I received an email from a valued member of my forums. I don't reveal his name, unless he decides so. He asked me if it was okay for him to start a thread on the topic of my book. Like reviews and opinions regarding Probability Theory, Live! It is always OK with me to hear other people's opinions. As I responded to my colleague in lottery and software, I always respond in kind — as far as the interlocutors are validly sane. There are some people who absolutely lose their minds when confronting me. I oomphly kick back their rear ends, but not in my forums! I have done that, especially in the 1990's in the lottery newsgroup, then other gambling outlets. I don't enjoy that much spare time lately…I need far more time for writing!
So, first, I post my reply to my colleague in lottery and software programming. Secondly, I will post a copy of a formal review of my book in ForeWord Clarion Review, kind of a little bible of the publishing industry.
Thirdly, I'll post a few words regarding the Clarion review — kind of a short review of a review. You know, I like what they did…the ClarIon(s)! They chose a woman to review my book. She gave me an acceptable 2 of 5. Chances are, a man would have “rewarded” me with “zero out of five”! I'm not kidding! I am notorious for bringing out the worst in men! That really feasts my ego! I must be really good…I mean really great…if I make some men feel like dying out of hatred toward yours truly!
I always accept everybody else's opinions. I just respond sometimes in a like manner when I am attacked. It is not your case.
As a matter of fact, I would appreciate if you start a thread on the subject of my book, as you suggest.
I believe my software is well placed in my book. I deal with some hard-to-accept ideas and concepts that I must mention the best validation tool: software. It happens that my software is the only one available for some mathematical tasks.
Yeah, I saw the typos, but it was too late! I am happy that I spotted a TERRIBLE TYPO caused by Word 2007! That could have killed me if printed! The fundamental of my theory, FFG was written as:
P = log (1-DC) / log (1-P)
There is a serious bug in Word 2010 that reformats the entire document when you reformat just one line! I used harsh words after Microsoft did not respond to my issue in the Office forum. They banned me from the forum first; then they realized their mistake. The severe error can be fixed only document by document, with VBA! That typo could have killed me! The publisher also committed the same mistake: They reformatted one sentence or one paragraph, and the whole document was reformatted!!! The first solution was to undo. But just one moment of lack of attention and many things went wrong!
ForeWord Clarion Review
Probability Theory, Live! More than Gambling and Lottery—it's about Life!
Two Stars (out of Five)
Probability theory is a branch of mathematics that examines the likelihood of one particular outcome or a group of outcomes for any event. In Probability Theory, Live! author Ion Saliu, who studied political economics in Romania before immigrating to the US, presents a formula in which probability equals n (favorable elements) divided by N (total elements), or p=n/N.
In the first section of the book, Saliu attempts to explain probability theory in detail. He presents the history and some important concepts, such as numeric sets, standard deviation, and probability of repetition. He discusses the idea of randomness at length, asserting that it is the only method of interaction between elements in the universe.
Saliu also introduces what he calls the “Fundamental Formula of Gambling,” which, he explains, is “the number of trials, N, for an event of probability, p, to appear with a degree of certainty, DC.
Of particular interest is his assertion that the past has a significant effect on the present and future. To explain this he uses an example of two men playing a best-of-three backgammon series. After the first match, the player in the lead has a 75% chance of winning the series, while the player who lost the first game has only a 25% chance of winning. He attributes this concept to Blaise Pascal, who is considered the father of probability theory.
Probability Theory, Live! serves primarily as an advertisement for the author's Web site. Saliu has created a number of probability software programs that are used chiefly for gambling purposes. Much of the book is devoted to the different software programs and the ways in which they can best be utilized.
The author's tremendous ego is on display here, and he makes some truly remarkable and unsupportable statements. At one point he writes, “I consider myself the best blackjack player ever.” In another instance he states, “if all gamblers would be like me, following probability theory instead of guts, then there would be no casinos.” He also reveals his contempt for academic mathematicians. In a discussion of lotto wheels, he writes, “the professors come up with all kinds of approximations that look like mathematical formulas (by highly symbolized notation and heavy dosage of jargon). The margin of error, however, is as large as the area of Canada!”
