Open Side Menu Go to the Top

03-12-2018 , 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewOldGuy
Before you turned them over, each top card had a 1/52 chance to be AD. After you turned them over, each one had a 100% chance.

Probability is based on information. More information changes it.

If none of the top cards were an ace D, the probability to turn over an AD on each deck was still 1/52 before you turned any over.

If all of the top cards were an ace D, the probability to turn over an AD on each deck was still 1/52 before you turned any over.

These last two facts continue to elude you.
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.
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally?
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally?
03-12-2018 , 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk
No, not quite. ''you'' can't come to terms with that its two different independent questions of probability.
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.
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext
Now it is a lock that this thread will hit 1,000 posts!
Are you saying you are going to lock the thread at 1000 posts or before?
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk
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.
And we have told you how to determine the answer. Several times.
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace
How do you feel about the "Monty Hall Problem"?
You just cost OP 5 years of his life wondering around challenging all established math.
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk
You seem to be struggling with the fact I am asking two different questions and you keep giving the same answer to both.

You also contradict yourself yet again .

You declare you do not know how many 1's are in y, then persist in saying there at least 1*1 in y with certainty. You are quite clearly stating an answer as a guess.

2
2
2

In the above you have just stated there is at least 1*1. Do you maintain your guess in the below

?
?
?

There is at least 1*1?

Let me show your mistake too you , what you are doing.

I give the parameters of x = {1,2} , you can easily work out it is 1/2


I give the parameters y= {?,?,?} these are the results of x, they are no longer x. Recalculate for y please.

You keep giving the answer of what is the chance of any of the values in y being a 1.

You are not giving the answer to what is the chance of a 1 from y.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilGreebo
The problem with the above is you are trying to use physics in a probability problem.

This is akin to attempting to use a hammer to wash the dishes.

They don't go together the way you're trying to use them.
This.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk
But what if they should?
They shouldn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace
All,

Let's not forget this exchange.
He thinks he has figured out a flaw in how people have understood basic probability for hundreds of years. All great new minds are disparaged in their time.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBAces
What you are believing is that if a number of events have occurred we cannot tell the probability of any one of them if we don't actually know the results of all of them. Therefore, if you do something 3 times then the probability of a certain result is ?/3.

So, by this logic, if I told you I was going to flip a fair coin, and asked the probability of getting heads, you would probably agree that it is 1/2 or 50%. But if I told you I already flipped the coin three times and won't tell you how many heads there were - you would say that the probability the first one was heads is ?/3. But it isn't - it is still 50%.

This is the fundamental flaw in your thinking. The probability doesn't change when we have done something a number of times and we don't know any of those outcomes. This is the entire nature of probability - which is the percentage of times something will happen given all the information we have available.

Physics simply doesn't have anything to do with this, unless there is some physical occurrence that is influencing the result in a systematic way (like the wind is blowing in such a way as to cause friction on the head of a coin more than a tail, and this leads to some change in the outcome). But there are no physical influences on the computer generation of cards that lead to a systematic difference in the cards dealt. We can say this because when we test the results, they come out exactly the way we would predict them to come out if no bias exists.

There is nothing wrong with looking at things from a different viewpoint. But sometimes the prevailing viewpoint is actually correct, and when all of the evidence points that way, it might be time to accept it and try looking at something else.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by illdonk
You have clearly stated your position: you do not believe that probability exists for fixed yet unknown events.

The top card either is or is not the Ace of Diamonds. You don’t think it makes sense to say there is a chance that it is or is not that card.

That is the paradox that you can’t come to terms with, but literally everybody else can. Does that sound right?
100% correct.
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo Fett
Have you really forgotten the 487 other times we've had this conversation?
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext
Now it is a lock that this thread will hit 1,000 posts!
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.
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 06:08 PM
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.
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 06:15 PM
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!
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext
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.
And has delivered in such a spectacular way.

Last edited by King Spew; 03-12-2018 at 07:36 PM. Reason: imo
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk
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.
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.
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 08:27 PM
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.
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 08:55 PM
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.
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 09:01 PM
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?
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 09:05 PM
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.
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext
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.


No I do not think that .
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk
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.
Then respond to where I answered your last question about 5 cards.
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewOldGuy
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.
On stars you get a new deck every hand from a queue.
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 09:18 PM
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
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk
On stars you get a new deck every hand from a queue.
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?
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk
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
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%
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext
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?
Dining room table
h
h
t
h
t
h
h
t
t
t

ten coins
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk
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
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.
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05
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%

So no longer the 50% of 1/2?
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
03-12-2018 , 09:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk
Dining room table
h
h
t
h
t
h
h
t
t
t

ten coins
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?
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? Quote
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally?
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally?

      
m