Quantifying Good & Bad Decisions

I have to take a week or so off from posting to work on a paid writing project I have. I hope I have answered all your questions.

TTFN

I think one sees a lot of differences in pictures posted on vpfree vs. any other forum (at least when I used to look at them). So, yes, your analysis is correct.

While I realize an occasional politician or athlete has been shown to be less than totally forthright and car salesmen and lawyers have a bit of an unsavory reputation, I am shocked to think that some people might think that professional gamblers were anything less than models of integrity.

I'm shocked, shocked, that you would ask one question, and then discovering a gap, rephrase the question so that the answer to the new question is the answer you proposed to the OLD question (begging the question). I'm shocked you would do this. Utterly shocked.

And no, it isn't dishonest. It's called being HUMAN, something you seem to have philosophical difficulties with. Which difficulties seem to cause you to pose completely abstract problems on this board, through which you seek justification for your completely abstract hypotheses.

And neither dog walking nor tax return preparation were posed as metaphors. Those were actual questions. In your opinion, if I get paid $5 to walk my neighbor's dog, and I do it differently than the way I walk my dog (assume it's the same breed), am I being dishonest? Is honesty equivalent with full disclosure, in your opinion? If my girlfriend asks me about my previous relationships, and I leave some stuff out, am I being honest?

Seriously?

Hypothetically.

Um, yes. Imaginary things can be whatever you want them to be. 5 fruits can be counted as one, in one's imagination. Counting is based on reality; only real things can be counted. Again, serious philosophical gaps are apparent.

ok

When I checked this thread today I was expecting to find lots of cometary on alanleroy's excellent comments reposted above. Though he disagreed with some of my ideas, in my opinion his were just as valid if not better than mine and I was hoping to find discussion.

Instead, I discovered the thread had petered out arguing over the ability of people to do in-head calculation with imaginary things. Since I have it on the best of authority that schools don't offload huge truck loads of real fruit every time a math test question involving fruit is asked, I think we can put that one to bed. It is possible to add, subtract multiply and divide imaginary things, or at least that's how they teach it after kindergarten.

Now let's get back to alanleroy's comments. If you have forgotten, this thread was supposed to be about the disproportionate number of jackpot pictures on low return games that people post on forums.

Answers to numbered questions from above:

1. You know I didn't check. I get jackpot pictures in my email from vpFREE and it had seemed to me that an awful lot of them were on really bad pay-structures. But no, I did not look and do a proper mathematical evaluation. Good catch.

2. I had not factored in those that were oblivious. So right again. It's hard for me to imagine people doing something they don't understand. I was assuming that playing bad machines over good machines was always a choice.

3. I think there are a lot more bad machines out there than good ones, and in some areas bad machines are all that are available. That alone could create the bias. It still doesn't explain why the people I know that play positive expectancy machines NEVER post jackpots.

My explanation is that for them winning is just normal and nothing to get excited about.

(Please note: I'm just going to ignore off topic comments from now on in an effort to keep threads on track)