Topic: BS&T -- Are you staying or leaving? (Read 24739 times)
They are just counting their gains and preparing the next sucker play.
Correct, Trendon S******. If many know your identity, it is one more reason to stop your Ponzi scheme now...
or just keep doing what he's doing since it isn't a ponzi?
Still think it was not a Ponzi?
imsaguy, farfiman, Haplo, and anybody else who argued against me that it wasn't a Ponzi: I would like you to re-read this thread and try to understand where your logic or psychology prevented you from seeing the reality of the clear signs of a Ponzi scheme that I was explaining. You will thank me later if you learn something and are able to avoid future Ponzi schemes.
As I said in another thread, the reason I participated in Pirateat40 threads was to genuinely prevent people from losing their money.
Not everybody who argued for the pirate was clueless. The most ardent pirate evangelists benefitted from the Ponzi scheme, for example by running feeder funds or simply by being bribed. Everybody who has followed the relevant threads knows who these people are.
The more intelligent ones are now fairly quiet. That does not make them less evil though. Quite to the contrary …
Correct, Trendon S******. If many know your identity, it is one more reason to stop your Ponzi scheme now...
or just keep doing what he's doing since it isn't a ponzi?
Still think it was not a Ponzi?
imsaguy, farfiman, Haplo, and anybody else who argued against me that it wasn't a Ponzi: I would like you to re-read this thread and try to understand where your logic or psychology prevented you from seeing the reality of the clear signs of a Ponzi scheme that I was explaining. You will thank me later if you learn something and are able to avoid future Ponzi schemes.
As I said in another thread, the reason I participated in Pirateat40 threads was to genuinely prevent people from losing their money.
This is one place where good old Mr. Ockham actually becomes useful.
Brother Occam never practised what he preached. He was a theologian and he asserts that the simplest explanation is the more likely? Hah! I wonder how he fitted religion into that concept. Bloody monks. Never useful.
Three words, very simple.
Of course, if you apply Occam's razor mathematically, things become a lot different…
+10
Umm.... I'm leaving now, lol
This is one place where good old Mr. Ockham actually becomes useful.
Brother Occam never practised what he preached. He was a theologian and he asserts that the simplest explanation is the more likely? Hah! I wonder how he fitted religion into that concept. Bloody monks. Never useful.
Three words, very simple.
Of course, if you apply Occam's razor mathematically, things become a lot different…
+10
"God did it."
Three words, very simple.
Of course, if you apply Occam's razor mathematically, things become a lot different…
Three words, very simple.
Of course, if you apply Occam's razor mathematically, things become a lot different…
+1
This is one place where good old Mr. Ockham actually becomes useful.
Brother Occam never practised what he preached. He was a theologian and he asserts that the simplest explanation is the more likely? Hah! I wonder how he fitted religion into that concept. Bloody monks. Never useful.
Three words, very simple.
Of course, if you apply Occam's razor mathematically, things become a lot different…
This is one place where good old Mr. Ockham actually becomes useful.
Brother Occam never practised what he preached. He was a theologian and he asserts that the simplest explanation is the more likely? Hah! I wonder how he fitted religion into that concept. Bloody monks. Never useful.
I think one of the alternate names on wikipedia is better: the law of parsimony.
Monks did a lot of good work on the production of beer and wine.
Lol!
This is one place where good old Mr. Ockham actually becomes useful.
Brother Occam never practised what he preached. He was a theologian and he asserts that the simplest explanation is the more likely? Hah! I wonder how he fitted religion into that concept. Bloody monks. Never useful.
I think one of the alternate names on wikipedia is better: the law of parsimony.
This is one place where good old Mr. Ockham actually becomes useful.
Is it more likely, given the fact that he has acknowledged that he is the person with that name, among other details of his life, that
a) He is running a complicated Ponzi conspiracy with "backers" to defraud scores of nerds who have plenty of time to dig up details of his life, and is prepared to flee the country or to defend himself and his family from attacks from both the legal system and crazy Internet nut jobs from whom he stole their life savings
or
b) He is running a legitimate (as much as BTC is in whatever jurisdiction) business and is not concerned about legal or violent repercussions toward himself or his family?
