SMH

Yes, and it will happen with exactly the same frequency as with reshuffling a single deck repeatedly.

pkdk, I don't think we're going to get anywhere on the box scenario. You can't get past the fact that taking out boxes randomly in no way affects the probability of getting a prize, that's fine. I can't think of any more ways to convince you of the obvious truth. But if it will somehow help, I'll give you the answer you already know - of course we have no idea what the odds are of getting a prize in a single box when the only information is that there will or won't be a prize. So, go ahead with the punch line.

In the meantime, perhaps we can make some progress on an earlier line of discussion, and this post of mine that you didn't respond to (which I understand, as there have been many threads to this conversation):

I believe this is critical to your theory. You have yet to demonstrate how 52 different decks will get you different results than the same deck used 52 times, shuffled after each hand. Of course you can't demonstrate that, because it won't, but I'm interested in understanding how you think it will.

I should add that having looked at your other threads, and your past account, I'd put the troll odds at about 50/50. Which would be pretty lame - who wouldn't be able to troll/level in this thread if they wanted to?

Interesting, when I calculate the x axis there is no guess, it is 100% factual that there will be 1/3.
When I calculate the y axis 1/3 is no longer 100% factual. It becomes a range of 0-3/3 and that is not a guess, that is the facts.

As you can see in this array , the chance of 3 from column one is 0/3

123
123
123


In this array , the chance of 3 from column one is 3/3


321
321
321


Now in either x rows, it remains 1/3 in both arrays for all. It does not matter how much y changes, x is always 1/3 .

You need to understand the importance of the time function. Below is a column of boxes with a respective label


lose
win
lose
win
win
win
lose
lose
lose
win
win

Now in a time based game that has order, let us say top to bottom, at 9am precisely you get dealt the top one , a loss. Then at 9.05am you have your next deal , a win, and so on, upto 12.00 noon

Now what happens if you was allowed to randomly pick ?


Lets say at 9 u pick deck 1 and get a lose. then at 9.05 you pick box 3 and get another lose. Then at 9.10 you pick box 7 and get another lose.

Can you see the difference in timed order compared to random choice?

Can you see the possible consequence of action?

You seem to have a rare perspective on a particular probabilistic phenomenon. People have asked you to explain the phenomenon which you have attempted to do to some degree but those same people are still confused.

Would you be so kind to give a numerical example of a manifestation of your probabilistic phenomenon? Such as fill in the blanks in the following sentence.

If separate decks are used to deal online poker at 3 different tables, and I am a player at each of the three tables, and the deals are sequential (table 1, table 2, table 3), then the probability of __________ is __________, contrary to most people's belief.

For example, you might say "the probability of being dealt the Ace of Spades on table 2 after being dealt the Ace of Spades on table 1 is 3/52.

Anything concrete or any example you could give would be helpful.

Your example would be a normal game and not the internet game, there would not be any problem , unless I have misunderstood it. I understand it is hard for all of you to understand. It took me years to understand, I can 'see' it in my head better than I can explain it.


How can I put it, let me think a moment while I pause!

Ok, let me try to use pathways.

We have two paths, one we will define x which runs horizontally and one we define y which runs vertically.

y
.
.
.
................x


Now if you was to walk along the x path, I guarantee somewhere along the length you will find exactly 1/52 aces of diamonds.



Now if you was to walk along the y path, I can't guarantee anything, you might find 0/52 aces of diamonds or 52/52 aces of diamonds , or any amount between those values.


Try to understand that part first , it is an array and x and y are the vectors


52*52

x=52
y=52

example array

???
???
???

y
.
.
.
.
0a...................x


In this diagram I have added your position represented by 0 . You get the first left aligned value a,
looking down the x-axis , do you agree you have a 1/52 of the first value a, being ace diamonds?


P a = ace of diamonds = 1/52

Okay, we have gone down that path before (pun intended). Let's simplify.

Suppose that I am playing a poker game in which each player is dealt only one card from a standard deck of 52 cards.

Suppose that I play simultaneously (or sequentially) 52 different games of this poker variant.

How many total Aces of Diamonds may I be dealt taking all of the 52 tables collectively?

Clearly I could get dealt any number from 0 to 52. Right?

Standard probability precepts can easily determine the likelihood (the "probability") of each of these 53 different possibilities.

What is easy to show is that the "expected value" of the total number of Aces of Diamonds you will be dealt is exactly 1.

