What do you mean by "the house is beaten in a series of 10,000 bets"? Are you saying that in 10,000 bets with a 50.5 to 49.5 advantage the house loses money overall?
Absolutely. They can lose a lot, too.
What do you mean "always true"? Do they always lose? Of course not! If they did, we'd have casino games favouring the player 50.5% to 49.5% and the house would always win.
Do they always have the potential to lose? Yes. That's the problem with such a small edge. It isn't reliable. It takes really, really, really big numbers to get a payoff out of small advantages with certainty.
What about 1 million or 1 billion bets? Does the house still lose? Can I see your source code on your program that gave this result?
Largest series of bets I ever ran was 80,000. It took a long time, like 3 hours or something.
Rather than worry about my source code, if you know what source code is, it'd be much, much more practical for you to write your own. It doesn't take long.
By definition, improving survival chance by a whole percentage point means the selection god(ess) has only one chance in 100 of getting it "right". 1/10 of 1% reduces this to one chance in 1000.
Now if you call them on it, most often they'll say "Oh yes, it could take 3 or 4 generations, but..." Nonsense! No thinking person can believe you'll hit a 1 in 1000 shot in 3 or 4 tries, and this overlooks the fact that in the case of a defect, the defect is being reproduced.
Again a reference for your quote regarding this miniscule amount of "tries" would be good here since it is in quote marks. Otherwise the only "Nonsense!" is your assumption.
The reason they say it'll be nipped quickly is because they reason from implication. If it isn't eliminated right away... come on... come on... you can do it...
Additionally, why do you think that defects will be reproduced?
I was wrong! Simple fundamental logic forces me to understand that the offspring of mutants will be mutants. You just...
Sorry. I can't help you with this.
Are you talking about harmful mutations? You haven't defined your parameters very well.
Just used plain, ordinary English. No Greek or Latin. No doubletalk. What would lead me to believe any definition could be understood? I would have to use more of this unfathomable plain, ordinary English, would I not?
