Wrote:
Frank,
The intensity of your sensitivities certainly appear to vie in strength with my own ... no small feat. But are you sure it's not sufficient to preface each related post with some type of advisory or, say, surgeon general's warning?

FK:
I'm ahead of you, my book has one. As I said before, after the attempted suicide incident by my test reader, I removed some of the most confrontational material. I also included a disclaimer. It bares restating here:

A QUICK DISCLAIMER: At times it may seem as if this book is pro-religious, and at other times it may seem to be anti-religious. It is neither. Religious beliefs have played an enormous part in shaping the history and current worldwide sociological attitude towards gambling. To write a comprehensive book about professional gambling and leave out any religious references would be like trying to paint an accurate portrait of someone without the color red in your palate. All of the early historical record about gambling and humanities viewpoints towards it comes from religious sources. If by quoting these sources I offend anyone, I assure you that is defiantly not the intent any more than talking about the Spanish Inquisition is an attack on Hispanic people; it's simply history, nothing more.

So it's not only a surgeon general's warning that would be needed to make a convincing argument against a non-belief in randomness, but a "WARNING anti-religious CONTENT" that would be required. And that would be against policy.

Harry Porter Wrote:
Seriously, I don't know the facts obviously, but I'm inclined to believe that no matter how dark the underlying message of your chapter might be to some, in this case this individual was prime for a gentle push of some type ... say, another "9/11" in the news, or finding that her morning's cereal milk had gone sour.

FK:
Well my book isn't dark at all (and wasn't in the first draft version she read). In fact it is an overwhelmingly positive and humorous account of my extremely successful career. I didn't name it, Million Dollar Video Poker", but I could have, kapish? Can you see how that could be incredibly depressing to someone with a very different experience gambling? As you say, she was no doubt on the edge, and primed for disaster; but do you have any idea how many people that describes in our society?

Harry Porter Wrote:
I'm not really being flippant here at all. In truth, I write this as a lifelong depression sufferer (bipolar illness, to be precise).

FK:
I'm so sorry to hear that. My study of that disorder suggests its root may be primarily organic, genetic, and not environmental. If true, you are obviously fighting it superbly to write such thoughtful posts. All the best.

Harry Porter Wrote:
I simply find it ironic that someone who has taken it upon himself to advise others that there's no meaning to be found in random patterns would infer such strong casualty to what you wrote and her action.

FK:
Good point. I hadn't thought of that. It might have something to do with the fact that she told me it did. Of course that doesn't mean she was right. She may simply have been attempting to take blame off herself and avoid personal responsibility. It still shook me to the core.

Harry Porter Wrote:
Ok, I can get that were I personally connected with the incident you describe that my attitude might be "once bitten, twice shy".

FK: Well I'd describe mine more as, "Once bitten, to the power of thrice shy." But I do over think things. Did I mention, she was my best friend's girlfriend.

Harry Porter Wrote:
But the basic message of random patterns is very pertinent to adept vp play and bears airing.

FK: Well you couldn't be more correct there!!! Understanding randomness is integral and paramount to any discussion of VP. I simply see no way to talk about it as a debate, for and against, without breaching vpFREE policy. If we stick to my original concept of only trying to come up with a best analogy to describe randomness, then we might be able to slide through without involving anti-religious sentiment. If we go with Meridith's suggestion of making it a debate, it is as volatile a discussion as evolution vs creationism. It is actually a separate part of the same argument, science vs religion.

I am relatively new to vpFREE. Perhaps we can take a page from the past. How on earth has this been discussed in the past without talking about religion?

Additional links between religion and gambling exist. In yet another book I read on gambling addiction, "Best Possible Odds: Contemporary Treatment Strategies for Gambling Disorders by William G. McCown (Author), Linda L. Chamberlain (Author), they state that particular religious beliefs are perhaps the largest factor in the development of pathological gambling. So great in fact, that in southern bible belt states, the SOGS (South Oaks Gambling Screen) had to be modified to avoid false positives. People that do not believe in events being the will of a higher power, are apparently less susceptible to addictive gambling, according to experts in the field.

Harry Porter Wrote:
(Again, I don't know just how deeply you delved into it's implications re life at large ... I'd have steered clear of that message, in the same manner prudent people avoid topics of politics and religion when addressing general audiences.)

FK: There's our problem in a nutshell, I don't see a way to broach this subject without blindfolds and tying our hands behind our backs. It's going to go political and religious almost instantly. Even though we are only talking about, talking about religion, the cat is out of the proverbial bag.

