Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

So with all those smart people involved, they couldn't develop a metaphor that makes sense? The tiger eats you and the wind doesn't. It doesn't matter which one you believe in.

Complete nonsense once again. Money, new ideas have to have a foundation. Sure, there are differences in the way that a person will see their results vary over time when using a negative progression. That has been known by mathematicians (and gamblers) for decades (so much for your claim of new ideas). However, those differences do not change the expectation of the game. This is quite trivial stuff. That you persist in repeating the same nonsense over and over is really quite bazaar. I suspect you are a very superstitious person.

You're not serious are you? Most people have no idea what the return of machines are and are just hoping to get lucky while being entertained. Those that do know the returns are pretty much the same.

True APs understand your confusion perfectly and understand they actually can continue to win.

The sad thing is that you keep repeating the idea that quitting at a particular moment somehow changes karma so that when you return the gambling gods will completely forgot you won and change the RNG results to help you win again.

Don't forget to bring that rabbit's foot.

There's a reason some sciences are called soft sciences.

Even in the hard sciences most of what is claimed today will turn out to be wrong.

BTW, the wind was blowing quite hard today and not once did I assume it was a Tiger ... I guess I got lucky yet again. Is that like reaching a win goal?

So your complaint was on the style not the substance? I kinda liked the Tiger/Wind metaphor, which was written originally by Michel Shermer and paraphrased by me.

How about this, dazzle us with your brilliance and come up with a better one to convey the same concept.

Then we can all vote on if your writing style is superior to Michael's. If you'd like to read the original version, I just looked it up, you'll find it on page 59, beginning of chapter 4 of The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer. What I wrote before was from memory. He uses predator instead of tiger and there are a few other differences and additional explanation.

Tiger/wind. Fire/no fire. Nuts/bluff. Poison/Terrible's buffet. Heart attack/heartburn.

The most successful people navigate these Type I and Type II errors without soiling their knickers.

People that fear the Type I error live long boring lives.

People that fear Type II error live more exciting but often have shorter life spans.

My point is the Tiger doesn't care whether you're afraid of the wind; it eats you either way. Likewise when a drunk driver barrels through a red light; it really doesn't matter your opinion of drunk drivers. The style of a metaphor isn't as important as whether it fits reality.

In any case, metaphors are significantly inferior to factual knowledge when it comes to solving a problem. What REAL problems (i.e. existing in reality, not problems of thought, interpretation, emotional well-being, etc.) have been solved by application of the Type I/Type II hypothesis? Have fatalities been reduced in any way? Is there any evidence that terrorism alerts have reduced terrorism?

Aren't there serious flaws in the hypothesis? Posit two people who are BOTH making Type I errors (or Type II errors), rather than one a Type I and the other a Type II. Wouldn't the DIFFERENCE in magnitude between the two errors be much more important than the Type?

What are the odds of getting eaten by a tiger while using the Singer VP system vs. using proper math play.

If u already have children and then are eaten by a tiger while playing VP using the Singer system r u really out of the gene pool

Did you even read the link?