It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
ZetaRediculian
reply to post by tanka418
Poker has everything to do with mathematical probability. If you don't understand that, you don't understand probability or basic math.
bottleslingguy
how do you test the untestable? how do you detect things there are no detectors for? you will stay behind the curve as long as you support the "I won't believe it until I can kick it" mindset.
Keylogger
I was a believer, now skeptic. Believers are wrong.
alienreality
Other people with the same or better levels of aptitude to understand these things will read this and know instantly more about what I have said and in between the lines, than those who have a low aptitude. Yes, this does tend to piss-off those that don't appreciate there being people that are pretty much, a lot smarter than they are, and they will argue against every single thing I have said until they are red faced and spitting, much to the rest of our amusement.
tanka418
I was talking about "starting points". The creation of Hypothesis; which is necessarily speculation, but, is wholly based on current knowledge / evidence.
tanka418
ZetaRediculian
reply to post by tanka418
Poker has everything to do with mathematical probability. If you don't understand that, you don't understand probability or basic math.
You speak as if mathematical probability is a sub-set of and explained by poker; which of course is not the case, and quite the opposite. Actually the probabilities that may occur in a deck of 52 cards is rather different than what I'm talking about; mathematically that is.
I employ Bayesian inference, a sort of easy way to maintain overall probabilities over a large sequential sampling.
nerbot
There is no PROOF either way regarding the existance of aliens, UFOs exist, that's a fact.
ZetaRediculian
again, if you cant get basic math, why would get something more complex? demonstrating the simple math behind a simple 52 deck of cards should be cake compared to the astronomical datasets you are "talking" about. You just want to "talk"...
RUInsane
reply to post by tanka418
Courtrooms use eyewitness testimony, which is the least reliable form of evidence.
probability of 14 random star selection from K, G, and F class stars that match geometrical template: 2.05E-10
error in fish interpretation: 0.07
probability of earth like planets: 0.026
overall Bayesian probability: 0.941889
poker does not demonstrate what I'm talking about, has little to do with knowledge of mathematical probability
I employ Bayesian inference, a sort of easy way to maintain overall probabilities over a large sequential sampling.
here are three random links for you that took me less than 5 minutes to find with a quick google search. It is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
Modeling Texas Hold'em Poker Strategies with
Bayesian Networks
Luck, Bayesian Inference, and Poker Skill
Bayesian Inferences and Developing Information-poker
ZetaRediculian
"poker has little to do with knowledge of mathematical probability" is still wrong, utterly. This statement alone is testament to your complete lack of understanding of mathematical probability.
Just a cursory glance from anyone can see that. There is no reason to take your numbers at face value or even check your "work" because you demonstrated that you don't grasp the basics. We must conclude your numbers are either fictitious or wrong.
All I see is a failed attempt to dodge the fact you don't actually know what you are talking about.