Remember, we live in a country where religious freedom is an inalienable right. Since most Religions believe that only theirs is the correct one (yet there are many), I think we can safely make a neutral comment that both atheist and believer alike can agree with: Free speech and religious freedom, though most of the time a great boon, also prevents the diffusing of some disinformation, publicly; and occasionally promotes (or at least does not discourage) some damaging fallacy. You don't have to go much further than the Jones Town Massacre , or The Heavens Gate incident to prove the point. I'm confident that anyone that might have been offended by that reference is dead.

Harry Porter Wrote:
What immediately comes to mind are the "hot and cold" machine adherents. (That, indeed, is a small ball of wax that is a microcosm for a larger slice of life philosophy.) Typically, there's nothing that can be said to sway the perception once it becomes a fixed notion, for the holder's very own experience has borne the concept out (in their own mind, at least ... hell, on occasion, shades of this fixation temporarily take root in my own head). But I'm always hopeful.

FK: Yes, as in my first post on this subject, I stated that I have never been able to convince anyone otherwise that believed strongly. I know this sounds hard to believe, but I had really blocked the memory of the only time I nearly did succeed with my test reader. How could anyone forget something like that? Well I can answer that one, because they wanted to.

Harry Porter Wrote:
One can readily argue that the "hot and cold" notion does no real harm. If someone switches to another equivalent machine, they should be no worse off. But I've known people who've been prompted to switch to poorer paytables, or stop playing despite strong play circumstances, motivated by a sense that the machine they had been playing had gone "cold". Plus, I've periodically witnessed people engage in behavior which directly adversely affected others (in some cases merely a matter of distraction, in others by making good machines unavailable for use while held in reserve, waiting for them to "warm up").

FK:
To reply to this, I'd have to starting talking about the topic, and I'm trying to avoid that, and talk instead, about why I'm not talking about the topic. Wow, I just confused myself. All right back to serious mode.

Harry Porter Wrote:
So, to sum things up, Frank, I don't think it's a topic to be treated as untouchable; just one that needs to be handled with care. I've no doubt that you have the temperament for that.

FK: Well I'd certainly like to think I do have the temperament. I am less sure I have the ability, or that anyone does. Every single book I've read, "Randomness" by Deborah J. Bennett, "The Book of Nothing: Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas about the Origins of the Universe" by John D. Barrow, the ones I mentioned earlier, and many others, have references to religion, if they had anything to do with gambling or probability. According to the historical record (I won't say which to avoid offending) most of the first people to propose the possibility of randomness were stoned to death. Would it surprise you to learn that the people doing the stoning were not crazed atheists?

I am still for dropping the subject and trying to get the genie back in the bottle. I see stoning in my future. Plus, I just really don't want to contradict peoples beliefs if they make them happy. It is a quandary that the same beliefs that make one person happy, hurt another.

If this continues to be a debate, for and against randomness, I will not post anymore in this thread, unless it is to respond to direct questions.

If we return to a pure thread of submitting competing analogies to explain randomness, I'll chime back in. I'm simply not going to get into an argument against religious beliefs, especially when those beliefs can be the linchpin in peoples psyches.

~When one can walk through fire unscathed, be careful no one less fireproof is following you.

~FK

#11

Jews and Buddhists don't believe they or their religion is 'better'.
They both believe it is just one way to walk down the path of
'righteousness' or whatever you want to call it.

Both religions believe in behaviors and results, as well as
personal accountability.

This works for some people in VP and other forms of gambling.
I'm a 'math guy'. The only way I could beat the Casinos in
the 80s (my 20s), was by playing a very disciplined game based
on memorizing the best mathematical plays and ignoring any
kind of hunches or patterns.)

I've seen players who have been 'feel' players.
And part of my interest in VP comes from an older Restaurant
owner lady I met who is in love with VP.

She asked me to escort her to Agua Caliente, where I got
treated to her whole strategy and bankroll theory and everything.

She proceeded to win a few hundred bucks on a five in
quarters machine and I suggested we leave.
Then four hundred and five.
Back down some, but holding on.

She was keeping an eye on one machine at the bar.
It opened up after she hit a straight flush and was
really ahead.

She worked that machine even until past the time
she had promised to leave, but she felt hot and then
proceeded to hit a royal and another big jackpot.

She ran her stake up to $1500, and overstaying
her promise to me by about three hours.

I peeled her off the casino at six hours and
over $800 ahead.

As we pulled onto the freeway, her son called up,
worried she had been in the casino, losing again.

It works for some people, hot and cold and feel.
I stick to the math because it works for me.

···

--- On Wed, 1/5/11, Frank <frank@progressivevp.com> wrote:

From: Frank <frank@progressivevp.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2011, 1:25 AM

Full reply to Harry Porter's post:

Thank you you Harry for your support and praise; and your extremely well thought out and written reply. Before we proceed.

