VFF to Appear on Rational Alchemy

[Rodney]

Actually, it is nothing like that at all. Odds makers are not making predictions about which horse will win. Odds makers are making odds to keep the betting evenly distributed. A 17 to 1 horse doesn't get those odds because he wins on average 1 out 17 times against a similar field. A 17 to 1 horse simply offers a high enough payout to influence betting away from what bettors believe will be the horses most likely to win.

Actually, horse odds are ultimately determined by the amount of money bet on each horse at the track (and at off-track betting facilities, where permitted). So, for example, if one-twentieth of the total money wagered to win in a given race is bet on horse # 1, if that horse wins it would return -- prior to the track taking its cut -- $19 for every $1 bet. Typically, a track will take about a 20% cut, so that would reduce the payout in this case to only about $15 for every $1 bet (reduction in the odds from 19-1 to 15-1). So, the track odds are always lower than the true odds, but they are based on the amount bet on each horse in the race.

Sorry, Rodney, but I've covered this before. Several times. Your constant repetition does not make you correct. First, your claims about the numbers are without merit. Second, if we tested 1,000 people like that by just them rolling a 12 sided die, we'd expect 999 of them to get two of fewer correct. Whether they fall into the 770, 220, or 19 member groups is irrelevant because they are part of the large group that simply failed.

So you see no difference between Anita's and Regen's performances?

 

[Rodney]

Any chance of you answering this, Rodney?

Are you claiming that your statistical analysis leads you to believe that it's possible that Vision from Feeling has X-ray vision or not?

Please try 'yes' or 'no' for a response, instead of the meaningless number-crunching waffle.

No, statistical analysis cannot demonstrate whether Anita has X-ray vision, but it can ultimately all but rule out whether she just got lucky. At this point, that cannot be ruled out, nor can it be ruled out that she benefited from a flawed test. However, to dismiss her results as a dismal failure shows a bias against her.

 

[Akhenaten]

Any chance of you answering this, Rodney?

Are you claiming that your statistical analysis leads you to believe that it's possible that Vision from Feeling has X-ray vision or not?

Please try 'yes' or 'no' for a response, instead of the meaningless number-crunching waffle.

No, statistical analysis cannot demonstrate whether Anita has X-ray vision, but it can ultimately all but rule out whether she just got lucky. At this point, that cannot be ruled out, nor can it be ruled out that she benefited from a flawed test. However, to dismiss her results as a dismal failure shows a bias against her.

Any chance of you answering this, Rodney?

Are you claiming that your statistical analysis leads you to believe that it's possible that Vision from Feeling has X-ray vision or not?

Please try 'yes' or 'no' for a response, instead of the meaningless number-crunching waffle.

You may have missed part of my post the first time, so I typed it a bit louder for you.

 

[zooterkin]

Actually, horse odds are ultimately determined by the amount of money bet on each horse at the track (and at off-track betting facilities, where permitted). So, for example, if one-twentieth of the total money wagered to win in a given race is bet on horse # 1, if that horse wins it would return -- prior to the track taking its cut -- $19 for every $1 bet. Typically, a track will take about a 20% cut, so that would reduce the payout in this case to only about $15 for every $1 bet (reduction in the odds from 19-1 to 15-1). So, the track odds are always lower than the true odds, but they are based on the amount bet on each horse in the race.

I think you're talking about a Tote system, which doesn't apply to regular bookies, at least in this country, where odds can be set when the bet is made. The initial odds offered in that case reflect the bookmaker's opinion on the likelihood of a particular horse winning (adjusted to ensure they come out ahead), and then change according to the bets that are made.

Either way, bookies' odds do not necessarily reflect the actual probability of something happening, though I've often heard them quoted in the media as if they did.

 

[zooterkin]

You may have missed part of my post the first time, so I typed it a bit louder for you.

Can you try slower, too?

 

[GeeMack]

So you see no difference between Anita's and Regen's performances?

I see no difference between my performance and Anita's on that IIG test. Well except that I came to my results far faster than Anita did. (Maybe she's got the power but just isn't very good at it? Maybe I'm just way better at it than she is?) You do believe there's some possibility, interesting and worthy of further testing, that I have some kind of magical powers, don't you? Well, don't you?

 

[Rodney]

You may have missed part of my post the first time, so I typed it a bit louder for you.

I'll first need a definition of "X-Ray vision."

