--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:
>
> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Porter" <harry.porter@v...>
> Harry,
>
> I saw nothing wrong with your original post. I have not commented
on
> this thread previously because I thought you and others had made
> valid points and covered the ground sufficiently well.
>
> Even though it's unlikely Rock will change his mind you've
provided
> him (and others who might agree with him) with more reasonable
> thinking on casino cheating. Rocks' argument that, somehow, being
in
> the minority actually supports his position is weak at best.
You're right; that's why it's tangential at most to my basic
argument, which is supported by my observations, not any
preconceptions. I have no stake in believing the casinos may be
cheating. I'd much rather be sure they were honest.
I had a problem with a particular casino (A) starting about 4 years
ago. I pretty much always lost there. This went on for 2-3 years
while playing the exact same game in another casino (B) I had much
better luck. Naturally, I played a lot more at casino (B). I was
(almost) positive that the casino (A) was cheating. As fortune would
have it the scenario changed a little over a year ago and now I've
had better luck at the casino (A). Of course, casino (A) could have
been cheating and decided it was better to return to honest
operations.
One of the horrors of statistics is the possibility that you may
actually incur the <1% situations.
Using
> the flat earth analogy is pure gobbledgook. Whenever a new
scientific
> position comes into vogue its' because the new view describes the
> situation BETTER than the old view. In the cheating example its'
a
> black or white situation. Nothing like the flat earth example or,
I
> suspect, any other example Rock could invent to support his
position.
You forget that new scientific positions come into vogue because of
new DATA becoming available as well. No one believed the "round
earth theory" until transoceanic voyages PROVED it.
This argument does not work in this particular case. We KNOW exactly
how VP machines operate. There will be NO new data about HOW the
machines operate. They are either gaffed or they are not. THIS is the
problem I had with your analogy.
> The games are either gaffed or they aren't. Collecting sufficient
> information will answer the question.
And how would we do this, from our vantage point? We can only
collect VP PLAYING results which are at best a CORRELATION.
True. I'm simply stating the only way to determine if a casino is
gaffing their machines. The way I approached the problem I described
above was to tell anyone who asked that I was suspicious of the
casino. That's as far as I could go.
>
> I think the Gallileo/Copernicus example drives home his
unwillingness to admit he could EVER be wrong. No matter what any
one of us says he will continue to invent whatever necessary
arguments he can concoct rather than considering he might be wrong.
>
Oh, come on! The identity of the person in question was peripheral
to my argument, that being in the tiny minority about an idea, even
if the vast majority is passionately violent about their beliefs,
doesn't mean that idea is wrong.
In this particular case the argument doesn't hold NO matter who was
burned at the stake. That is my point. It seemed you were looking for
ANY analogy that would support your case rather than consider the
alternative.
The argument is the same whether
it's about Galileo, Copernicus, or Howdy Doody. (BTW a later post
today suggests it was Bruno that I was probably thinking of, and I
agree with that.)
The analogy doesn't hold for KNOWN technology like VP machines.
> None of this diminishes any of the good information Rock has
posted
> in the past and I hope will continue to post in the future.
Frankly, people picking nits, using a minor inaccuracy to make some
snide insinuation about me, all the while ignoring the basic point
of what I am saying (the "Mister Spock Syndrome": "Twenty-three
point four zero five one THREE parsecs, Captain"), provides a
strong
disincentive to post ANYTHING.
Interesting that you came out of this thinking I was nitpickiing your
analogy when I was stating that your analogy itself is invalid. It
still appears you won't accept any argument that opposes your current
thinking.
A year or so ago we had a rash of
people correcting other peoples' spelling/typing errors. This is in
the same league; if I had thought that precisely WHO the persecuted
Italian astronomer was was critical to my point and/or the
continued
well-being of the free world, I would have dashed to the
Encyclopedia Gigantica and looked it up.
I hope by now you understand my point. It had nothing to do with the
Italian astronomer in question.
Dick
···
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rgmustain" <rgmustain@a...> wrote:
