Talking about that, he hasn't started threads here for a while, imo.

Did a search, looks to be occupied mainly with business and politics for the time being.

I still couldn't drop this theme before feeling I understand it more extensivelly. What exactly is it that makes every roulette system that isn't taking you to your final goal in one spin, suboptimal? It probably is this: you can't fully utilize a winning. The result is you will totally have more "chips x spins", and hence pay more rake before reaching your goal.

But I'm glad there are mathematical models for it. I understand it the best intuitively this way: let's say you play with very small sums. Then you will almost certainly lose it before reaching your goal, rake nags it away, bit by bit. In the other end: playing once will not nag your money away, bit by bit, you will only pay that one-time-rake. Everything in between must be better than the first alternative, but worse than the last.

I left for many hours and didnt properly review/edit my earlier post to spot an error.


I need to correct this mini calc above after forced to review it hours later because of a numerical error in one step that private exchanges with Bruce, i just read upon return to computers many hours later, revealed.


The step in question is the r(800)=18/38*r(400). That should be r(800)=20/38*r(400) which you can also notice since i did the same for r(1000)=20/38*r(800) that was handled properly then and the other one before should have been identical obviously.

So the equations once again are ;

r(800)=20/38*r(400) and

r(400)=20/38+18/38*r(800)

leading to r(800)=r1 satisfying r1=20/38*(20/38+18/38*r1) or r1= 100/271=36.9%

and so r(1000)=20/38*r(800)=20/38*100/271=1000/5149=19.42%

Also notice that i was considering the color kind of bets in roulette or other equivalent games in an attempt to describe general 1-1 situations like that and how to get fast to a decision. Eg a very tough opponents but high stakes poker session (when you are forced to make money fast) can be seen as such one bet bust or double etc. If you need to use roulette to get a fast decision on your money say within a few minutes you can do it this way.

I didnt investigate or wanted to at the time though what happens if you bet individual numbers in the us or european version of the game. For this i need to redo the ruin calculations for non 1-1 cases in general to see if something changes. Bruce has done some work on that in the past and today and seems to suggest it does improve things but i havent reviewed that yet before posting this.

So consider what i said with the r(800) correction above as what happens if you are considering only 1-1 bets ie color bets and want a fast conclusion.

Otherwise the likely bold strategy equivalent if numbers prove indeed better than colors is to bet as much as you need at each step to a number until you hit your target. Eg it would seem if you wanted to go 1000 to 1200 you bet 5.56 to some number eg #17 then the next time 5.71 etc (or whatever integer numbers allowed) until it happens or you go bust. That of course would take a lot longer on avg to get you there but might prove better in terms of risk of ruin. For example the probability to not have a first winning result is about 50% after 26 spins! After 65 unsuccessful spins you are forced to bet whatever left ie 12.92 for a chance to go to 465.12 and continue the effort.

So at first sight if the bold argument still holds betting on a number would have a risk of ruin from 1000 r(1000) trying to go to 1200 close to (37/38)^66+(37/38)^65*1/38*r(465.12)=0.172+0.00465*r(465.12)~0.172+0.00465 *0.62=17.49% that is a better than the color bets risk of ruin but takes probably over 10 times more steps on avg to get to an answer.


I will finish for now with this comment;

That interaction (with others that share interests and expertise) that quickly fixes errors and improves a discussion is what the 2+2 leadership team must see as something missing now when you technically "remove" with earlier "cruel" choices (such as not offering proper support and talking to people to cut down on their insulting posts and treating the situation with better "heart" and greater intelligence) people like BruceZ from the discussion that guys from politics made possible with the simplistic and hardcore intolerant way they see things even 8 months later.