Disclaimer: We aren't talking negatively about religion in this post. It is a discussion about how to talk about randomness and pattern recognition WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT RELIGION and breaching vpFREE's policies. It is in fact in support of vpFREE's no religion policy.

Here's the problem as I see it: The best discussion I ever read on the subject of how risk assessment, the concepts of randomness, and probability assessment entered into human knowledge was a book entitled, "Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk" by Peter L. Bernstein. The fact that its author named it such says volumes. I believe, it is impossible to have a complete and comprehensive discussion on the topic without breaching vpFREE's no religious topics rule. At the very least we would need to move it to FREEvpFREE, where thus far I have not joined.

I'm quite embarrassed about this over site on my part. Further replies to your post in-line below.

Harry Porter Wrote:
Frank,
The intensity of your sensitivities certainly appear to vie in strength with my own ... no small feat. But are you sure it's not sufficient to preface each related post with some type of advisory or, say, surgeon general's warning?

FK:
I'm ahead of you, my book has one. As I said before, after the attempted suicide incident by my test reader, I removed some of the most confrontational material. I also included a disclaimer. It bares restating here:

A QUICK DISCLAIMER: At times it may seem as if this book is pro-religious, and at other times it may seem to be anti-religious. It is neither. Religious beliefs have played an enormous part in shaping the history and current worldwide sociological attitude towards gambling. To write a comprehensive book about professional gambling and leave out any religious references would be like trying to paint an accurate portrait of someone without the color red in your palate. All of the early historical record about gambling and humanities viewpoints towards it comes from religious sources. If by quoting these sources I offend anyone, I assure you that is defiantly not the intent any more than talking about the Spanish Inquisition is an attack on Hispanic people; it's simply history, nothing more.

So it's not only a surgeon general's warning that would be needed to make a convincing argument against a non-belief in randomness, but a "WARNING anti-religious CONTENT" that would be required. And that would be against policy.

Harry Porter Wrote:
Seriously, I don't know the facts obviously, but I'm inclined to believe that no matter how dark the underlying message of your chapter might be to some, in this case this individual was prime for a gentle push of some type ... say, another "9/11" in the news, or finding that her morning's cereal milk had gone sour.

FK:
Well my book isn't dark at all (and wasn't in the first draft version she read). In fact it is an overwhelmingly positive and humorous account of my extremely successful career. I didn't name it, Million Dollar Video Poker", but I could have, kapish? Can you see how that could be incredibly depressing to someone with a very different experience gambling? As you say, she was no doubt on the edge, and primed for disaster; but do you have any idea how many people that describes in our society?

Harry Porter Wrote:
I'm not really being flippant here at all. In truth, I write this as a lifelong depression sufferer (bipolar illness, to be precise).

FK:
I'm so sorry to hear that. My study of that disorder suggests its root may be primarily organic, genetic, and not environmental. If true, you are obviously fighting it superbly to write such thoughtful posts. All the best.

Harry Porter Wrote:
I simply find it ironic that someone who has taken it upon himself to advise others that there's no meaning to be found in random patterns would infer such strong casualty to what you wrote and her action.

FK:
Good point. I hadn't thought of that. It might have something to do with the fact that she told me it did. Of course that doesn't mean she was right. She may simply have been attempting to take blame off herself and avoid personal responsibility. It still shook me to the core.

Harry Porter Wrote:
Ok, I can get that were I personally connected with the incident you describe that my attitude might be "once bitten, twice shy".

FK: Well I'd describe mine more as, "Once bitten, to the power of thrice shy." But I do over think things. Did I mention, she was my best friend's girlfriend.

Harry Porter Wrote:
But the basic message of random patterns is very pertinent to adept vp play and bears airing.

FK: Well you couldn't be more correct there!!! Understanding randomness is integral and paramount to any discussion of VP. I simply see no way to talk about it as a debate, for and against, without breaching vpFREE policy. If we stick to my original concept of only trying to come up with a best analogy to describe randomness, then we might be able to slide through without involving anti-religious sentiment. If we go with Meridith's suggestion of making it a debate, it is as volatile a discussion as evolution vs creationism. It is actually a separate part of the same argument, science vs religion.

I am relatively new to vpFREE. Perhaps we can take a page from the past. How on earth has this been discussed in the past without talking about religion?

Additional links between religion and gambling exist. In yet another book I read on gambling addiction, "Best Possible Odds: Contemporary Treatment Strategies for Gambling Disorders by William G. McCown (Author), Linda L. Chamberlain (Author), they state that particular religious beliefs are perhaps the largest factor in the development of pathological gambling. So great in fact, that in southern bible belt states, the SOGS (South Oaks Gambling Screen) had to be modified to avoid false positives. People that do not believe in events being the will of a higher power, are apparently less susceptible to addictive gambling, according to experts in the field.