The overall credibility of the book is damaged by statements like the above and the fact that, as he admits himself, his fundamental formula of gambling has not yet made him rich. But for readers who are looking for new gambling methods, particularly in games of blackjack, roulette, and lotteries, the book will hold some appeal.
Catherine Reed Thureson
I like what Clarion did. They chose a woman to review my book. She gave me an acceptable 2 of 5. Chances are, a man would have “rewarded” me with “zero out of five”! I'm not kidding! I am notorious for bringing out the worst in men! That really feasts my ego! I must be really good…I mean really great…if I make some men feel like dying out of hatred towards yours truly!
In truth, the reviewer of my book has little knowledge of probability theory, mathematics, in general.
Number one, she unfairly credits me with the fundamental formula of probability:
In a way, that formula belongs to Blaise Pascal, although it was founded on Aristotle's logic. In fact, Aristotle's logic was founded on earlier discourse of Greek mathematicians and would-be philosophers.
The Fundamental Formula of Gambling (FFG) is not entirely mine, but I do take large credit for it. I introduced the universally fundamental concept of Degree of Certainty, DC. That's my brainchild and indubitably proves that Randomness is the fundamental attribute of the Universe.
“Of particular interest is his assertion that the past has a significant effect on the present and future. To explain this he uses an example of two men playing a best-of-three backgammon series. After the first match, the player in the lead has a 75% chance of winning the series, while the player who lost the first game has only a 25% chance of winning. He attributes this concept to Blaise Pascal, who is considered the father of probability theory.”
Again, I do not attribute! The example is a real case that Pascal studied mathematically: One of the two de Méré cases that gave birth to probability theory. My contribution is solving the puzzle via the numeric sets I call…well…Ion Saliu's sets! Nobody had bothered to study those very important numerical sets! How should I have named them?!
“Probability Theory, Live! serves primarily as an advertisement for the author's Web site. Saliu has created a number of probability software programs that are used chiefly for gambling purposes. Much of the book is devoted to the different software programs and the ways in which they can best be utilized.”
Unfair and not true — again! My software is well placed in my book. I deal with some hard-to-accept ideas and concepts that I must mention the best validation tool: software. It happens that my software is the only one available for some mathematical tasks. Of course, people can use any piece of software they want to…if they can find reliable software! But I must emphasize that the software is the best validation tool. The humans are biased…the computers aren't! Some essential concepts of my book would be hard to comprehend, but especially hard to accept, without software-proofing.
The author of the review reaches the lowest point when she gets a fascination with what she calls my "tremendous ego". That's superficiality — the reviewer did not read my book thoroughly! The two things she mentions as tremendous ego are minor, really minor in my book!
“The author's tremendous ego is on display here, and he makes some truly remarkable and unsupportable statements. At one point he writes, “I consider myself the best blackjack player ever.” In another instance he states, “if all gamblers would be like me, following probability theory instead of guts, then there would be no casinos.” “
Well, I still have in place a challenge to any blackjack player, any gambler in the world. They play their way, I play my way. I can guarantee with the highest degree of certainty, DC, that I will be the winner. Others can be winners only if they apply my gambling theories and strategies, totally founded on mathematics. Every pro gambler or gambling author has been silent regarding my challenge — after ten years now. They bring their thousand-dollar card-counting systems; I bring a cheap half-dollar notebook and a cheap half-dollar pencil.
The Clarion reviewer should also know that the casino executives absolutely hate the gamblers who bring the mathematics inside the casino. The casinos want all gamblers to play dumb and really fast! They hate you even if you lose — but do so s-l-o-w-l-y ! ! ! If most gamblers in the casino would think (that takes time!), the casinos would certainly go bankrupt. The overhead costs alone would kill the casinos. Say nothing of too large winnings for the players …
As of the [Canadian] academic mathematicians' attempt at lottery mathematics: Absolutely pathetic! The traditional professors simply analyze one of the worst examples of lotto wheeling. That 163-line lotto wheel has absolutely nothing to do with good mathematics. Analyzing that lotto wheel is completely ridiculous — in the same league as Wikipedia's articles on combinatorics and lexicographic order!