Maybe its time for Mat and Mason the 2+2 leadership to review the steps that took Bruce out from posting (if you think one can post after having lost a function that fits their skill and devotion to the site for years then you have not thought it all so well and you demand from someone a level of altruism orders of magnitude larger than the one you yourselves are willing to offer). I have no doubt that if this discussion was taking place in probability forum some guys there might have also spotted this on my post earlier today and replied on the thread or in pms to me but even there an additional brain thinking it over, especially of such caliber (a main reason those other brains were attracted to the site anyway over time) is a nontrivial boost. You do not allow your best people to be painted by their worse day(s) if they have over a decade with you with plenty of chance to have convinced you of their true character and value (moreover any near term volatility) to know better about how to deal with them when insulted and taken to the dark side momentarily. You have an ethical responsibility to prevent a community and any Bruce from getting there as true leaders. That way all involved learn something and all sides are satisfied by the outcome that makes the community better. BruceZ deserves back after all this time offered to self reflect his probability forum modship. This is what people with integrity do for their community. They help a member spend some time to think what went wrong and learn/grow from it, they correct the intolerant character and naivete of a community and allow that way both to improve and join hands again as friends. We deserve such leadership and community or that community doesnt deserve us.

Hi, Bruce!
Supported. How about sending this in a PM to Mat?

Or report the post. Mat is a mod here.

whether they review their past steps or not they could at the very least make some overtures to Bruce (and maybe some statement) to show how much they valued his contribution to 2+2. Maybe they have.

I reported it. Message: We want Bruce back!

We would love to see Bruce start posting again. The issue of moderator status is a bit more complicated. I can't just reverse that.

So if that's the sticking point, i'm sorry. I think the moderators of this forum understand my position. If not, I invite them to open the discussion publicly or privately and I'll give more thought to the matter.

Wondering what the BruceZ hubbub is all about I waded through the 500+ post ATF thread from last Sept. Geez, I step away from 2+2 for a few months to try my hand at political Twittering and this is what happens.

There was one thing said on that thread by Mat Sklansky that I thought was +1 worthy. "BruceZ's contribution to 2+2 is irreplaceable."


PairTheBoard

aka TwerkedTruth

If you, MM and DS would love him to return then you really need to explain why that is. There's no guarantee that will lead to a solution but that's going to get us far further forwards than anything else. We've done everything we can to persuade Bruce to return and in some ways I believe he would like to get back to posting but I have no good answer as to why he should - do you?

It's not simply about being mod (do more than a handful seriously even care about him modding probability anyway) but even among the moderators/posters who don't care either way, or would happily go along with what's best for 2+2, there will be many who have little to no idea about Bruce's contribution - only you lot can really tell them.

Thanks for your input Mat and yes I understand your position. Perhaps not all the details but that is neither here nor there.

I have deliberately stayed out of any current discussions of this issue and distanced myself from direct involvement. I think this is best. I'm sure you can understand why. So I am probably not up-to-date on the latest whatever that may be.

I have nothing more to add for the time being. If I have something to add that I think important (or you wish my input) to say it will be by PM to you directly. I will say publicly that I consider Bruce a friend and always will.

I don't wish to rehash all this yet again here, but if others want to say something they are welcome - contained within this thread, and within the bounds of civil and respectful discussion. But only to the point that it does not become trite and wearisome and all consuming of our wonderful random topics thread. As always, I retain the hand of God in nuking any post that I determine is unworthy etc......

there are only 2 reasons anyone should post on these forums. it's either fun or it's beneficial to that person in some way.

plenty of people despise some or all of the 2+2 management and still post for one of the reasons above. nobody, unless paid to do so, should be contributing for us.

this is all on bruce. you want him to be part of the community, he's free to be that. if he chooses to be that and then it makes sense for him to be a moderator in the future, that will also come to pass.

i am sad that things turned out the way they did. but i do not feel that the end result was due to any errors on my part. people need to take responsibility for their own words. you all do.

it reminds of something that once happened with myself, Mason , and another person.

the details don't matter. but this other person did something that made Mason furious. I, understanding that the person had good intentions, told Mason he was overreacting. He pointed out that I would have never behaved similarly. It made me pause and while I am still far softer than my average peer, I have realized that many of us are far too quick to make excuses for others when we would never emulate similar behaviors.