 

[Rodney]

I think you're talking about a Tote system, which doesn't apply to regular bookies, at least in this country, where odds can be set when the bet is made. The initial odds offered in that case reflect the bookmaker's opinion on the likelihood of a particular horse winning (adjusted to ensure they come out ahead), and then change according to the bets that are made.

That's essentially the way it works in the U.S. -- they key point being that the odds change according to the bets that are made.

Either way, bookies' odds do not necessarily reflect the actual probability of something happening, though I've often heard them quoted in the media as if they did.

They ultimately reflect the public's opinion as to the probability of a horse winning. Some horse bettors claim that they consistently do significantly better than the general public, but I don't know that these claims have been properly studied.

 

[Rodney]

I see no difference between my performance and Anita's on that IIG test. Well except that I came to my results far faster than Anita did. (Maybe she's got the power but just isn't very good at it? Maybe I'm just way better at it than she is?) You do believe there's some possibility, interesting and worthy of further testing, that I have some kind of magical powers, don't you? Well, don't you?

Given enough people guessing, it wouldn't be surprising that someone would beat odds of 1-in-17.6. Also, there is an issue of whether your guesses were properly documented, as Anita's were.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'll first need a definition of "X-Ray vision."

As stated by Vision from Feeling herself on the UK Skeptics Forum

My name is Anita Ikonen and I am writing to you from North Carolina, United States. I am also an active member of the American James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) Forum, and you can find my discussion thread there. I am involved in a skeptical inquiry into my perceptions of the health of persons. When I look at people I perceive in my mind realistic looking images of their internal organs, tissues and cells, in which health problems are highlighted. This automatically translates into an understanding of health problems, both the physical structures that are involved, as well as feeling how the person perceives their condition from their own perspective. I describe the perceptions in great detail. They are very specific and not vague nor open for interpretation afterwards. I reach my conclusions within a few minutes at most, and without any dialogue with the persons. I am very confident in what I perceive, even when it contradicts with my prior knowledge or assumptions regarding that person or of health in general, because I have "seen it".

Anything else I can do for ya, Rodney?

Now answer the question.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

..... However, to dismiss her results as a dismal failure shows a bias against her.

That's like saying " ... claiming Tiny Tim can't sing, shows a bias against him .. "

Given enough people guessing, it wouldn't be surprising that someone would beat odds of 1-in-17.6. Also, there is an issue of whether your guesses were properly documented, as Anita's were.

So, you agree that Anita is guessing ?

Interesting...

 

[GeeMack]

Given enough people guessing, it wouldn't be surprising that someone would beat odds of 1-in-17.6. Also, there is an issue of whether your guesses were properly documented, as Anita's were.

Anita has said her answers were guesses. Who said my answers were guesses? I certainly haven't said that.

 

[Rodney]

As stated by Vision from Feeling herself on the UK Skeptics Forum

Anything else I can do for ya, Rodney?

Now answer the question.

Yes, I think it's possible that Anita could have that type of X-Ray vision. Note that her claim is: "When I look at people I perceive in my mind realistic looking images of their internal organs, tissues and cells, in which health problems are highlighted." (emphasis added). She does not claim that she is seeing what she would see if she were directly viewing the internal organs, tissues and cells -- only that she sees realistic looking images in her mind. In some cases, those images may prove inaccurate, but if it were to be shown that under controlled conditions she can consistently choose 2 of 3 people missing a kidney from 18 candidates, that would offer strong support for that type of X-Ray vision.

 

[TheSkepticCanuck]

My name is Anita Ikonen and I am writing to you from North Carolina, United States. I am also an active member of the American James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) Forum, and you can find my discussion thread there. I am involved in a skeptical inquiry into my perceptions of the health of persons. When I look at people I perceive in my mind realistic looking images of their internal organs, tissues and cells, in which health problems are highlighted. This automatically translates into an understanding of health problems, both the physical structures that are involved, as well as feeling how the person perceives their condition from their own perspective. I describe the perceptions in great detail. They are very specific and not vague nor open for interpretation afterwards. I reach my conclusions within a few minutes at most, and without any dialogue with the persons. I am very confident in what I perceive, even when it contradicts with my prior knowledge or assumptions regarding that person or of health in general, because I have "seen it".