Now, why would the credibility of a book, of a theory, be damaged because a formula has not made its author rich?! First off, my theories and formulas and software were very close to make me rich in 1986, Friday, February the 13th. Also, the casinos have not allowed me to even win just one thousand US dollars a day (beginning 2003). Most importantly, discovery does not come easy at all. It's not like snapping one's fingers! “Wow! That discovery was so easy! It only took me a few minutes to figure it out!” Add to it the time writing software, especially software that had not existed before your own painstakingly endeavor. Not much time left for play (as in gambling)….
Yet, again: There is no absolute certainty in the Universe. On the other hand, you expect my theories and formulas to win with absolute certainty. My theories and formulas have…certainly won quite significantly for a significant percentage of users. They won't tell publicly and for very good reasons: legal motives. I had far more reports in the 1990's from users who won using my theories and software. Things appeared legally delicate towards the end of the previous millennium. I thought hard about the issue. I had pleaded with the users of my software to consider donating (no more than the tilt, 10% of their winning). I would have not done that personally, because of the legal complications. There was a case in the US when an ex-wife filed lawsuit demanding that her ex-husband would pay her half of his lottery winning. The guy won the lotto jackpot a decade after their divorce!!! The US federal judge threw the case out….
Yet, yet again: Mathematical formulas must be judged mathematically. Not financially. On the other hand, there are no true financial formulas. The financial ”formulas” are more like schemes as the lotto wheels of the Canadian professors. Wide margins of approximations…wider than the area of Canada (sic!). In the end, a financial formula of success would come to a probability formula stating a quite low degree of certainty. Randomness is still key: If the degree of certainty was that high (for financial formulae), we all would be filthy rich. But who would be left to work, as in hard work for others?! Only few billion-dollar gamblers in the financial markets are successful and get away with it (and die naturally in their beds, at an old age). A majority of them Wall Street gamblers fail miserably; some end up in jail; some even commit suicide. It's all about randomness and a low degree of financial certainty…
The goal of my probability book is not the promotion of my software. My software serves the purpose of validating the Truth and promoting my Ideas.
As of tremendous ego, I always refer to Muhammad Ali, the greatest champion of them all:
“It ain't bragging, if you back it!”
Camelia, Cristiano (thornc), et al.,
I'm proud of you, guys. We aren't nice to one another — we are truthful. You two are proud individuals. You are not here to say nice things about me. I would never accept that from anybody.
I've never meant this thread to be a thing of niceties about my book. I posted my opinion on someone else's opinion on my book. Each and every one of us has a right to an opinion about EVERYTHING. You got an opinion about my ideas — I got a right to express my opinion on your opinion — and then some. I might have to explain some more regarding my ideas. Also, if your opinion is playing hardball — I also play hardball — and then some. That's how the human argument has always gone — human evolution, in general. The more freedom, the harder the ball is played; the harder the ball, the more freedom as a result….and so on, and so forth…
I thanked thornc for his deep insights. I missed those typos. 33=27 was mean to be 3 (superscript 3) = 27. Only Microsoft Word 2007 caused that. It would have not happened in previous versions of Word. I had also other issues with the editors. I told them they were too much old-school. Old-school is hardly acceptable in the Internet era. More flexible means more freedom — that always leads to new ideas and discoveries.
Cristiano was also right about SuperFormula.exe. I thought of creating a special folder (/Book) where I would have placed some of my programs for free downloading. SuperFormula.exe, PermuteCombine, LexicographicIndexes, and OddsCalc.EXE were at the top of the list. I suffered a legal blow in September 2009, when I started the writing of my probability book (simply personal, unrelated to my book). I just forgot about that free /Book folder. I plan to take care of it now — although I do hard physical work for my company at the end of the yearbook season. And it's still difficult to set a software folder that's free only to the readers of my book. Very hard to establish who the legitimate buyers are…
My probability book has never been meant to be a handbook of computer programming. Forget about the size (it would have been bigger than huge — thousands of pages)! It's mostly about copyrights, and patents, and licensing. Of course, I could publish code snippets in Basic that can be adapted to VB for Applications (VBA), the programming language of Excel and a majority of softwares. But I ain't gonna do that just yet! And those who worry about me, shouldn't worry: I ain't gonna die anytime soon! So, there will be time for me to make the source code of ALL my software available — but in legally acceptable forms.
