Phil Ivey wins 7.3m GBP in London, casino refuses to pay. Ivey sues. Loses Case. Appeals. Loses
10-14-2012
, 07:55 PM
Quote:
Your second number is simply incorrect. Maybe if you shared your numbers and calculation method, we could point out your mistakes. If you assume Ivey played only 400 hands, which is less than 1 per minute, he still has a 0.5% chance of winning this much. The way to do this is with a binomial calculator (or alternatively with an approximation to the normal distribution) with p = 0.4947, n = 400, x = 224.
Quote:
Day 1 he lost 10 bets first and then won back 56 bets at a limit of 50K.
Day 2 he played at a limit of 150K and won another ~34 bets.
So he won 90 bets in an amount of hands that we unfortunately don't know.
At 60 hph the chance of that happening is 0.00000186%, almost twice in a million times.
At 50 hph that chance is 0.00000023%, once every 5 million times.
That doesn't mean yet PI cheated, because there could be a Rainman explanation for his win.
In my calculations I used a flat succes rate of 49.47%, but in theory that can run up to 800%
(100% chance you win 8 times your bet).
If you catch a unique situation with very favorable odds -which he was bound to sooner or later- you'll keep these more or less untill the shoe is empty. Then winning 90 bets may be isn't that extreme anymore for somebody capable of recognising and exploiting such an exceptional opportunity perfectly.
Day 2 he played at a limit of 150K and won another ~34 bets.
So he won 90 bets in an amount of hands that we unfortunately don't know.
At 60 hph the chance of that happening is 0.00000186%, almost twice in a million times.
At 50 hph that chance is 0.00000023%, once every 5 million times.
That doesn't mean yet PI cheated, because there could be a Rainman explanation for his win.
In my calculations I used a flat succes rate of 49.47%, but in theory that can run up to 800%
(100% chance you win 8 times your bet).
If you catch a unique situation with very favorable odds -which he was bound to sooner or later- you'll keep these more or less untill the shoe is empty. Then winning 90 bets may be isn't that extreme anymore for somebody capable of recognising and exploiting such an exceptional opportunity perfectly.
Quote:
In this thread are a few examples:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/31...y-long-236618/
My numbers aren't random at all!!
From different sources we know he first lost 500K and then won 2.8M back.
That was while the limit was still 50K, so 500K was 10 bets and 2.8M was 56 bets.
The second day that limit was raised to 150K and he won another 5M, almost 34 bets.
I used a trial of 410 with 250 successes and a trial of 340 with 215 successes.
And like I said a probability of success of 0.4947.
You can doublecheck my numbers here:
http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/31...y-long-236618/
My numbers aren't random at all!!
From different sources we know he first lost 500K and then won 2.8M back.
That was while the limit was still 50K, so 500K was 10 bets and 2.8M was 56 bets.
The second day that limit was raised to 150K and he won another 5M, almost 34 bets.
I used a trial of 410 with 250 successes and a trial of 340 with 215 successes.
And like I said a probability of success of 0.4947.
You can doublecheck my numbers here:
http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx
I just
math.
10-14-2012
, 10:04 PM
10-14-2012
, 11:01 PM
Whenever someone goes on a streak I think we make the mistake of thinking about it in a successive way... i.e. "The probability of winning 50 out of 55 hands is 0.003% " therefore he must have cheated.
That isn't the right way to think about it. The right way to think about it is to think about each win being independent of the previous or future win. Then generate a profile or graph of said results.
So, if I create a program in which we are flipping coins but I give the house a 1.06% edge then we get the following chart.
Now, of course the overall trend is negative, however, there are plenty of positive variance runs.
So the proper mathematical way to think about Phil Ivey's situation is to think about where he is at on that curve. Sure, the probability of him being on the negative sliding parts of the curve is higher then him being on the positive uptrending parts of the curve but there are many positive uptrending parts thanks to the relatively low house edge.
So if we zoom in on a positive uptrend (the orange circle) we get
Now, each bet or flip was for 50 units. In this uptrend, we win 5,500 units over TWO THOUSANDS flips.
