To sum this all up:

I gave mathematical proof - Cyanide didn't care.

I provided mathematical read incl. explanations - Cyanide didn't care.

I gave analogies that show the same thing - Cyanide didn't care.

I asked questions that would guide you to your mistake - Cyanide didn't care.

I gave easy experiments that will give evidence - Cyanide didn't care.

All we got was one sentence, that is by all means absolutely not applicable to the claim he makes. 1) Foremost, it is about a different situation in the game, 2) it talks marks, which are not really applicable to 501, and which make bull and full size double equally probable.

I do not expect people to have the same mathematical background as I do. I do not expect people to just believe be - but I do give explanations, examples and easy thoughts to follow and get you thinking.

I really find Cyanides behavior absolutely unacceptable by any standard, be it academic or social. It is insulting.

I totally understand why one might think "well, but he might have a point there", but here are some more considerations. Please note that we are always talking about stochastic probability, not about setting up mind games for yourself - if this is what you want, you can go for T16 for 80.

If hitting a treble would make the next dart harder (as Cyanide claims)...

... this shouldn't be limited to within the 3-dart-throw. So If you hit a treble in the last three darts, this makes it harder to hit anything in the current throw

... meaning if you have 40 left, you are much more likely to hit it you your last throw as 20-20-20, than if you were coming from 220 and hitting a 180.

... Having hit your double with the first dart in the previous leg? Stars are bad now for you in the next leg, you just made it more difficult to hit.

... Wait, what about playing pairs? The darts for your opponent are difficult as well, and hitting good after your partner hit well, is unlikely. You will probably throw better if he hit rubbish.

... This counts for your opponent as well, of course. And for the bloke at the neighbor board. Heck, it counts for the guy on TV.

... Yes, Taylor hit a 180, so don't go for a treble - you can't hit. It's so unlikely that you both hit at the same time.

... After 10 times a red number in roulette, the next one will much more likely be black (sorry, cannot go without another analogy.)

Now this is ridiculous, you say. Sure it is. But this is what Cyanide says about the world.

I must admit I am not used to that kind of behaviour. If someone just keeps telling you the earth is a disc, and won't look at any proves you hand off to him. it's probably better to just move on.

I've put that guy on my ignore list now. I keep getting angry about that insulting behaviour, and I'm not here to get upset. I totally accept that as "my problem" not being able to cope with that. I just hate it when people spread provenly wrong theses and put them into other people heads. I should be more relaxt when confronted with that. Sorry, I can't.

If anyone is interested in calculating some odds for outshots, just PM me. By the way, Kari Kaitanen, a scientist from Finland, has put a tremendous amount of work into calculating outshots, even taking playing strength both for the player and his opponent into account and the opponent's score. I think he was considering the probability for winning within next 15 darts. It resulted in a huge amount of computed data (and as he put it: Please note that these figures are the "mathematical facts" of the sport and there is nothing I can do to change them). Many of it got published in his book, which is unfortunately sold out for years.

His old website is still however, offering some of it, and it also explains some of the mathematical background (like Gauss, dispersion of darts, etc.). It's a good read and not too crowded with mathematical formulas at all.

Here's the link: http://www.reocities.com/researchtriangl.../tdb1.html

I gave mathematical proof - Cyanide didn't care.

I provided mathematical read incl. explanations - Cyanide didn't care.

I gave analogies that show the same thing - Cyanide didn't care.

I asked questions that would guide you to your mistake - Cyanide didn't care.

I gave easy experiments that will give evidence - Cyanide didn't care.

All we got was one sentence, that is by all means absolutely not applicable to the claim he makes. 1) Foremost, it is about a different situation in the game, 2) it talks marks, which are not really applicable to 501, and which make bull and full size double equally probable.

I do not expect people to have the same mathematical background as I do. I do not expect people to just believe be - but I do give explanations, examples and easy thoughts to follow and get you thinking.

I really find Cyanides behavior absolutely unacceptable by any standard, be it academic or social. It is insulting.

I totally understand why one might think "well, but he might have a point there", but here are some more considerations. Please note that we are always talking about stochastic probability, not about setting up mind games for yourself - if this is what you want, you can go for T16 for 80.

If hitting a treble would make the next dart harder (as Cyanide claims)...

... this shouldn't be limited to within the 3-dart-throw. So If you hit a treble in the last three darts, this makes it harder to hit anything in the current throw

... meaning if you have 40 left, you are much more likely to hit it you your last throw as 20-20-20, than if you were coming from 220 and hitting a 180.

... Having hit your double with the first dart in the previous leg? Stars are bad now for you in the next leg, you just made it more difficult to hit.

... Wait, what about playing pairs? The darts for your opponent are difficult as well, and hitting good after your partner hit well, is unlikely. You will probably throw better if he hit rubbish.

... This counts for your opponent as well, of course. And for the bloke at the neighbor board. Heck, it counts for the guy on TV.

... Yes, Taylor hit a 180, so don't go for a treble - you can't hit. It's so unlikely that you both hit at the same time.

... After 10 times a red number in roulette, the next one will much more likely be black (sorry, cannot go without another analogy.)

Now this is ridiculous, you say. Sure it is. But this is what Cyanide says about the world.

I must admit I am not used to that kind of behaviour. If someone just keeps telling you the earth is a disc, and won't look at any proves you hand off to him. it's probably better to just move on.

I've put that guy on my ignore list now. I keep getting angry about that insulting behaviour, and I'm not here to get upset. I totally accept that as "my problem" not being able to cope with that. I just hate it when people spread provenly wrong theses and put them into other people heads. I should be more relaxt when confronted with that. Sorry, I can't.

If anyone is interested in calculating some odds for outshots, just PM me. By the way, Kari Kaitanen, a scientist from Finland, has put a tremendous amount of work into calculating outshots, even taking playing strength both for the player and his opponent into account and the opponent's score. I think he was considering the probability for winning within next 15 darts. It resulted in a huge amount of computed data (and as he put it: Please note that these figures are the "mathematical facts" of the sport and there is nothing I can do to change them). Many of it got published in his book, which is unfortunately sold out for years.

His old website is still however, offering some of it, and it also explains some of the mathematical background (like Gauss, dispersion of darts, etc.). It's a good read and not too crowded with mathematical formulas at all.

Here's the link: http://www.reocities.com/researchtriangl.../tdb1.html