There will be enough time left to patent my software… I know how badly some guys would want to get a hand on my source code. It's been years now…just one example. A so-called user of a so-called MathLab software package tearfully begged me for the source code to generate arrangements as in my PermuteCombine.exe. I still receive requests from others. I suspect the requests come from that Lab company. I detected it in googles on my name and software code. There was a quite long thread at the mathlab company regarding fast code for generating arrangements… How could some people even think I would be such an idiot?! That company should have approached me honestly. They might have had a chance to get my source code…
I posted about issues of copyright at SALIU.COM and also in these forums. You must fight for what belongs to you. It is a virtue. The real sin is to allow others to rob you. The suckers might shout in public that you are not modest, or that you are bragging, or that you are narcissistic! As I said in my previous writings, I don't give a damn about it! Au contraire, I kick butt in response even harsher. One must make sure that what is his/hers always belongs to him/her.
Muhammad Ali was absolutely right. Don't be afraid of the appearance of bragging if Truth belonging to you is at stakes. I remember several cases in the history of discovery.
Just one case, for now. The genetic code is largely attributed to an American, but especially to two Brits at a royal college. History (via solid documentation that came later) proves now that the two Brits were flat-out thieves. They worked with a Jewish woman, who was the first person to figure out the DNA helical configuration. The two male “colleagues” employed a lab janitor to steal the first photography ever of the DNA structure from the Jewish woman. The “males” were rewarded with the Nobel Prize — they never mentioned (during the acceptance speech) their female colleague, who had played the most important role in the discovery of the DNA structure! The guys only said a few nice words at the death of their female fore-bearer in an extraordinarily important discovery! The nobelish guys, however, never admitted that the work of their female colleague was sine qua non in the discovery of the genetic code. And, of course, they never admitted the theft of the crux photo…
That's the second most important reason why I hold the nobel thing in very low regards. (By the way, how many Nobel Laureates can you name? One or two, huh?) The most important reason is Jorge Luis Borges. He built the foundation of a great literary current, known as the Latin American Literature (greats like Mario Vargas Llosa and Gabriel Garcia Marquez). Jorge Luis Borges did not receive the nobelish thing, although he was nominated for it, by far, more than any other individual in history. By contrast, the Dalai Obama was nominated only once — and in the very last moment — and he won! What's the degree of certainty for that, huh? I did vote for the White House dalai and I am pretty much proud of him. When he was a state senator in Springfield, Illinois, my website used to get lots of visits from that location. Not anymore…
Last but not least, I want to thank chelmi for his reply. He makes a great point:
“Of course, there is no « magic formula », allowing you to play blindly with the certainty to win; this will be no pleasure.”
There is no pleasure even when pleasure is supposed to start! That's the thing I've always worked hard at: Humans must understand that there is no absolute certainty! There is no absolute guarantee at winning…at anything! Or, if the stupidiot wants to bet, I can say this in-your-face to him:
“If you absolutely guarantee to me that you will live a certain lifespan, I will guarantee you a highly certain win by then…but not absolutely certain!”
Archimedes replied in a kind manner to Aristotle's metaphysics:
“Give me a fixed point in the Universe, and I will move the Earth.”
Again, I fully agree that everybody has a right to an opinion, then to an opinion to an opinion…and so on…and so forth… The only thing that's not acceptable is violence, as in violent arguments and counter-arguments.
As always, I wish you all the best of luck! I always mean it, as I always mean what I say. When one says what one means, one does attract negative feelings from others. But that should never stop one to always put the Truth above anything and anybOdy.
The review of my probability book is officially published by ForeWord Clarion Reviews. Something … I don't know what … delayed the online publishing of the review. It is now available online:
| Home | Search | New Writings | Odds, Generator | Contents | Forums | Sitemap |