On 5/19/2022 6:28 PM, MK wrote:
> Who cares? Why does it need to exist? Whatever points
> each player wins or loses is the only thing that matters.

Your initial question was whether Axel would call it SPP
if the cube goes to 16 or 32 in a 25-point match. You said,
"I'm trying to understand what he means by SPP in the gamblegammon
context." These are the questions I was addressing. "Whatever
points each player wins or loses" is *not* the only thing that
matters *if what you are trying to understand is what Axel
means*.

You're now digressing into the question of whether SPP is
relevant to backgammon. I don't expect that discussion to go
anywhere. If you still don't understand *what Axel means* then
I can continue to explain. If you now understand what he means
and just disagree, then my job is done here.

---
Tim Chow

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 1:12:07 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
.....
> You're now digressing into the question of whether SPP is
> relevant to backgammon.
....

The SPP is obviously irrelevant to backgammon.
For match backgammon, the irrelevance is clear.
For money backgammon, table stakes always operate because no one
has more than (say) a trillion dollars.
Once you acknowledge that the sums of money are finite, the "paradox" melts away.
In fact, since money is clearly finite, the whole "paradox" is just rather silly anyway.
It's a meme that's just massively overrated.

I'd like to present the Epstein Chocolate Paradox.
Suppose that Cadbury's Whole Nut chocolate is available to everyone and doesn't cost anything.
Assume it tastes great and is very healthy, and never leads to obesity.
Assume also that 10% of British people walking in the streets are continuously gorging
themselves on Cadbury's Whole Nut chocolate. Then 1) The people who are continously
wolfing down chocolate while they are talking and walking look disgusting.
And also 2) People get jealous of other people who eat enormous amounts of chocolate
without gaining weight.
Therefore people are getting jealous of people who seem disgusting.
This is clearly paradoxical because disgusting people arouse disgust by definition and
disgust is not really compatible with jealousy.

How is the Epstein Chocolate Paradox resolved?
Simply by pointing out that the properties of chocolate posed by the problem don't all hold.
It isn't free, it isn't healthy, and it does lead to obesity.

It's the same for the resolution of the SPP. Money is finite and that's an essential property
of money. So speculating about the jolly paradox we'd get if money was infinite is kind of silly
like my chocolate paradox.

Paul

MK <murat@compuplus.net> writes:

> On May 19, 2022 at 2:04:21 PM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:
>
>> MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
>
>>> If Axel had played 10,000,000 actual games instead of
>>> only 10,000 and using Markov Chains to extrapolate to
>>> 5,000,000,000 games, I wonder if "things would settle"
>>> better in an experiment closer to real life..?
>
>> No.
>
> How do you know?

It is called "math", you know, and it can be used to prove things.

Axel

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 11:01:43 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
> MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
>
> > On May 19, 2022 at 2:04:21 PM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:
> >
> >> MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
> >
> >>> If Axel had played 10,000,000 actual games instead of
> >>> only 10,000 and using Markov Chains to extrapolate to
> >>> 5,000,000,000 games, I wonder if "things would settle"
> >>> better in an experiment closer to real life..?
> >
> >> No.
> >
> > How do you know?
> It is called "math", you know, and it can be used to prove things.

But, unfortunately, I don't see it being used to prove the non-existence
of odd perfect numbers. In fact, I doubt that that will even be proved
during my lifetime.

Paul

On May 20, 2022 at 6:12:07 AM UTC-6, Tim Chow wrote:

> On 5/19/2022 6:28 PM, MK wrote:

>> Who cares? Why does it need to exist? Whatever points
>> each player wins or loses is the only thing that matters.

> Your initial question was whether Axel would call it SPP
> if the cube goes to 16 or 32 in a 25-point match. You said,
> "I'm trying to understand what he means by SPP in the
> gamblegammon context."

Before that question, I had written: "The cube can go "too
high" in match play also, depending on what one considers
too high relative to match length". It was to contrast cube
going "too high" in money games vs in match play.