Harry Porter Wrote:
(Again, I don't know just how deeply you delved into it's implications re life at large ... I'd have steered clear of that message, in the same manner prudent people avoid topics of politics and religion when addressing general audiences.)

FK: There's our problem in a nutshell, I don't see a way to broach this subject without blindfolds and tying our hands behind our backs. It's going to go political and religious almost instantly. Even though we are only talking about, talking about religion, the cat is out of the proverbial bag.

Remember, we live in a country where religious freedom is an inalienable right. Since most Religions believe that only theirs is the correct one (yet there are many), I think we can safely make a neutral comment that both atheist and believer alike can agree with: Free speech and religious freedom, though most of the time a great boon, also prevents the diffusing of some disinformation, publicly; and occasionally promotes (or at least does not discourage) some damaging fallacy. You don't have to go much further than the Jones Town Massacre , or The Heavens Gate incident to prove the point. I'm confident that anyone that might have been offended by that reference is dead.

Harry Porter Wrote:
What immediately comes to mind are the "hot and cold" machine adherents. (That, indeed, is a small ball of wax that is a microcosm for a larger slice of life philosophy.) Typically, there's nothing that can be said to sway the perception once it becomes a fixed notion, for the holder's very own experience has borne the concept out (in their own mind, at least ... hell, on occasion, shades of this fixation temporarily take root in my own head). But I'm always hopeful.

FK: Yes, as in my first post on this subject, I stated that I have never been able to convince anyone otherwise that believed strongly. I know this sounds hard to believe, but I had really blocked the memory of the only time I nearly did succeed with my test reader. How could anyone forget something like that? Well I can answer that one, because they wanted to.

Harry Porter Wrote:
One can readily argue that the "hot and cold" notion does no real harm. If someone switches to another equivalent machine, they should be no worse off. But I've known people who've been prompted to switch to poorer paytables, or stop playing despite strong play circumstances, motivated by a sense that the machine they had been playing had gone "cold". Plus, I've periodically witnessed people engage in behavior which directly adversely affected others (in some cases merely a matter of distraction, in others by making good machines unavailable for use while held in reserve, waiting for them to "warm up").

FK:
To reply to this, I'd have to starting talking about the topic, and I'm trying to avoid that, and talk instead, about why I'm not talking about the topic. Wow, I just confused myself. All right back to serious mode.

Harry Porter Wrote:
So, to sum things up, Frank, I don't think it's a topic to be treated as untouchable; just one that needs to be handled with care. I've no doubt that you have the temperament for that.

FK: Well I'd certainly like to think I do have the temperament. I am less sure I have the ability, or that anyone does. Every single book I've read, "Randomness" by Deborah J. Bennett, "The Book of Nothing: Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas about the Origins of the Universe" by John D. Barrow, the ones I mentioned earlier, and many others, have references to religion, if they had anything to do with gambling or probability. According to the historical record (I won't say which to avoid offending) most of the first people to propose the possibility of randomness were stoned to death. Would it surprise you to learn that the people doing the stoning were not crazed atheists?

I am still for dropping the subject and trying to get the genie back in the bottle. I see stoning in my future. Plus, I just really don't want to contradict peoples beliefs if they make them happy. It is a quandary that the same beliefs that make one person happy, hurt another.

If this continues to be a debate, for and against randomness, I will not post anymore in this thread, unless it is to respond to direct questions.

If we return to a pure thread of submitting competing analogies to explain randomness, I'll chime back in. I'm simply not going to get into an argument against religious beliefs, especially when those beliefs can be the linchpin in peoples psyches.

~When one can walk through fire unscathed, be careful no one less fireproof is following you.

~FK

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#12

Frank,

I appreciate the well-framed reply (which, because of it's length, I'll incorporate by link:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/111056)

The crux of the discussion is that you assert that to engage in a thread on randomness is to invite certain allusion to religion that would violate the group guidelines, and therefore is inadvisable.

I defer to your experience, but that's not at all obvious to me. In terms of pure physical mechanics, it certainly possible to describe the workings of probability and explain that while patterns will manifest themselves in play, they're purely random in their occurrence and an unreliable basis from which to predict any pattern in play going forward. There's no need to deliberately deny the involvement of an invisible hand, or any other phenomenon outside the pure mechanics.

Of course, in the course of such a discussion, it's entirely possible that someone else should raise the topic of supernatural, divine, or other outside forces. If so, then the tactic is simply not to engage in those topics, noting that while there's no desire to invalidate any such beliefs, the primary topic doesn't require their involvement

Don't get me wrong, my philosophies have a strong religious underpinning. I just never encountered anything at odds with my math training.

