1060: Information Overload

[jeffdrafttech]

I've seen my dad three times since 1987, he lives thousands of miles away. Could care less. My mom hated me when I was a kid because I failed to be a bible thumper, nad I hated her because she was violent and fucking nuts. She lives about five miles from me but I speak to her maybe once or twice per year (although she calls weekly and leaves rambling messages). Usually the only time we speak is when I'm drunk enough to answer and tell her how I feel about her. She is a lonely crazy person and she deserves her misery.

[Skyler]

I'm quite sure i'm not enough of an adult to give a fair answer on this. I'm only 21 so take that how you will. I feel the non adults (in Keith eyes, i.e. under 25) will end up skewing the results somewhat. Who doesn't have a weird relationship with there parents when they are under 25 and barley seen as adults (or legitimately are not adults.)

[PoorGradStudent]

Originally Posted by Keith

Is it me, or are a lot of these 'yes'es supposed to be 'no's?

I think it depends on what a good relationship means to you. I don't need to be bestest buddies with my mom to have a good relationship with her. We enjoy the time we spend together, we get along and I can go to her for advice for life decisions. I stand by my yes.

Edit: By the way I am 27 years old, so by definition, an adult.

[MrBrit]

Here's why the Roulette trick doesn't work:

The major problem with it is that you have to constantly bet bigger and bigger to cover your past losses. But, you have a limited amount of money, so eventually, you'll max-out how much money you have. The result of this strategy is this: you will win small amounts of money 99% of the time. The other 1% of the time, you'll lose huge amounts of money. When you run the calculations, it isn't really worth it. If you win $1 99% of the time, but lose $200 1% of the time, then that averages out to ($1 * 99%) = $99 in winnings and ($200 * 1%) = $200 in losses. The problem is that most people don't realize what kind of a situation they're getting themselves into. They try this "trick" and it seems to work pretty well the first half-dozen times they try it. It's that other 1% of the time when you get slammed with huge losses - but because they don't happen to hit that situation the first half-dozen times at the roulette table, they think its a foolproof strategy.

The system I heard is that you double your bet every time you lose. So, $1, $2, $4, $8, etc. In actual numbers, here's how works out:
1st Spin. 50% of the time = you win $1
2nd Spin. 25% of the time = you win $1 (because you bet $2 to cover your earlier $1 loss)
3rd Spin. 12.5% of the time = you win $1 (because you bet $4 to cover your earlier $3 loss)
4th Spin. 6.25% of the time = you win $1 (because you bet $8 to cover your earlier $7 loss)
5th Spin. 3.125% of the time = you win $1 (because you bet $16 to cover your earlier $15 loss)
6th Spin. 1.5625% of the time = you win $1 (because you bet $32 to cover your earlier $31 loss)
If you lose six times in a row (which happens 1.5625% of the time, or about 1 in 64), you've lost $63. The question is: do you want to keep chasing that bet with bigger and bigger bets? Do you have enough money? Even if you're a millionaire, you still have a chance to lose big. People who use this strategy will probably say you have to keep chasing your losses. But, your odds of a ten-step losing streak are 1 in 1024, and at that point, you've got to put $1024 to cover your losses of $1023. The odds of a twenty-step losing streak are one in a million, but if that ever happens, you're down a million dollars in losses. No one has enough money to keep chasing their losses forever, and there's always a chance you'll get on a long losing streak that will consume all your money.

That other guy's system involves increasing your bet by 2.5x. While that gives you better winnings when you finally break your losing streak, it also gives you deeper losses faster. Casinos aren't afraid of this system because even though lots of people will walk away with small winnings, they'll make lots of money on the poor shmuck who gets on a seven or eight-step losing streak.

