No they don't elude me.

?
?
?
?
?

What is your chance of drawing an ace from the above ?

I am not asking you what is the chance the one you draw being an ace.

They ARE, yes, independent questions of probability.

Independent - as in NOT RELATED TO EACH OTHER.

And yet you are trying to relate them. You are trying to make two independent events be connected, and saying it's because of "physics" without having even the basest understanding of the physics that you claim are involved.

Are you saying you are going to lock the thread at 1000 posts or before?

And we have told you how to determine the answer. Several times.

You just cost OP 5 years of his life wondering around challenging all established math.

No, I'm not struggling, but thanks for your concern.

Have you really forgotten the 487 other times we've had this conversation? I have no idea what 1*1 is supposed to represent, but the odds of any one value being a 1 is 1/2. If you want to know what the odds are of at least one of the three values being a 1, that would be 7/8.

This.

They shouldn't.

Well said. The fact that some geniuses that have been ahead of their time in the past sometimes deludes others into thinking that they are that next genius.

Very well said. It's unfortunate this is lost on someone who is completely stuck in his beliefs and has no interest in understanding otherwise.

100% correct.

While you were using a bit (though sadly not as much as one would hope) hyperbole with this figure, I would certainly take the way over of that actual number for the amount of times he has had this discussion on all of the forums he has infected over the past 10+ years.


Yeah, thinking I got that prediction pretty wrong. They brought out the defibrillator and gave this thread an unexpected second life. I underestimated the efforts people will go to to try to convince a guy who has lived an obsession for over a decade that he is wrong, so I guess the next over unders to consider are 1,250 and 1,500 and 2,000 posts.

I have to believe even the hardiest will give up before 2,000. 1,500 I am not sure on, but I will go 1,342 posts as a general prediction although hopefully people will eventually let the OP live in his own special world (still would be amused to know how many forums he has done this on before over the past 10+ years). I suppose others can toss in their thread length predictions if it amuses them.

As a pre-commitment joke, one of the "conditions/promises" I made in accepting this thread to be moved from the containment thread over in Internet Poker (the "Online Poker is Rigged" thread) to its own thread in the Probability Forum is that I do not delete any posts, curtail or stifle anybody in any way, ban anybody for what they post in this thread, or close/lock the thread. (I guess it should be added that 2+2 general site rules are still in force in this thread.)

There aren't too many 2+2 threads that needed to be moved out of "ordinary containment" into their own special "reinforced containment", but this sure is one.

I admit in the past to having encouraged a few riggies to post their special take on mathematics here for feedback. Most choose not to for obvious reasons, but the ones that did never had a thread last more than a day or two and maybe a couple dozen posts.

Mike Haven does it once and somehow the OP he hurls here has a 1,000 post thread. Never would have seen it with this OP, he just struck me as the weirdo of the week at first, but it goes to show that one never quite knows what will go viral in a way. Guess the OP will not get the ban/lock he hopes for unless he goes above and beyond the call!

And has delivered in such a spectacular way.

If these were all the top card from a shuffled deck, and you are allowed to pick any one, it's a trivial calculation to know the chance it's an ace of diamonds. And in the long run that calculation will be exactly correct. But it's irrelevant to poker because we don't deal of the top of multiple decks.

Don't want this to be taken the wrong way but I could put money on op being a "high functioning" autist at this point.

The baffling thing (okay, one of the dozens of baffling things) is why online poker evoked such a strong conviction in OP.

According to the more recent incarnation of his viewpoint, when you get down to the nitty gritty, there is nothing special or unique about online poker. He is refuting (attempting to refute) the very nature of how probabilities work and how probabilities of independent events work.

I really think OP's viewpoint can be distilled down to two coins. He seems to believe that if you flip a penny and a nickel in succession, whether the nickel comes out heads or tails is influenced by whether the penny (flipped prior) came out heads or tails.

For that is the only way that you can obtain his purported "repeat value bias": two heads or two tails (reputedly) being more likely than one being a head and the other being a tail.

My puzzlement is how and why online poker crystallized this latent belief to the surface for I cannot believe he gave explicit voice to this belief in other contexts earlier in his life since someone (a teacher, a friend, anybody) would have undoubtedly shown him the error of his ways long ago before this view became encased in concrete in his mind.

If OP is still reading replies and wiling to try something new rather than asking others to do all the work for him, I would suggest successively flipping two different coins (say a penny and a nickel) and keep track of their outcomes for 15 minutes.

At the end of the 15 minutes, ask yourself if you believe that whether the nickel landed heads or tails was influenced by whether the penny (previously flipped and just sitting there) landed heads or tails.

It's just another variation of the gambler's fallacy. With a little quantum uncertainty thrown in to make it tasty.

Is it really an Ace if no one observes it?

I do not think any of you understand the actual question....

You all think you do, but I can see what you are all putting so I know none of you are understanding the actual question.

No I do not think that .

Then respond to where I answered your last question about 5 cards.

On stars you get a new deck every hand from a queue.

Do you like puzzles ?

Flip a coin ten times and write down the results,

what is your chance of picking a heads from the 10 disclosed results?


I am not asking a 1/2 question

I have just asked you a ? out of ten question

Think of each deck as a different coin. Penny, nickel, dime, quarter, half dollar, dollar, etc.

The queue is your dining room table where you have previously flipped all the coins and they are just sitting there.

When a table needs a new deck, think of it as asking for (revealing) a previously flipped coin as either heads or tails.

Agree?

Assuming I get to pick any one of the disclosed results I want and I am trying to pick a heads, then roughly 99.9%

Dining room table
h
h
t
h
t
h
h
t
t
t

ten coins

Please, for the love of god, stop asking questions.

Please, for the love of god, answer a question.

Among many posters in this thread over the recent past, NewOldGuy has attempted to engage you in conversation.

Either have a conversation with him -- and that entails answering questions.

Or, if you prefer, I have attempted to engage you in conversation. Have a conversation with me -- and that entails answering questions.

So no longer the 50% of 1/2?

You don't need to write down if they are heads or tails. You have previously agreed that each coin is independent of all the other coins.

Each coin in the "queue" is 50/50 heads or tails.

Agree?