So, if Phil Ivey was betting $50,000 a shot then over this two thousand hand stretch he would have won $27,500,000
If he was betting $150k a shot then he would have won $82.5M
My point? It is easily possible the Phil Ivey playing at $50k - $150k per bet could hit a positive streak that would enable him to win $7.3M if he starts his game on the right part of the curve. Plus, the article said he played for 2 days.
60 hands an hour x ten hours of play is 600 hands. 600 is 30% of 2000 so
30% of $27.5M = $8.25M
30% of $82.5M = $24.75M
Basically, Phil Ivey going on a run is far from some statistical anomaly of 0.003% (or whatever). Its nothing unusual ESPECIALLY in a game with a house edge of only 1.06%. Hell, there are players that go on roulette runs that are an order of magnitude higher in probability/difficulty than Phil Ivey's run.
That isn't the right way to think about it. The right way to think about it is to think about each win being independent of the previous or future win. Then generate a profile or graph of said results.
So, if I create a program in which we are flipping coins but I give the house a 1.06% edge then we get the following chart.
Now, of course the overall trend is negative, however, there are plenty of positive variance runs.
So the proper mathematical way to think about Phil Ivey's situation is to think about where he is at on that curve. Sure, the probability of him being on the negative sliding parts of the curve is higher then him being on the positive uptrending parts of the curve but there are many positive uptrending parts thanks to the relatively low house edge.
So if we zoom in on a positive uptrend (the orange circle) we get
Now, each bet or flip was for 50 units. In this uptrend, we win 5,500 units over TWO THOUSANDS flips.
So, if Phil Ivey was betting $50,000 a shot then over this two thousand hand stretch he would have won $27,500,000
If he was betting $150k a shot then he would have won $82.5M
My point? It is easily possible the Phil Ivey playing at $50k - $150k per bet could hit a positive streak that would enable him to win $7.3M if he starts his game on the right part of the curve. Plus, the article said he played for 2 days.
60 hands an hour x ten hours of play is 600 hands. 600 is 30% of 2000 so
30% of $27.5M = $8.25M
30% of $82.5M = $24.75M
Basically, Phil Ivey going on a run is far from some statistical anomaly of 0.003% (or whatever). Its nothing unusual ESPECIALLY in a game with a house edge of only 1.06%. Hell, there are players that go on roulette runs that are an order of magnitude higher in probability/difficulty than Phil Ivey's run.
Last edited by dgiharris; 10-14-2012 at 11:15 PM.
10-15-2012
, 12:30 AM
Quote:
Whenever someone goes on a streak I think we make the mistake of thinking about it in a successive way... i.e. "The probability of winning 50 out of 55 hands is 0.003% " therefore he must have cheated.
That isn't the right way to think about it. The right way to think about it is to think about each win being independent of the previous or future win. Then generate a profile or graph of said results.
So, if I create a program in which we are flipping coins but I give the house a 1.06% edge then we get the following chart.
Now, of course the overall trend is negative, however, there are plenty of positive variance runs.
So the proper mathematical way to think about Phil Ivey's situation is to think about where he is at on that curve. Sure, the probability of him being on the negative sliding parts of the curve is higher then him being on the positive uptrending parts of the curve but there are many positive uptrending parts thanks to the relatively low house edge.
So if we zoom in on a positive uptrend (the orange circle) we get
Now, each bet or flip was for 50 units. In this uptrend, we win 5,500 units over TWO THOUSANDS flips.
So, if Phil Ivey was betting $50,000 a shot then over this two thousand hand stretch he would have won $27,500,000
If he was betting $150k a shot then he would have won $82.5M
My point? It is easily possible the Phil Ivey playing at $50k - $150k per bet could hit a positive streak that would enable him to win $7.3M if he starts his game on the right part of the curve. Plus, the article said he played for 2 days.