Answers will be judged.
Its funny you bring up a razor. I was just having a friend tell me how he's got a hairy bung hole. Perhaps he should meet Mr. Ockham?
Please, Todd T******, I implore you to stop your Ponzi scheme. You will make tons of people very angry when you default, putting yourself and your family under stress and danger. You will also devastate people who were irresponsible enough to invest their life savings into it. You will create another round of bad publicity for Bitcoin. I understand financial success, greed, etc makes it hard to stop, but you have to stop. Now.
Who's Todd T******?
You are Todd T****** from McKinney, Texas.
LOL, no I'm pretty sure people know exactly who I am. Your google must be borked.
Correct, Trendon S******. If many know your identity, it is one more reason to stop your Ponzi scheme now...
So, in recap:
"I know who you are. You are x."
"I am not x."
"Correct, y. You are y."
Correct, Trendon S******. If many know your identity, it is one more reason to stop your Ponzi scheme now...
or just keep doing what he's doing since it isn't a ponzi?
Please, Todd T******, I implore you to stop your Ponzi scheme. You will make tons of people very angry when you default, putting yourself and your family under stress and danger. You will also devastate people who were irresponsible enough to invest their life savings into it. You will create another round of bad publicity for Bitcoin. I understand financial success, greed, etc makes it hard to stop, but you have to stop. Now.
Who's Todd T******?
You are Todd T****** from McKinney, Texas.
LOL, no I'm pretty sure people know exactly who I am. Your google must be borked.
Correct, Trendon S******. If many know your identity, it is one more reason to stop your Ponzi scheme now...
Read the link I posted. Plus, I'm saying the probabilities involved are not random. If the game was truly random you'd need a set of an infinite number of cards.
/OT /OT
/OT /OT
Proper card counting, which doesnt really exist anymore in casinos, is not random and I used to do it full time along with partners at a bunch of casinos all over the country between 1999-2003, it was by far the most predictable way of earning income by gambling. Sure the next card is purely based on probability but with proper card counting you can narrow the stats down to a huge favourite over the house and when you have the "house edge" its a guaranteed win.
In 2004 the casinos got up to gear and removed every hand shuffling 6+ deck with atleast 60% penetration which turned cardcounting into a losing game.
Long story short, its very predictable.
Did you know those guys from MIT that they made a movie about? If so, cool!
Read the link I posted. Plus, I'm saying the probabilities involved are not random. If the game was truly random you'd need a set of an infinite number of cards.
/OT /OT
/OT /OT
Proper card counting, which doesnt really exist anymore in casinos, is not random and I used to do it full time along with partners at a bunch of casinos all over the country between 1999-2003, it was by far the most predictable way of earning income by gambling. Sure the next card is purely based on probability but with proper card counting you can narrow the stats down to a huge favourite over the house and when you have the "house edge" its a guaranteed win.
In 2004 the casinos got up to gear and removed every hand shuffling 6+ deck with atleast 60% penetration which turned cardcounting into a losing game.
Long story short, its very predictable.
Read the link I posted. Plus, I'm saying the probabilities involved are not random. If the game was truly random you'd need a set of an infinite number of cards.
/OT /OT
/OT /OT
Investing returns are random within a range based on what you know of the underlying asset/business/investment. Sounds like gambling.
Blackjack (as an example) is not random, but again returns are within a range based on the rules of the game.
Both involve some skill, as opposed to a simple game of chance. Even BS&T allows some skill to be applied, such as due diligence on different aspects of the business.
Blackjack (as an example) is not random, but again returns are within a range based on the rules of the game.
Both involve some skill, as opposed to a simple game of chance. Even BS&T allows some skill to be applied, such as due diligence on different aspects of the business.
Blackjack is not random?
Not if you do it the
Even if you get an edge the outcome of each hand is random. And even if you are talking about the long run to the point where you are sure to win your exact result will vary widely.
The outcome of each hand is governed by a particular probability. If you can skew that then over a number of hands, you can come out ahead. But it's not a random probability, in any case.