In truth, Frank, in my 10+ year experience with this group, I've found few topics that can't be addressed without level headed, civil, participation -- particularly when the focus is kept to facts and opinions, while respected, should largely be sidelined. Not all such discussions go cleanly, but that's always the risk and where the moderator sits in reserve as referee.

#13

My thoughts exactly.

Discussions of politics, religion and smoking aren't
appropriate on vpFREE because they always seem to result in
a disruptive shouting match and the first two are off-topic.

Randomness is certainly on-topic and is appropriate to
discuss on vpFREE. I don't see why it, or most other
subjects, should/would have to involve disruptive religious
partisanship. If/when that happens, I'll move the discussion
to FREEvpFREE.

vpFREE Administrator

···

On 5 Jan 2011 at 10:59, Harry Porter wrote:

In truth, Frank, in my 10+ year experience with this group, I've found
few topics that can't be addressed without level headed, civil,
participation -- particularly when the focus is kept to facts and
opinions, while respected, should largely be sidelined. Not all such
discussions go cleanly, but that's always the risk and where the
moderator sits in reserve as referee.

#14

CONTEST RESUMED

Shorter reply: You summed up most of my concerns nicely. I should explain that every debate I have ever had on the topic, has turned into religion vs science, so I'm being colored by my own biased experiences. Also all the books I've read on the topic were heavily steeped in the historical record of similar such conflicts that turned ugly for the same reasons.

But I had an epiphany this morning. Since I wanted to run a contest, I should not be contributing anyway. Why should I be concerned what other people are talking about, just because I started the thread. Given this realization, your admonitions, and the Admin's's go ahead, I'll resume the contest, but keep in mind:

I'll be awarding the "prize" to the person that comes up with the best analogy to describe randomness, and why people look for and see pasterns in it, even when they are not there.

I'm upping the prize to $100 credit on my website
+ A copy of My Book
+ an on-air announcement and reading of the winning analogy
+ an optional interview with the author on my new weekly Radio Show

Please include "CONTEST SUBMISSION" at the very top, or I will assume it is a discussion, and not a contest submission. Consider "Highway to Hell" my sample submission for format. Include references if possible.

I'm going to check back at the end of the month, pick out the contest submissions and them have myself and 3 other friends of mine vote on the winner.

Please...please...please, be mindful that a large number of the people that see patterns in random events, and those that subscribe to a belief that "Everything Happens for a Reason", came to their beliefs, either through religion, or great personal tragedy. Rather than telling them why you think they are wrong, focus on explaining why you are right...and do no harm.

Look forward to checking back in at months end.

Sincerely,

Frank Kneeland

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@...> wrote:Frank,

···

I appreciate the well-framed reply (which, because of it's length, I'll incorporate by link:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vpFREE/message/111056)

The crux of the discussion is that you assert that to engage in a thread on randomness is to invite certain allusion to religion that would violate the group guidelines, and therefore is inadvisable.

I defer to your experience, but that's not at all obvious to me. In terms of pure physical mechanics, it certainly possible to describe the workings of probability and explain that while patterns will manifest themselves in play, they're purely random in their occurrence and an unreliable basis from which to predict any pattern in play going forward. There's no need to deliberately deny the involvement of an invisible hand, or any other phenomenon outside the pure mechanics.

Of course, in the course of such a discussion, it's entirely possible that someone else should raise the topic of supernatural, divine, or other outside forces. If so, then the tactic is simply not to engage in those topics, noting that while there's no desire to invalidate any such beliefs, the primary topic doesn't require their involvement

Don't get me wrong, my philosophies have a strong religious underpinning. I just never encountered anything at odds with my math training.

In truth, Frank, in my 10+ year experience with this group, I've found few topics that can't be addressed without level headed, civil, participation -- particularly when the focus is kept to facts and opinions, while respected, should largely be sidelined. Not all such discussions go cleanly, but that's always the risk and where the moderator sits in reserve as referee.

#15

Hey Administrator! Tell Frank to get to #3 already! The wait is killing me.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE Administrator" <vpfreeadmin@...> wrote:

vpFREE Administrator

#16

"Frank" <frank@...> wrote:

I would like to start a contest for the best analogy
to explain why it's a bad idea to look for patterns
in random events.

Example: you have stomach aches. The first week, you get them on Tuesday morning and Thursday evening. The following week, you get one Sunday afternoon. These aches are happening randomly; "random" after all means that you *don't know* what causes it.