60 hands an hour x ten hours of play is 600 hands. 600 is 30% of 2000 so
30% of $27.5M = $8.25M
30% of $82.5M = $24.75M
Basically, Phil Ivey going on a run is far from some statistical anomaly of 0.003% (or whatever). Its nothing unusual ESPECIALLY in a game with a house edge of only 1.06%. Hell, there are players that go on roulette runs that are an order of magnitude higher in probability/difficulty than Phil Ivey's run.
That isn't the right way to think about it. The right way to think about it is to think about each win being independent of the previous or future win. Then generate a profile or graph of said results.
So, if I create a program in which we are flipping coins but I give the house a 1.06% edge then we get the following chart.
Now, of course the overall trend is negative, however, there are plenty of positive variance runs.
So the proper mathematical way to think about Phil Ivey's situation is to think about where he is at on that curve. Sure, the probability of him being on the negative sliding parts of the curve is higher then him being on the positive uptrending parts of the curve but there are many positive uptrending parts thanks to the relatively low house edge.
So if we zoom in on a positive uptrend (the orange circle) we get
Now, each bet or flip was for 50 units. In this uptrend, we win 5,500 units over TWO THOUSANDS flips.
So, if Phil Ivey was betting $50,000 a shot then over this two thousand hand stretch he would have won $27,500,000
If he was betting $150k a shot then he would have won $82.5M
My point? It is easily possible the Phil Ivey playing at $50k - $150k per bet could hit a positive streak that would enable him to win $7.3M if he starts his game on the right part of the curve. Plus, the article said he played for 2 days.
60 hands an hour x ten hours of play is 600 hands. 600 is 30% of 2000 so
30% of $27.5M = $8.25M
30% of $82.5M = $24.75M
Basically, Phil Ivey going on a run is far from some statistical anomaly of 0.003% (or whatever). Its nothing unusual ESPECIALLY in a game with a house edge of only 1.06%. Hell, there are players that go on roulette runs that are an order of magnitude higher in probability/difficulty than Phil Ivey's run.
10-15-2012
, 12:58 AM
It's not, but it still is a great post.
We know exactly where he is on the curve, all the way to the right:
You can calculate precisely how likely that is to happen, which is what Bubbleblower has done.
On the Rainman debate, listen to the tabletalk after 20 mins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGlsdy01_Ac
You can calculate precisely how likely that is to happen, which is what Bubbleblower has done.
On the Rainman debate, listen to the tabletalk after 20 mins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGlsdy01_Ac
10-15-2012
, 01:27 AM
no but seriously....
Am I the only one that wants Phil to get paid?
I feel like this guy could steal my wife.... kid... and I would still want to see him do well. I am a sucker I guess.
Does he owe people money? of course.
I compare him to the "Catch Me If You Can" guy. Phil just makes life his Bitch at every turn.
10-15-2012
, 03:59 AM
Quote:
Whenever someone goes on a streak I think we make the mistake of thinking about it in a successive way... i.e. "The probability of winning 50 out of 55 hands is 0.003% " therefore he must have cheated.
That isn't the right way to think about it. The right way to think about it is to think about each win being independent of the previous or future win. Then generate a profile or graph of said results.
So, if I create a program in which we are flipping coins but I give the house a 1.06% edge then we get the following chart.
Now, of course the overall trend is negative, however, there are plenty of positive variance runs.
So the proper mathematical way to think about Phil Ivey's situation is to think about where he is at on that curve. Sure, the probability of him being on the negative sliding parts of the curve is higher then him being on the positive uptrending parts of the curve but there are many positive uptrending parts thanks to the relatively low house edge.
So if we zoom in on a positive uptrend (the orange circle) we get
Now, each bet or flip was for 50 units. In this uptrend, we win 5,500 units over TWO THOUSANDS flips.
So, if Phil Ivey was betting $50,000 a shot then over this two thousand hand stretch he would have won $27,500,000
If he was betting $150k a shot then he would have won $82.5M
My point? It is easily possible the Phil Ivey playing at $50k - $150k per bet could hit a positive streak that would enable him to win $7.3M if he starts his game on the right part of the curve. Plus, the article said he played for 2 days.