Sadly, there were many posters and moderators alike who got swept up in the bs, and would not stand for Bruce as mod. Mat, DS and MM kept their cool at first because they saw through that bs, but flipped when they saw the pitchforks. They are simply cowed by the mob and have adds to sell. It's two parts business, one part cowardice.

and bruce just a poor innocent victim?

No, he's a real ****ing hot head, but you knew that already.

Mat and everyone else i apologize for this long post but it was important to be that long to properly explain how i see things from a practical viewpoint.


Mat, what do you think is the main reason 2+2 should want BruceZ back as probability moderator? He doesnt need to reprove himself. Its already there in the past work.

This return of modship suggestion may look like a pride/ego issue to others (and in a way it would be also playing a role to all of us in that position to a degree) but the true substance is elsewhere. It is both an ethical reward for substantial volume of work and many hours per day consistent commitment over time and a functional role that maintains and improves that work over time by having access to posts/threads editing and refining of solutions and personal work produced before.

In my opinion in all 2+2 if there ever was a moderator that actually "won" the position through the example of prior work in the site and the forum they were most active in, BruceZ is the prime example. I have known other great moderators too here over time that fully deserve that distinction and responsibility and i respect their education and intellect. But i think Bruce's case is singular in commitment and personal effort because i have witnessed it daily to have had a proper context and understanding of the commitment. His work in 2+2 became part of his life, like a real job.

Yes it looked like work not entertainment or fun time passing. In over 50% of the posts over life it was actual work with calculations and research type quality focus similar to what you get from a paid consultant or research scientist who is part of a team solving nontrivial problems that arise in a group. Obviously he also benefits from his own work the interaction resulting with others. Even in some other posts that were much simpler or on the light joking side, the other 50% say, there were often brief calculations and rational arguments offered beyond the level of opinion or gossip exchange and quality informative links.

We have often worked in parallel in some threads and forcing myself to go over the process from my point of view enables me to know what was going on on the other side, as if i was in his desk viewing the notebooks, computers and codes being programmed. Its not easy to understand and appreciate the process involved if you havent done it yourself over the same problems to know what its like and how long it takes per event without being able to multitask due to significant focus required. It is mental work of many thousands of hours over the years. Ask anyone that has been a long term poster in probability and SMP to confirm that. Anyone, provided they have over 500 posts there or here!

Having such an example was creative influence also and presented a noble challenge to compete with it. Others have followed that example and did the same to creatively participate in threads to learn and contribute education to others. Many still do. But it seems that BruceZ was always there in all the incidents that had some quality value and even the simple ones that others wouldnt take the time to explain to younger less experienced "students" of the mathematics of games and risk taking and generally probability theory. The guy rarely was taking a break from this creative function.

Its like a volume of work that was built over 15 years and was shared with others much of it found now in the Probability forum. It is in a way his legacy. It is of course also the legacy of all involved too. But he was there more often than anyone else improving the content.

All you have to do is read all his work in probability forum and i can provide a number of examples if you want that involves complicated solutions to interesting problems, great educational references and explanations, R simulations and complete exhaustive calculations, excel spreadsheets and web applets/calculators etc. Try googling some of the problems/terms/subjects found in probability forum and see where 2+2 appears in the search list often with his name also. Imagine what new traffic this can attract effectively too.

The help he has provided in the homework thread in SMP to even top undergrad or grad level problems at times is only a small part of it all and cannot compare with original work done in Probability threads before. This is why all you guys that knew him for years ought to have explained to all the other guys in politics that were insulting him and his math posts, comparing them to tutoring young students or doing some lazy persons' homework (as if even that is not an important task as it is), that it was all much more involved/elaborate at times than that.

