Is online poker flawed, fundamentally? - Page 44 - Gambling and Probability

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Probability

Is online poker flawed, fundamentally?

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 44 of 50

First

24 34 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Last

Page 44 of 50

First

24 34 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Last

03-13-2018 , 12:03 PM

#1076

pkdk

banned

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 689

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didace

Here's what I believe that you believe.

Even if you know the probability of a random choice from set A, when you do this X number of times to create set B, you don't know the exact composition of set B, so you can't determine the probability of randomly choosing something from set B.

You understand almost, you can work out the probability again once you have picked.

Quote

$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker

Join the action now

Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces

03-13-2018 , 12:03 PM

#1077

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,682

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkdk

For some reason it wont let me quote your full post,

So, stating this again, you want to say that (i) each of the 10 coins has a 50% chance of being a heads, (ii) the chance to draw from the 10 coins a coin that is a heads is indeterminable and (iii) the chance of a coin that is drawn from the 10 coins being heads is 50%?

It may sound obviously stupid at first but you understand what I said and have given the correct answer.

I am not giving that answer. I was just writing what answer I understood you to be giving.

It is not the correct answer.

The answer to clause (ii) is determinable. It is 50%.

It seems to me like it should be obvious that if whatever coin we draw has a 50% chance of being heads, then we have a 50% chance of drawing a heads, and trying to say that we have no idea what our chances of drawing a heads is while at the same time saying that the coin we draw has a 50% chance of being heads is just smacking us over the head with the silliness and how it is wrong.

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:04 PM

#1078

Didace

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 21,420

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkdk

You understand also.

Good. At least that's settled.

You are wrong.

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:06 PM

#1079

pkdk

banned

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 689

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lego05

FYI - “Disclosed” means the opposite of what you think it means. If something is disclosed, then that means it was told to people.

Thank you

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:09 PM

#1080

pkdk

banned

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 689

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didace

Good. At least that's settled.

You are wrong.

Don't jump the gun, I am not wrong. You almost understand, please continue to think about the matter, get a few decks of cards and experiment , have a think about it.

When a few people finally understand this part which as took a lot of posts, we can move onto the next part which involves time .

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:11 PM

#1081

pkdk

banned

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 689

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lego05

You keep looking at the coin as if in your hand, drawn, look at the coin as if in the 10 results.

Think...seriously you are close, think about what you wrote and I said you have give the correct answer.

You are skipping events to keep giving a 1/2 answer.

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:13 PM

#1082

Didace

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 21,420

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkdk

When a few people finally understand this part which as took a lot of posts, we can move onto the next part which involves time .

Everyone has always understood this part.

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:17 PM

#1083

pkdk

banned

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 689

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didace

Everyone has always understood this part.

They haven't or by know they would know the difference between 1/52

and ?/52.

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:18 PM

#1084

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,682

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkdk

You’re wrong. I’m sorry.

Go flip the 10 coins and then pick one and then record whether it is a heads or tails. Do that a million times and see how many times you pick a heads. It will be roughly around 500,000 times.

500,000/1,000,000 = 1/2 = 50%

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:20 PM

#1085

pkdk

banned

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 689

By now people should understand that x is not equal to y , x and y being two different sets.

y52
.
.
.
.
...............x52

f:{x}=1/52

f:{y}=?/52

accurate math.

added -

All {x}=1/52

All {y}=?/52

addded

P [a]/x=1/52 i.e absolute

P [a]/y=?/52 i.e absolute random.

Last edited by pkdk; 03-13-2018 at 12:29 PM.

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:21 PM

#1086

pkdk

banned

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 689

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lego05

I can see you still not quite understand. See my latest math post and try to disagree.

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:27 PM

#1087

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,682

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkdk

I can see you still not quite understand. See my latest math post and try to disagree.

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:29 PM

#1088

Didace

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 21,420

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkdk

I can see you still not quite understand. See my latest math post and try to disagree.

Prior to accumulating any data, devise a test to prove your theory.

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:36 PM

#1089

pkdk

banned

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 689

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didace

Prior to accumulating any data, devise a test to prove your theory.

Axioms do not need tests , they are self evidently true, the maths I just provided is 100% accurate.

There may be a test but I have never considered an axiom would need one. It is objective fact that in a 52*52 array that if all x was randomly shuffled , then y would be a completely different set to x.

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:37 PM

#1090

pkdk

banned

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 689

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lego05

see the math is says I am correct.

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:41 PM

#1091

Didace

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 21,420

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkdk

the math is says I am correct.

I think you are misusing "correct" the same way you misused "disclosed".

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:45 PM

#1092

Lego05

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,682

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkdk

see the math is says I am correct.

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:46 PM

#1093

otatop

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 12,721

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkdk

They haven't or by know they would know the difference between 1/52

and ?/52.

It's cute that because you're completely clueless when it comes to probability you've invented your own dumbass notation of ?/52 and all, but WhosNext wrote a nice long post explaining exactly why you're wrong.

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:50 PM

#1094

pkdk

banned

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 689

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didace

I think you are misusing "correct" the same way you misused "disclosed".

No it is precise to the 52 linear array transformation into a R² x,y array .

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:51 PM

#1095

pkdk

banned

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 689

Quote:

Originally Posted by otatop

I have invented nothing, it exists as a part of the physics.

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:54 PM

#1096

pkdk

banned

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 689

.........Ac.........
.Ad.................
.........As.........
................Ah..

We can see quite clearly that all set y are the results of random shuffle of all x

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:55 PM

#1097

Didace

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 21,420

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkdk

Axioms do not need tests

Axioms are generally accepted to be true. Can you say that if you are the only one that thinks so?

Regardless, axioms can be a basis for a logical system, but if real world testing of your theories doesn't work out you need to rethink your starting point.

So, since your theories that you cannot know the probabilities of a second set comprised of "undisclosed" results from a prior random choice can be shown to be inaccurate (and have been shown to be in this thread) the burden now falls on you to show through a real world example over a significant sample size that you are in fact correct. (Again, devise the test prior to accumulating data.)

Quote

03-13-2018 , 12:59 PM

#1098

pkdk

banned

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 689

.........Ac.........
.Ad.................
.........As.........
................Ah..
.........Ac.........
.Ad.................
.........As.........
................Ah..
.........Ac.........
.Ad.................
.........As.........
................Ah..

This is the problem in the array

Quote

03-13-2018 , 01:00 PM

#1099

pkdk

banned

Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 689

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didace

My theory applies to real numbers, I am using a basic array, it is axiom.

Quote

03-13-2018 , 01:03 PM

#1100

otatop

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 12,721

Quote:

Originally Posted by pkdk

I have invented nothing, it exists as a part of the physics.

No mathematician on Earth has ever written "?/x" as an answer to a probability question. That your immediate response is to say it's part of a completely different scientific field is literally insane.