60 hands an hour x ten hours of play is 600 hands. 600 is 30% of 2000 so
30% of $27.5M = $8.25M
30% of $82.5M = $24.75M
Basically, Phil Ivey going on a run is far from some statistical anomaly of 0.003% (or whatever). Its nothing unusual ESPECIALLY in a game with a house edge of only 1.06%. Hell, there are players that go on roulette runs that are an order of magnitude higher in probability/difficulty than Phil Ivey's run.
That isn't the right way to think about it. The right way to think about it is to think about each win being independent of the previous or future win. Then generate a profile or graph of said results.
So, if I create a program in which we are flipping coins but I give the house a 1.06% edge then we get the following chart.
Now, of course the overall trend is negative, however, there are plenty of positive variance runs.
So the proper mathematical way to think about Phil Ivey's situation is to think about where he is at on that curve. Sure, the probability of him being on the negative sliding parts of the curve is higher then him being on the positive uptrending parts of the curve but there are many positive uptrending parts thanks to the relatively low house edge.
So if we zoom in on a positive uptrend (the orange circle) we get
Now, each bet or flip was for 50 units. In this uptrend, we win 5,500 units over TWO THOUSANDS flips.
So, if Phil Ivey was betting $50,000 a shot then over this two thousand hand stretch he would have won $27,500,000
If he was betting $150k a shot then he would have won $82.5M
My point? It is easily possible the Phil Ivey playing at $50k - $150k per bet could hit a positive streak that would enable him to win $7.3M if he starts his game on the right part of the curve. Plus, the article said he played for 2 days.
60 hands an hour x ten hours of play is 600 hands. 600 is 30% of 2000 so
30% of $27.5M = $8.25M
30% of $82.5M = $24.75M
Basically, Phil Ivey going on a run is far from some statistical anomaly of 0.003% (or whatever). Its nothing unusual ESPECIALLY in a game with a house edge of only 1.06%. Hell, there are players that go on roulette runs that are an order of magnitude higher in probability/difficulty than Phil Ivey's run.
10-15-2012
, 07:41 AM
10-15-2012
, 08:01 AM
Quote:
It's not, but it still is a great post.
We know exactly where he is on the curve, all the way to the right:
You can calculate precisely how likely that is to happen, which is what Bubbleblower has done.
On the Rainman debate, listen to the tabletalk after 20 mins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGlsdy01_Ac
We know exactly where he is on the curve, all the way to the right:
You can calculate precisely how likely that is to happen, which is what Bubbleblower has done.
On the Rainman debate, listen to the tabletalk after 20 mins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGlsdy01_Ac
10-15-2012
, 09:26 AM
10-15-2012
, 07:52 PM
10-16-2012
, 12:16 AM
Quote:
From what I've heard about Ivey he likes to play as fast as possible. There was a thread on this forum from someone cliaming to be a craps dealer once moaning about Ivey not tiping, and they also claimed he liked to play fast. I would not be surprised if he was playing close to 200 hands an hour.
May be somebody in the UK can find out, especially since we got all the other details.
Quote:
Im gonna provide a diffrent way of think about phil iveys win.Picture this ur about to go through a divorce ur a known gambler high roller gambler too the casinos.So if u wanted to hide some money it would be very easy to do right for a highroller.The casinos accomendate to their high rollers every wishes correct?So what if phil ivey wanted to hide money before the black friday and before his divorce set it up with the casinos to lose millions on purpose to hide the money from his wife.And black friday aka full tilt customers if he was ever sued its something to think about.Now the casinos so they dont look like they are money laundering they allow him to win and lose money and they have to make the storie look real so it gets publisized and phil ivey can careless its free publicity for him anyways.But the casino is helping ivey in the long run trust me i see through this whole thing.
Anything is possible.
10-16-2012
, 12:37 AM
10-16-2012
, 02:54 AM
10-16-2012
, 04:20 AM