I want you to look into the entire history of 2+2 and see where you rank BruceZ in commitment to improving the educational quality of the site and delivering results that fulfill the true original purpose of the site to scientifically advance the understanding and role of math in the game of poker and other skill games of partial luck. What best argument can you offer that these are games of significant skill than exposing the intricate nature of the math involved at times. It is a poker activist's perfect argument.

I considered interacting with Bruce a valuable experience that kept my math fresh at times and challenged me to reread older books and find new ones including research papers too. 2+2 had become part of my education like a side seminar or fun project part time. Obviously this is not gone but the more people you have interacting with each other the better it is, especially such caliber brains. All learn by the deep nonlinear interacting becoming possible when more people are posting and attracting also new members that visit but stick around because of the quality. People like Bruce with the mod-ship work and posts attract other well educated people to the site and inspire them to stay and interact with each other. Its like an accumulation point. The group of many can now do a lot more than all them alone added or broken in groups elsewhere. In that sense 2+2 acquired an ethical role greater than itself that improved the broader world community by offering such interaction accumulation locations of communication and even a new online paradigm. The internet is huge but quality accumulation points are rare.

Some may see this mod-ship as a small unimportant detail but when you reward someone with a mod-ship and then do not think they need to regain it after such significant time away that provided them the opportunity to self-reflect and grow, then it is as if you view them still as something less than they were to you in your eyes before. It is an ethical symbolic thing at this point you reject. But in reality it proves also a real life tool that enables the improvement of older threads and math work that a simple basic poster cannot have.



Look here is why in this particular case you do need to go back and review carefully his posts there to understand my argument. From exchanges with him i have come to appreciate further what its about that doesnt materialize in other forums that way.

Due to the nature of his work in these threads, the thinking involved about a problem doesnt end at the time of posting. He continues to review his work and edit it later. I try to do the same on my posts but there is a time limit (30min) and eventually moreover any tricks i have found (to extend it to a few hours by leaving many browser tabs open and deleting and instantly reposting newly edited big posts to buy 30 more min) i still lose the ability to edit after several hours when my browser finally crashes or the system reboots or other people have posted affecting the order. And then i can no longer edit a post of interest that involved calculations. You need to see example posts to understand why this matters. It is important for any future reader to be able to see a correct full review post rather than have to follow how a process evolved in a thread of many pages piecing things together here and there as the thinking about it evolved by all involved often initially with some critical errors or lack of perspective that only further study can buy. If you followed the history of a thread you can understand the final result. If you didnt and you are a new viewer it becomes harder without a proper final edit.

A moderator has access to editing that doesnt expire. He/she can revisit an old thread when better results become available, when codes are improved, when new ideas emerge and even in rare times when errors are spotted. That way over time the forum becomes like a big book you can refer to and be confident what you find is a complete result that is checked and improved over many edits.

Now obviously that function is not seen in most other forums because they are not of such analytical work nature that often. So there is a practical issue with being able to edit past threads and update them with improved code etc unique to probability forum. Are you imagining that someone will take the time to do that by each time asking/pming some other mod to do it for them if this is like 20 times a week or something over 10 different past topics of interest that they kept him busy? They wont have the ease of access and wont bother.


Now try to see it also from another perspective. If the forum has had in it so much of his work that he continues to improve and review it has become part of his intellectual legacy. And you are now making it difficult to have creative access over that volume of work. Tell me how emotionally painful and practically demoralizing it must be to no longer have access to an area you put so much work in.


Can you see now why there are many practical not just emotional/ethical arguments that support the logic of reinstating mod-ship? It is a practical, ethical and business savvy thing to do. You can decide any additional conditions you see fit although to me only a gentleman's promise for outstanding behavior without any room for negative incidents is needed. Anything that could have been learned from this event at many levels is complete now. We have all grown from the experience or were able to expose and illuminate further our true selves and i believe we will be able to treat each other better in the future and prove worthy of our ideals about a more fair, more productive and ethical society.