Sometimes you will be dealt 0, sometimes 1, sometimes 2, sometimes 3, etc. But if you take the expected value of these possibilities (weighting the number of Aces of Diamonds by the likelihood of being dealt that number of Aces of Diamonds), you will arrive at exactly 1.

Which is tantamount to stating that the likelihood of being dealt the Ace of Diamonds at any specific table is 1/52.

Which is tantamount to stating that the likelihood of being dealt the Ace of Diamonds at table 23 is 1/52 regardless of whether or not you were dealt the Ace of Diamonds at table 18.

Agreed?

I am then going to offer a choice of first cards from the same column changing your vector path to y. But this time you don't get the first card, you get to choose any one of the first column.

y
.
.
.
0.........x


So now looking ''up'' the y vector , how many ace of diamonds do you now see?

Please answer my question first, the answers will prove it to yourself, we can work on it then once you understand the problem. If you can not see the problem you will keep coming up with the same answer you have now , and that just means you failed to see the ostensible .


added- Once you have switched vector to column one y , every on the right of column one is not dependent to y.

You realize that I am trying to prevent you from being banned?

I suggest to you that the probability of you being banned is likely related to you answering my questions, not the other way around.

DUCY?

Your explanation does not deal with the problem. Why should they ban me for trying to show ostensible content?

I am not a rig theorist, quite the opposite. Anyone reading this thread will learn a lot about probability and functions.

f:x is not equal to f:y is quite obvious .

where {a}= 52*52

f:x = 1/52

x Δ y

f:y = ?/52


The math does not lie.


?/52
.
.
.
.
.
0................1/52


Can you not understand simple vector analysis?


''you'' are turning left then instantly turning back right, ignoring whats ahead of you. But the left turns has no right turns you have to stay left.

Who are "they"?

You realize that I am a mod and many of the other people engaging you in this thread are mods?

Mods are responsible for keeping the forums free of trolls and annoying posters. And, from your posts in this thread, I am forming the opinion that you may be one or both of the above.

I would suggest that if you don't want to answer these questions, then kindly stop posting in this thread.

They , meant the mods, I did not realise you was a moderator. No offence I could think of a lot better places than a poker forum and a discussion on probabilities to go trolling.
I am not making things up and I am showing why the game is impossible to rig. Pokerstars etc do not know which deck you are going to get.

My math I provided on x and y is accurate, you have no need to ban me for no reason. That would not be very fair when I have brought an interesting notion to your forum.
If we can work it out, we might be able to work out a new way of playing online, a strategy that deals with the problem .
But if you are going to keep denying simple logic and vector analysis, I am probably wasting my time and will just leave the forum. I have better things to write such as my gravity paper.
I just wanted a break from my science forums and fancied a change so came here to enlighten you all on x and y .

yes to that part

And what you said here is not the problem. It is a different scenario.

Can I just say, that if you do not understand the problem, then you can't really be saying I am wrong, because if you understood the problem, you would know I was right.
So if your remaining objective, you should not say I am wrong until you understand the problem, which at that point proves I am correct because you understand there is a problem.

query : set theory

P i ∈ {x} = 1

P i ∈ {y} = var {x}

{x} = 52

{y} = 52

P i from {x} = 1/52

P i from {y} = ?/52

Look, you are the one who came to 2+2, a very well-known poker forum covering both live and online poker, and proclaimed that the "probability function" governing online poker is fundamentally flawed.

People naturally thought that you are talking about the "probability function" governing how cards are dealt in online poker. If you mean something else, you need to make it clear.

When repeatedly asked to describe the flaw in online poker or give any examples or manifestations of the flaw, you are unable or unwilling to do so.

Instead you insult people and claim that you alone have this unique insight. You claim that other people would see that you are correct if only they understood what you are talking about.

Unfortunately, that type of dialog is unproductive, counter-productive, downright annoying, and could well lead to sanctions such as a temp-ban or a perma-ban from 2+2.

I have explained the problem several times already, it is a probability problem and timing problem . No worries sir I can see you have little patience for trying to understand, so I will wish you good day and politely step away from this forum and leave all those people in the votes to continue thinking it is rigged.

good day sir and good luck

You never clarified your belief about live cats melting steel. The world's loss I suppose.

All the best.

pkdk if I understand you, you seem to believe that because the cards are virtual - that is, existing only in a computer program - they somehow behave differently than cards which are physical in nature.

Would that be correct?

And if so - could you please explain how them being virtual makes a difference?