As the regurgitating idiot that you are, who can't read and
can't understand what is asked, you responded: "No. The
essence of SPP is that the expected value does not exist.
When there is a maximum possible value (here, 25 points)
then the expected value always exists".

To that, I had replied, as you partially quoted: "I wasn't
asking if it would be SPP but if "Axel would call it SPP".
I'm trying to understand what he means by SPP in the
gamblegammon context". Why did you skip the part that
shows you had "essentially" given an irrelevant answer?

> These are the questions I was addressing.

Much has been said since that question which was only
one of dozens of other questions that I had asked, like
this one immediately following it: "Also, would it make a
difference if it were a 10,000-point or 4,000,000,000-point
match? Again, I'm just trying to understand how cube and
SPP can be linked in any way". You couldn't answer that
one, like most of the others, could you? Well, it's not too
late if you want to try...

> "Whatever points each player wins or loses" is *not*
> the only thing that matters *if what you are trying to
> understand is what Axel means*.

I never said anything to make such a connection. But as
you are a pathetic, inferiority complexed loser, you need
to create a strawman in order to confound issues and
avoid answering the question that you quoted at the
very top of this post. Again, it's not too late fi you want
to give it a try...

> You're now digressing into the question of whether SPP
> is relevant to backgammon.

No. I'm not digressing. I had declared my opinion that it
is not relevant/applicable in gamblegammon when Axel
first mentioned it. But you may say I'm "pursuing" it, even
though SPP has never been an important issue for me.

> I don't expect that discussion to go anywhere.

Especially not if you ignore my entire, long last post and
save face by resorting back to an old question which you
had already failed to answer. That's okay. You don't have
much to offer other than regurgitated mathshit anyway.

> If you still don't understand *what Axel means* then I
> can continue to explain. If you now understand what
> he means and just disagree, then my job is done here.

As an anal professor, I' sure you will explain and again
the same irrelevant nonsense whether anyone asks or
not but you won't be able to answer specific/focused
questions. I apologize if I slapped you too hard for you
to resort to this sorry ass, worthless post of yours. When
the dizziness goes away, I'm sure you'll be back for more. :(

MK

On May 20, 2022 at 4:01:43 PM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

> MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:

>> On May 19, 2022 at 2:04:21 PM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

>>> MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:

>>>> If Axel had played 10,000,000 actual games instead of
>>>> only 10,000 and using Markov Chains to extrapolate to
>>>> 5,000,000,000 games, I wonder if "things would settle"
>>>> better in an experiment closer to real life..?

>>> No.

>> How do you know?

> It is called "math", you know, and it can be used to prove
> things.

Well, okay, if one is capable of math, I guess...

But when you were telling about you assumptions about
beavers and raccoons in your Markov chains, I had asked
you: ".....will I be right to understand that Gnubg will never
double with its MVC < 50% and will also never beaver with
its MVC < 50%?" and you had answered: "As a crude first
approximation, yes".

So, your Markov chains were based not only "crude first
approximation/s" but your "crude first approximation/s"
were clearly flawed. Garbage in, garbage out. Bleh... :(

Since you are not able to use math to prove prove things,
why don't you do something you may be able to do better
and just let the mutant and Gnubg play a million games,
and just count the potatoes...??

MK

On 5/20/2022 8:16 PM, MK wrote:
> To that, I had replied, as you partially quoted: "I wasn't
> asking if it would be SPP but if "Axel would call it SPP".
> I'm trying to understand what he means by SPP in the
> gamblegammon context". Why did you skip the part that
> shows you had "essentially" given an irrelevant answer?

I did not give an irrelevant answer. I answered the question
of whether Axel would call it SPP, and I answered the question
of what Axel means by SPP in the "gamblegammon" context.

However, as usual, I'm making these posts not for your benefit
(since that is obviously a lost cause) but for the benefit of
other r.g.b. readers, and there isn't anything further I can
think of that would benefit r.g.b. readers in this thread.

---
Tim Chow