So, according to the highlighted parts above, she:

1) Should not have needed 30 minutes per round, as she claims that the visions only take a couple of minutes to be fully formed,

2) She couldn't possibly have seen Dr. Carlson's kidney missing, as she clearly indicates that she is confident in her perceptions, even when she thinks they should be wrong, which contradicts her statement that she saw his missing kidney, but said nothing because it contradicted her preconceived notions.

Consequently, we can conclude that she is very fast at forming visions, except when she isn't, and she is very confident of the visions, except when she isn't. Also, she is never wrong, ever, except when she is.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, I think it's possible that Anita could have that type of X-Ray vision.

<snip>

Well, I guess that explains why I'll never be a sceptic, because I think it's a load of cobblers.

 

[GeeMack]

Yes, I think it's possible that Anita could have that type of X-Ray vision. Note that her claim is: "When I look at people I perceive in my mind realistic looking images of their internal organs, tissues and cells, in which health problems are highlighted." (emphasis added). She does not claim that she is seeing what she would see if she were directly viewing the internal organs, tissues and cells -- only that she sees realistic looking images in her mind. In some cases, those images may prove inaccurate, but if it were to be shown that under controlled conditions she can consistently choose 2 of 3 people missing a kidney from 18 candidates, that would offer strong support for that type of X-Ray vision.

No. It might demonstrate that by some means she can detect which person is missing a kidney, but it would also demonstrate that if she indeed sees "realistic looking images in her mind", they have nothing to do with the actual location of anyone's kidneys. It could only be described as some "type of x-ray vision" if you completely redefine the common concept of x-ray vision.

It might help if you were familiar with the claimant, the claims, the protocol, the test, and the results.

And, as has been suggested here more than once, you could end all these desperate attempts to pull yourself out of the hole you dug if you'd just admit that you simply want to believe some people have magical powers.

 

[GeeMack]

1) Should not have needed 30 minutes per round, as she claims that the visions only take a couple of minutes to be fully formed,

Indeed. I got the same exact answers as Anita did, and it only took me moments. And I was all the way out here in Illinois, a couple thousand miles away from the kidney people. Amazing!

 

[Akhenaten]

Given enough people guessing, it wouldn't be surprising that someone would beat odds of 1-in-17.6. Also, there is an issue of whether your guesses were properly documented, as Anita's were.

No problemo. GeeMack transmitted his answers (not guesses) to me telepathically during the test and I wrote them down.

Whaddya reckon the odds of that are?

Show your working.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

I still say that is someone really does have a paranormal power, the million dollar test will mean nothing. If you CAN see through people, you don't need a test. People will throw money at you, and honestly, if someone COULD see through people I'd think it really cool and say "yeah give them the million dollars and now let's study the heck out of it".

It's weird how people think skeptics DON'T want people to pass a test. We're rather realistic about the chances, after all bucking all the known laws of the Universe and breaking every law of nature is a long shot. But when SETI gets in touch with the aliens I'll be the first going "HURRAY!", or if a Bigfoot body shows up I'll be so happy to hear about the DNA results. Loch Ness monster, yes I admit I LOOKED when I was in Scotland. I guess what you can say about most skeptics I know, including myself, is that we would LOVE for something like Nessie or Xray vision to be TRUE. But the key word here is TRUE.

If someone bucks the statistics, that doesn't MEAN you have some power. You have a paranormal power is you HAVE IT. It's kinda silly, we aren't dealing with N Rays here. Some people see it, some don't...no we gotta have everyone see it!!

As usual, you are clear and thoughtful...and right.

They just keep going on and on about the odds....

 

[Uncayimmy]

Actually, horse odds are ultimately determined by the amount of money bet on each horse at the track (and at off-track betting facilities, where permitted). So, for example, if one-twentieth of the total money wagered to win in a given race is bet on horse # 1, if that horse wins it would return -- prior to the track taking its cut -- $19 for every $1 bet. Typically, a track will take about a 20% cut, so that would reduce the payout in this case to only about $15 for every $1 bet (reduction in the odds from 19-1 to 15-1). So, the track odds are always lower than the true odds, but they are based on the amount bet on each horse in the race.

How does that differ from my explanation that the odds makers set odds to even out the betting?

So you see no difference between Anita's and Regen's performances?

Have you not been paying attention? Have I not made this abundantly clear several times over? It doesn't matter where they fall inside the 99.9% group of failures - a failure is still a failure.