> I really would rather not become a test case. I happen to
agree
> with you though that some VP games, played carefully are beatable
at
> least in the short run and can be argued as such. If I was 20
years
> old again, I'd get some bright people and a powerful computer
setup
> and try to prove just that. (No retorts from you math guys out
there
> as this is a tax discussion.)For those who believe that
everything is
> already known about everything, I would encourage the reading of
the
> book "Fortune's Formula" by William Poundstone 2005. Sometime
the
> sciences of physics and math are closer to investing and gambling
> than one thinks. Alas at 63, I leave that to someone else who's
a
> bit younger. While I am on books also read the latest book by
Konik
> on Sports Betting which suggests a similar thing. Denny
Come on, 63 is not all that old. In fact, it's considered a real
good
idea for us old farts to take on new adventures to keep the brain
stimulated.
mroejacks: Lack of things to do are not my problem. I don't know
how I did anything but work before I retired. Come to think of it
that is all I did but work for 36 years. I was a workaholic which I
do not recommend. Denny
On the other hand, I think you'd be better off tackling another
windmill than looking for non-random behavior in random processes.
Not
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "denflo60" <dennis.florence@> wrote:
that I believe it's impossible with pseudo-random VP machines, just
more work than it's worth (and it would be worth a lot).