So you look for patterns in these random events. Due to this effort, you discover that the aches come precisely at those times when you'd eaten a pickle a few hours earlier. So looking for a pattern in those random events saves you from suffering.

In this way, pretty much all personal improvement, all human advancement, comes from looking for patterns in random events. Everyone naturally looks for patterns in random events... those who fail to look for patterns get kicked out of the gene pool damn quickly.

When we play e.g. video poker, why don't we look for such patterns? For one specific reason: We know that there have been many, many controlled studies in which people have tried to find patterns in what those computer chips generate, and no one has ever demonstrated such an ability. Since so main other individuals have failed to find a predictive pattern, we conclude that we'd fail also.

In other words: why do we conclude it's pointless to try to predict a hand of video poker? Firstly, because we've read about those studies in which psychics etc failed to make such predictions accurately. And secondly, because we believe that life can be understood through recognizing patterns. Patterns such as: if 1000 people fail to predict the cards generated on a VP machine, we conclude that it's highly likely that the 1001st person will fail also.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

#17

I think you need to define what you mean by "randomness" a bit better. First off, in any set of data, there are patterns, that would be the mean, the variance, the skew, etc. That is of course statistics. Are you saying statistics is a pseudo-science? I assume you mean other than these patterns? That reason is simple, this is how the brain works, it looks for patterns. Sometimes it gets fooled (this would be magic tricks, grift, scams, casinos, etc.). Othertimes it sees a pattern which is strictly coincidence, the obvious example is seeing things in clouds.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:

I'll be awarding the "prize" to the person that comes up with the best analogy to describe randomness, and why people look for and see pasterns in it, even when they are not there.

#18

Personally, I don't see the conflict between the concept of "randomness", at least as it pertains to gambling, and religion. I consider myself a fairly religious guy, but don't for one second believe that each roll of the dice, pull of the lever, or push of the button is anything other than a separate, discrete event unrelated to the roll, pull, or push before it or after it. If one believes in some sort of higher power that has a "plan", that shouldn't have any impact on the randomness of events from the standpoint of the roller, puller, or pusher.

···

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: brucedcohen2002@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 01:39:15 -0800
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

Jews and Buddhists don't believe they or their religion is 'better'.
They both believe it is just one way to walk down the path of
'righteousness' or whatever you want to call it.

Both religions believe in behaviors and results, as well as
personal accountability.

This works for some people in VP and other forms of gambling.
I'm a 'math guy'. The only way I could beat the Casinos in
the 80s (my 20s), was by playing a very disciplined game based
on memorizing the best mathematical plays and ignoring any
kind of hunches or patterns.)

I've seen players who have been 'feel' players.
And part of my interest in VP comes from an older Restaurant
owner lady I met who is in love with VP.

She asked me to escort her to Agua Caliente, where I got
treated to her whole strategy and bankroll theory and everything.

She proceeded to win a few hundred bucks on a five in
quarters machine and I suggested we leave.
Then four hundred and five.
Back down some, but holding on.

She was keeping an eye on one machine at the bar.
It opened up after she hit a straight flush and was
really ahead.

She worked that machine even until past the time
she had promised to leave, but she felt hot and then
proceeded to hit a royal and another big jackpot.

She ran her stake up to $1500, and overstaying
her promise to me by about three hours.

I peeled her off the casino at six hours and
over $800 ahead.

As we pulled onto the freeway, her son called up,
worried she had been in the casino, losing again.

It works for some people, hot and cold and feel.
I stick to the math because it works for me.

--- On Wed, 1/5/11, Frank <frank@progressivevp.com> wrote:

From: Frank <frank@progressivevp.com>
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2011, 1:25 AM

Full reply to Harry Porter's post:

Thank you you Harry for your support and praise; and your extremely well thought out and written reply. Before we proceed.

Disclaimer: We aren't talking negatively about religion in this post. It is a discussion about how to talk about randomness and pattern recognition WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT RELIGION and breaching vpFREE's policies. It is in fact in support of vpFREE's no religion policy.

Here's the problem as I see it: The best discussion I ever read on the subject of how risk assessment, the concepts of randomness, and probability assessment entered into human knowledge was a book entitled, "Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk" by Peter L. Bernstein. The fact that its author named it such says volumes. I believe, it is impossible to have a complete and comprehensive discussion on the topic without breaching vpFREE's no religious topics rule. At the very least we would need to move it to FREEvpFREE, where thus far I have not joined.

I'm quite embarrassed about this over site on my part. Further replies to your post in-line below.

Harry Porter Wrote:
Frank,
The intensity of your sensitivities certainly appear to vie in strength with my own ... no small feat. But are you sure it's not sufficient to preface each related post with some type of advisory or, say, surgeon general's warning?