By the way, you can try to use the same trick with other gambling games as well. For example, you could double your bet with Blackjack every time you lose. My brother did this in Vegas a few years ago. He hit a losing streak and lost $300 within the first 20 minutes we were in Vegas.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by PoorGradStudent

I think it depends on what a good relationship means to you. I don't need to be bestest buddies with my mom to have a good relationship with her. We enjoy the time we spend together, we get along and I can go to her for advice for life decisions. I stand by my yes.

I was careful with my wording. I said 'great'.

[PoorGradStudent]

Originally Posted by Keith

I was careful with my wording. I said 'great'.

Just for clairification, how would you define a great relationship with a parent?

Honest question, I'm interested to know where you draw the line.

[Keith]

No, the point is what you say.

If you have to "clarify," is it great?

Me and Chemda's relationship is great. Me and Brolo is great. Me and Adam is great.

Are you and your parents great?

No.

No...

[Junkenstein]

Absultely "No". And i am perfectly fine with it. Why people feel like they have to say "yes"? It's not that important, you know?

[blobby]

Originally Posted by MrBrit

Here's why the Roulette trick doesn't work:

The major problem with it is that you have to constantly bet bigger and bigger to cover your past losses. But, you have a limited amount of money, so eventually, you'll max-out how much money you have. The result of this strategy is this: you will win small amounts of money 99% of the time. The other 1% of the time, you'll lose huge amounts of money. When you run the calculations, it isn't really worth it. If you win $1 99% of the time, but lose $200 1% of the time, then that averages out to ($1 * 99%) = $99 in winnings and ($200 * 1%) = $200 in losses. The problem is that most people don't realize what kind of a situation they're getting themselves into. They try this "trick" and it seems to work pretty well the first half-dozen times they try it. It's that other 1% of the time when you get slammed with huge losses - but because they don't happen to hit that situation the first half-dozen times at the roulette table, they think its a foolproof strategy.

The system I heard is that you double your bet every time you lose. So, $1, $2, $4, $8, etc. In actual numbers, here's how works out:
1st Spin. 50% of the time = you win $1
2nd Spin. 25% of the time = you win $1 (because you bet $2 to cover your earlier $1 loss)
3rd Spin. 12.5% of the time = you win $1 (because you bet $4 to cover your earlier $3 loss)
4th Spin. 6.25% of the time = you win $1 (because you bet $8 to cover your earlier $7 loss)
5th Spin. 3.125% of the time = you win $1 (because you bet $16 to cover your earlier $15 loss)
6th Spin. 1.5625% of the time = you win $1 (because you bet $32 to cover your earlier $31 loss)
If you lose six times in a row (which happens 1.5625% of the time, or about 1 in 64), you've lost $63. The question is: do you want to keep chasing that bet with bigger and bigger bets? Do you have enough money? Even if you're a millionaire, you still have a chance to lose big. People who use this strategy will probably say you have to keep chasing your losses. But, your odds of a ten-step losing streak are 1 in 1024, and at that point, you've got to put $1024 to cover your losses of $1023. The odds of a twenty-step losing streak are one in a million, but if that ever happens, you're down a million dollars in losses. No one has enough money to keep chasing their losses forever, and there's always a chance you'll get on a long losing streak that will consume all your money.

That other guy's system involves increasing your bet by 2.5x. While that gives you better winnings when you finally break your losing streak, it also gives you deeper losses faster. Casinos aren't afraid of this system because even though lots of people will walk away with small winnings, they'll make lots of money on the poor shmuck who gets on a seven or eight-step losing streak.

By the way, you can try to use the same trick with other gambling games as well. For example, you could double your bet with Blackjack every time you lose. My brother did this in Vegas a few years ago. He hit a losing streak and lost $300 within the first 20 minutes we were in Vegas.

This is almost right, but for some reason i have to stick my "well, actually *slurp*" in here.
The chance of hitting black is not = 50% because 0 is green. Which then gives the casinos a bigger edge.

[spanishyoyo]

I have to go with No on the poll. I only have a good relationship with my parents because they are in another continent and I only see them once a year. And thats what works for me.