I think its a smart, ethical and fair decision to reinstate BruceZ. I have often disagreed on SMP threads with him on cultural or philosophical nature issues but we never disagreed on work that demanded mathematical rigor when all was said and done. I respected and miss that interaction. And i am sure he misses all of us too and our own ideas and questions. But you need to understand that a part of what he misses is the ability to use his mod power for the good of the site by updating/having creative access to this volume of past work. Mod powers can be used for the greater good of the community beyond moderating a discussion and keeping it civil. Do you have any example he ever used them for anything other than the good of the site?


Thank you for taking the time to read all this. I apologize for its length. I trust that it gave a chance to see something more than standard pride or respect or reward type arguments for offering someone a mod position. It is something far more important. Additionally dont you think the people in Probability forum that are long term posters there deserve to have their opinion heard on that matter? Shouldnt you ask them for example for their opinion about their own forum?

I think Bruce couldn't quite handle the massive assault he was facing at the time. It was a racist debate searching for scapegoats. The original substance was minimal. Almost nobody of us survives assaults like that, if we are normal human beings. You have to know the psychological techniques, and may still not turn up a winner. The only strategy that works is waiting and let things blow over. You have to distance yourself, mentally ignore the assaults, and concentrate on other (important) things, like probability analysis, math, etc. They don't fail you.

And Bruce, nothing old will be deleted, just slowly becomes less and less relevant. You will be judged by the conduct to come, not the one passed.

You weigh in on Bruce's faults but where is the other side of the Bruce story? Forget what he and others did wrong, forget about the issue of him being mod - why not start to explain the good stuff.

Do you, MM and DS want him to be part of the community? - that really matters and if you do then I hope you believe me when I say you need to start saying so. You lot are far too much of his community to think that's not part of what makes it beneficial for him to be here.

Thought I tried to make this thread in SMP, but anyhow, it's in ATF now!

forumserver.twoplustwo.com/55/about-forums/bruce-1529511/

Let's have another round. Bruce deserves it.

Bull****. You managed to get your forums so beholden to a mix of complete imbeciles and delinquent sociopaths that you felt you had no choice but to punt Bruce to appease them lest.. oh.. I don't know, a few forums would have to select new mods over the span of a few days if the aforementioned actually followed through on quitting. Heaven forbid.

Your revisionist history is also just sickeningly self-serving:

You didn't de-green him for good because of the "racist" posts. Sack up already and stop lying about everything.

wow. you're right. i'm a liar beholden to imbeciles and sociopaths.

just tell me how to proceed and i'll do so straight away.

ATF is where it should go. Quite the cluster bomb. I could quote H.L. Mencken but I won't. I could quote Nietzsche but I won't. I could quote Tom Cowley but he can speak for himself. Or I could shut up; which is probably what I will do.

On the side, but a very relevant note, I recently purchased, at a used book store, Captain Dreyfus, by Nicholas Halasz (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1955). It is subtitled: The Story of a Mass Hysteria. You guys have fun. I'll be reading my book.

But I will quote Voltaire:

I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one.

May knowledge and calmness be upon you all this day.

Stop acting like a little bitch in all facets? I mean seriously, my post has content, that you're completely misrepresenting the situation after the fact, with evidence provided, and you just act like you didn't. Bitch move.

You lying bitch.

-------------

And yeah, you (and Mason) decided to do nothing, a bunch of colored-name cretins started whining, and then you appeased them (did I mention bitch move?). Do you have an alternative explanation? You know, one where you weren't a bitch, gave 0 ****s what a bunch of irrelevant wankers were going on about, and changed your mind anyway? I'd love to hear it. But we both know I never will. Bitch.

Tom, you need to clean your mouth a bit. We all know Bruce ****ed it up a bit himself, there apparently was a rampage in the mod forum before he was demodded. Mat and Mason must have had it difficult, because 2+2 is anti-racist. Bruce was not a suitable scapegoat though, but he kind of temporarily was turned into one. Hysteria is not easy to handle, have mercy.