FK:
I'm ahead of you, my book has one. As I said before, after the attempted suicide incident by my test reader, I removed some of the most confrontational material. I also included a disclaimer. It bares restating here:

A QUICK DISCLAIMER: At times it may seem as if this book is pro-religious, and at other times it may seem to be anti-religious. It is neither. Religious beliefs have played an enormous part in shaping the history and current worldwide sociological attitude towards gambling. To write a comprehensive book about professional gambling and leave out any religious references would be like trying to paint an accurate portrait of someone without the color red in your palate. All of the early historical record about gambling and humanities viewpoints towards it comes from religious sources. If by quoting these sources I offend anyone, I assure you that is defiantly not the intent any more than talking about the Spanish Inquisition is an attack on Hispanic people; it's simply history, nothing more.

So it's not only a surgeon general's warning that would be needed to make a convincing argument against a non-belief in randomness, but a "WARNING anti-religious CONTENT" that would be required. And that would be against policy.

Harry Porter Wrote:
Seriously, I don't know the facts obviously, but I'm inclined to believe that no matter how dark the underlying message of your chapter might be to some, in this case this individual was prime for a gentle push of some type ... say, another "9/11" in the news, or finding that her morning's cereal milk had gone sour.

FK:
Well my book isn't dark at all (and wasn't in the first draft version she read). In fact it is an overwhelmingly positive and humorous account of my extremely successful career. I didn't name it, Million Dollar Video Poker", but I could have, kapish? Can you see how that could be incredibly depressing to someone with a very different experience gambling? As you say, she was no doubt on the edge, and primed for disaster; but do you have any idea how many people that describes in our society?

Harry Porter Wrote:
I'm not really being flippant here at all. In truth, I write this as a lifelong depression sufferer (bipolar illness, to be precise).

FK:
I'm so sorry to hear that. My study of that disorder suggests its root may be primarily organic, genetic, and not environmental. If true, you are obviously fighting it superbly to write such thoughtful posts. All the best.

Harry Porter Wrote:
I simply find it ironic that someone who has taken it upon himself to advise others that there's no meaning to be found in random patterns would infer such strong casualty to what you wrote and her action.

FK:
Good point. I hadn't thought of that. It might have something to do with the fact that she told me it did. Of course that doesn't mean she was right. She may simply have been attempting to take blame off herself and avoid personal responsibility. It still shook me to the core.

Harry Porter Wrote:
Ok, I can get that were I personally connected with the incident you describe that my attitude might be "once bitten, twice shy".

FK: Well I'd describe mine more as, "Once bitten, to the power of thrice shy." But I do over think things. Did I mention, she was my best friend's girlfriend.

Harry Porter Wrote:
But the basic message of random patterns is very pertinent to adept vp play and bears airing.

FK: Well you couldn't be more correct there!!! Understanding randomness is integral and paramount to any discussion of VP. I simply see no way to talk about it as a debate, for and against, without breaching vpFREE policy. If we stick to my original concept of only trying to come up with a best analogy to describe randomness, then we might be able to slide through without involving anti-religious sentiment. If we go with Meridith's suggestion of making it a debate, it is as volatile a discussion as evolution vs creationism. It is actually a separate part of the same argument, science vs religion.

I am relatively new to vpFREE. Perhaps we can take a page from the past. How on earth has this been discussed in the past without talking about religion?

Additional links between religion and gambling exist. In yet another book I read on gambling addiction, "Best Possible Odds: Contemporary Treatment Strategies for Gambling Disorders by William G. McCown (Author), Linda L. Chamberlain (Author), they state that particular religious beliefs are perhaps the largest factor in the development of pathological gambling. So great in fact, that in southern bible belt states, the SOGS (South Oaks Gambling Screen) had to be modified to avoid false positives. People that do not believe in events being the will of a higher power, are apparently less susceptible to addictive gambling, according to experts in the field.

Harry Porter Wrote:
(Again, I don't know just how deeply you delved into it's implications re life at large ... I'd have steered clear of that message, in the same manner prudent people avoid topics of politics and religion when addressing general audiences.)

FK: There's our problem in a nutshell, I don't see a way to broach this subject without blindfolds and tying our hands behind our backs. It's going to go political and religious almost instantly. Even though we are only talking about, talking about religion, the cat is out of the proverbial bag.

Remember, we live in a country where religious freedom is an inalienable right. Since most Religions believe that only theirs is the correct one (yet there are many), I think we can safely make a neutral comment that both atheist and believer alike can agree with: Free speech and religious freedom, though most of the time a great boon, also prevents the diffusing of some disinformation, publicly; and occasionally promotes (or at least does not discourage) some damaging fallacy. You don't have to go much further than the Jones Town Massacre , or The Heavens Gate incident to prove the point. I'm confident that anyone that might have been offended by that reference is dead.

Harry Porter Wrote:
What immediately comes to mind are the "hot and cold" machine adherents. (That, indeed, is a small ball of wax that is a microcosm for a larger slice of life philosophy.) Typically, there's nothing that can be said to sway the perception once it becomes a fixed notion, for the holder's very own experience has borne the concept out (in their own mind, at least ... hell, on occasion, shades of this fixation temporarily take root in my own head). But I'm always hopeful.

FK: Yes, as in my first post on this subject, I stated that I have never been able to convince anyone otherwise that believed strongly. I know this sounds hard to believe, but I had really blocked the memory of the only time I nearly did succeed with my test reader. How could anyone forget something like that? Well I can answer that one, because they wanted to.

Harry Porter Wrote:
One can readily argue that the "hot and cold" notion does no real harm. If someone switches to another equivalent machine, they should be no worse off. But I've known people who've been prompted to switch to poorer paytables, or stop playing despite strong play circumstances, motivated by a sense that the machine they had been playing had gone "cold". Plus, I've periodically witnessed people engage in behavior which directly adversely affected others (in some cases merely a matter of distraction, in others by making good machines unavailable for use while held in reserve, waiting for them to "warm up").

FK:
To reply to this, I'd have to starting talking about the topic, and I'm trying to avoid that, and talk instead, about why I'm not talking about the topic. Wow, I just confused myself. All right back to serious mode.

Harry Porter Wrote:
So, to sum things up, Frank, I don't think it's a topic to be treated as untouchable; just one that needs to be handled with care. I've no doubt that you have the temperament for that.

FK: Well I'd certainly like to think I do have the temperament. I am less sure I have the ability, or that anyone does. Every single book I've read, "Randomness" by Deborah J. Bennett, "The Book of Nothing: Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas about the Origins of the Universe" by John D. Barrow, the ones I mentioned earlier, and many others, have references to religion, if they had anything to do with gambling or probability. According to the historical record (I won't say which to avoid offending) most of the first people to propose the possibility of randomness were stoned to death. Would it surprise you to learn that the people doing the stoning were not crazed atheists?

I am still for dropping the subject and trying to get the genie back in the bottle. I see stoning in my future. Plus, I just really don't want to contradict peoples beliefs if they make them happy. It is a quandary that the same beliefs that make one person happy, hurt another.

If this continues to be a debate, for and against randomness, I will not post anymore in this thread, unless it is to respond to direct questions.

If we return to a pure thread of submitting competing analogies to explain randomness, I'll chime back in. I'm simply not going to get into an argument against religious beliefs, especially when those beliefs can be the linchpin in peoples psyches.

~When one can walk through fire unscathed, be careful no one less fireproof is following you.

~FK

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#19

"Sometimes it gets fooled (this would be magic tricks, grift, scams, casinos, etc.). Othertimes it sees a pattern which is strictly coincidence, the obvious example is seeing things in clouds."

And sometimes it refuses to see patterns based on preconceived assumptions.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/pigeons-monty-hall-problem-100304.html

···

To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
From: nightoftheiguana2000@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 18:25:20 +0000
Subject: [vpFREE] Re: Best Randomness Analogy Contest

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Frank" <frank@...> wrote:

I'll be awarding the "prize" to the person that comes up with the best analogy to describe randomness, and why people look for and see pasterns in it, even when they are not there.

I think you need to define what you mean by "randomness" a bit better. First off, in any set of data, there are patterns, that would be the mean, the variance, the skew, etc. That is of course statistics. Are you saying statistics is a pseudo-science? I assume you mean other than these patterns? That reason is simple, this is how the brain works, it looks for patterns. Sometimes it gets fooled (this would be magic tricks, grift, scams, casinos, etc.). Othertimes it sees a pattern which is strictly coincidence, the obvious example is seeing things in clouds.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#20

If someone looks at the movement of leaves in a bush and sees randomness, when in fact it's caused by a hidden tiger, the mistake will be costly. If someone thinks a tiger is there when in fact it's just the wind, the cost is far less. Natural selection, in a big way, favors those who see tigers that aren't there, over those who don't see tigers that are there.

The value of seeing patterns is that it enables you to predict the future, at least in a general way. In video poker, this means maximizing profit based on understanding long-term expected results. In life, it means surviving and procreating, thanks to running away from tigers when necessary.

As has come up in this discussion: Recognizing patterns, and thus more accurately predicting the future, doesn't always result in increased happiness. It may SEEM that greater understanding (like greater wealth) would invariably make one happier, but experience shows that this isn't always the case.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/