/OT
You play a bunch of hands, you come out ahead, how much? You dunno, it's random.
/OT
Kelly Criterion for dummies
For those who don't feel like digging through the Kelly formula, here is a strongly simplified explanation. It boils down to the old saying: "Never put all your eggs in one basket."
The idea behind it is that, if you make investments that (usually) involve some risk, if you always bet all your money, you run a high risk to eventually lose it all.
When I apply the Kelly Criterion to typical bitcoin investments and speculation, the result is often that I should invest or bet no more than 10% to 20% of my entire wealth.
Of course this applies to your entire wealth, not only bitcoins. You have to include your assets and income. For example, if you have a monthly income of $5,000 and can save $1,000 of these each month, then it may not matter all that much if you put all your 1,000 bitcoins into one risky investment. If you lose them, you buy another 1,000 bitcoins half a year later.
If, on the other hand, you have saved 20,000 BTC to bring your pension up to par, you should not put all of these into any risky investment. You should limit your exposure to each single risk to, say, 2,000 BTC, so the likelihood of losing your entire stash remains sufficiently small.
That's the essence of the Kelly Criterion.
For those who don't feel like digging through the Kelly formula, here is a strongly simplified explanation. It boils down to the old saying: "Never put all your eggs in one basket."
The idea behind it is that, if you make investments that (usually) involve some risk, if you always bet all your money, you run a high risk to eventually lose it all.
When I apply the Kelly Criterion to typical bitcoin investments and speculation, the result is often that I should invest or bet no more than 10% to 20% of my entire wealth.
Of course this applies to your entire wealth, not only bitcoins. You have to include your assets and income. For example, if you have a monthly income of $5,000 and can save $1,000 of these each month, then it may not matter all that much if you put all your 1,000 bitcoins into one risky investment. If you lose them, you buy another 1,000 bitcoins half a year later.
If, on the other hand, you have saved 20,000 BTC to bring your pension up to par, you should not put all of these into any risky investment. You should limit your exposure to each single risk to, say, 2,000 BTC, so the likelihood of losing your entire stash remains sufficiently small.
That's the essence of the Kelly Criterion.
I'm gonna risk patrick slapping me with one of those brain hurting responses again and say what I think he was implying by 'not random'.
I believe he was refering to the payouts for blackjak, not the hands.
edit; which if you could apply the formula of placing a bet n^ your previous bet for each losing hand you would eventually win. Catch is the casinos are too smart for that and limit the maximum bet. ;p
I believe he was refering to the payouts for blackjak, not the hands.
edit; which if you could apply the formula of placing a bet n^ your previous bet for each losing hand you would eventually win. Catch is the casinos are too smart for that and limit the maximum bet. ;p
Nah, apparently I've annoyed Vladimir quite effectively https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1014104
And discussing complex number theory and statistics is less interesting than my beer and the steak I'm going to be having soon.
Anyway, my personal expectation is that BS&T might run another six months, so I'm set until Christmas, so I'm in the staying camp. (I also know who Mr P is, and have various other bits of information that provide me confidence that my funds are as safe with him as many other places. I am not "all in", and happy to be receiving less than the top tier of interest from 1 August because others are keen to run low margin pass-throughs.)
Investing returns are random within a range based on what you know of the underlying asset/business/investment. Sounds like gambling.
Blackjack (as an example) is not random, but again returns are within a range based on the rules of the game.
Both involve some skill, as opposed to a simple game of chance. Even BS&T allows some skill to be applied, such as due diligence on different aspects of the business.
Blackjack (as an example) is not random, but again returns are within a range based on the rules of the game.
Both involve some skill, as opposed to a simple game of chance. Even BS&T allows some skill to be applied, such as due diligence on different aspects of the business.
Blackjack is not random?
Not if you do it the
Even if you get an edge the outcome of each hand is random. And even if you are talking about the long run to the point where you are sure to win your exact result will vary widely.
The outcome of each hand is governed by a particular probability. If you can skew that then over a number of hands, you can come out ahead. But it's not a random probability, in any case.
/OT
Jump to: