So.....why isn't this correct?
[x] Yes, there are exactly two prizes. One is in one of the four boxes, the other is in a second of the four.

Because if there are exactly two prizes then the statement there are exactly two prizes in two of four boxes in total. can not be correct. Your statement in blue says there are a total of 4 prizes. (two prizes in two boxes)

I read the last part wrongly sorry, yes you got it right sorry, I thought you meant a different four boxes.

50% and 1/2 are the same thing.



50% = 1/2

50% does not equal ?/2

The answer cannot be 50% and not be 1/2 at the same time. The answer cannot be 50% and ?/2 at the same time.




My best and parting advice to you for a first step:

and decimals and percentages and how to convert from one to another.

But it can and it is in this scenario. What appears to be true is not necessarily true. This is the part you are not seeing.

1/2 half is not the same as 1/2 1 out of 2.

Try to understand we can't say 1 out of 2, but we can say 50%


1/2 would be an illogical statement and false .

Anyway x is not equal to y, can we go back to the x and y using 52*52 array

x=1/52

y=?/52


Maybe you understand this now?

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

And why should people believe one with 9000+ posts? Most likely a person who has the time to post that much is either:
1) A shill for one or more sites
2) Employee of one
3) Random poker player who licks wounds quite often and fills the time by writing posts, while working on the next deposit

The scientific/FBI approach to my modest persona suggests a kind of vested interests in the health of online poker; would you entertain us regarding who your employer exactly is?

You know, there are thousands of people who agree with me, the marks of the poker industry; they have the same pattern of:
1) deposit
2) up a bit (the site giving the bait)
3) down to zero in few days or few hundreds of hands later

Works like a clock. If one is persistent, this pattern will be repeated any number of times, hundreds, thousands, life. Pavlov's dog theory in action.

And there are those who would say: You do not know what you are talking about, you do not know variance, you are a troll, etc. Why would the sites do that if they collect rake, etc. (Well, why not - money lying on the ground and not take it? This is not what big businesses are about; there is a long list of big and "respected" industries who went rogue for much less than what a big online poker site makes). How do they do it - stay tuned.

And if you claim that you are a winning player online, without working for one of the sites, let us experiment - come play on my account, show me you can win consistently. I will then remove all my "poker is rigged" posts. There was a site www.****pokerstars.com, where there were thousands posts explaining how the sites screw you out of your money. The entire site was blocked; every attempt to go there is redirected elsewhere (good friends in Goggle, I guess?). Yes, no site would do something like that, right? Just a random act of universe forces? Winning player online is a myth, well maintained by sites employees, and this includes all prop players who are on a payroll at the sites.

Aside from all of the other nonsense in here - the other question would be "So what?" We do not deal cards in your vertical axis, they are all dealt from an individual array of all 52 cards. You have spent an awful lot of time trying to convince people that 1/2 is not the same as 2/4 or 50% - but you have yet to explain how this problem somehow impacts a poker game. And you haven't even come close to explaining how this is somehow different between online poker and live poker.

In live poker you are not dealt cards from one deck - every single hand is dealt from a different deck. The physical cards may or may not be the same as the prior hand, but the deck, defined as a specific random shuffle of those 52 cards is completely different and independent (if shuffled properly) from prior hands. This is exactly the same as online poker, where there are NO decks of cards, but are endless representations of the order of the 52 cards.

If you had read previous posts you would be up to speed, meaning I have explained it several times already.

Here it is again though

52*52 array

P i ∈ {x} = 1/52

P i ∈ {y} = ?/52

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

ƒ:x = (1/52) Δ ƒ:y = var (x)

big Stein smells a pennant!

I'm guessing you don't know the definition of explanation.

He also doesn't know the definition of probability.

Much better than you do, apparently. Your obsession with this word and whether anyone else understands it is...weird. Especially when you consider that while you know its meaning, you don't understand how to use it. Actually, that seems to be a theme throughout your posts. Understanding words and concepts, but misusing them. Actually, I see 3 themes:

1) Understanding words and concepts, but misusing them.
2) In spite of everyone, and I mean everyone, telling you that you're wrong, ignoring them all and not even stopping for a moment to consider that there could be any flaws in your thinking.
3) Terribly, terrible misplaced condescension.

It's the second theme that has made me wonder if you're a troll. Sometimes, it's hard to believe someone could be this blind to any opposing viewpoints. Of course, we see it all the time in this thread, but you take it to some pretty amazing levels, even for this thread.

I went down this road with him, because you're right, there's a layer beyond this ?/2 silliness. What I was able to eventually glean from his different responses, and that took a while because he's absolutely terrible at explaining himself or answering questions in a straightforward manner, is that time is the other factor for him. It seems he thinks that it matters whether cards are dealt from the same deck reshuffled as opposed to multiple decks shuffled separately, because they would be different. Much the same way that they would be different if the dealer sneezed, or decided to shuffle one more time, or if a new dealer came 1 minute early, or any number of things - but those don't seem to matter to him. That led a couple of us to enquire as to whether he's one of those believers in the old blackjack third base myth. I don't believe he answered, but I'm pretty sure that if he played, he would definitely be a believer.

I have been considering my notion for about ten year, it is not wrong. I understand my idea, but obviously some people do not have the intellect to try to understand.
Repeating back it is 1/2 or whatever, is not going to fix what is broke no matter how many time you say it.


x is not equal to y and anybody who says it is equal , is a telling lies unfortunately.

For the last time, walking down Xeon lane there is one house , walking down Yeon lane there is multiple houses.

Yeon lane
.Ad
.
.Ad
.
.Ad
.
.Ad
.
............Ad.........Xeon lane

FYP.

Oh, look, another word you don't know how to use!

Quite clearly sir you are not really trying to see past what you think you know, that is called not being totally objective sir.


Are you saying x = y ?

If so why?

1
12


Do you think x is equal to y in the above?

x ≠ y sir

P i x ≠ P i y

All x= 1 * i

All y = ? * i

1 doesn't equal 12? Really?? Wow, how enlightening.

Oh look, yet another word you like to use a lot, incorrectly.

{....i......}9.11am
{......i....}9.10am
{..i........}9.09am
{....i......}9.08am
{......i....}9.07am
{..i........}9.06am
{....i......}9.05am
{......i....}9.04am
{..i........}9.03am
{....i......}9.02am
{......i....}9.01am
{..i........}9.00am


(i/y)/t = var (x) 1/52

x delta y = (<=>1/52)

Why sir are you trying to focus on me? If you after a date or something, sorry I am unavailable .

Objective - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

I'm confused - if you don't want people to reply to you, then why are you posting on a forum?

Yes, just like "ostensible", you are able to look up and read the definition, but are unable to use the word correctly. What personal feeling or opinion you think could be coming into any of my points I've made thus far in our discussion is beyond me. I've been arguing with nothing but facts. Not lies, and nothing subjective. So yes, you are using both of those words incorrectly.

No, I am using words to their exact definition, you have gone on to tell me how bad my word use is. This is not an English lesson , it is a poker discussion. I should not be mentioned, only the information I am kindly providing should be mentioned and discussed.

The facts you are providing is numbers, numbers I have already ''told you'', that are false .

The truth of proposition logic shows you are incorrect but it is you all who won't just accept the truth.


Let me try again, with a simple question that need only a simple answer.



In the below


y
1
12x

If you get to choose from x , what is your chance of a number 1?


If you get to choose from y , what is your chance of a number 1?

Come on Bobo, you know that it is the internet form of standing on a crate on a street corner preaching to the sky.

This is his life belief, one he has made no money with, nor ever will. He has lived this weird belief for over a decade, so it is interesting that anyone thinks any form of logic or common sense will have an impact on that. I personally find his obsession to be a bit meh, but I kind of chuckle at his complete dedication to it, even though that likely is essentially a form of mental disease. He seems pretty harmless and this thread is for riggie venting, so at least he is more fun than the standard whiners. In the end he needs this belief, and his fetish of using the word ostensible. They are a part of him. Let him have those quirks. What else does he have going for him.

If he starts to clutter things up too much (like how he got multiple threads locked before) then relegate all of his posts to his own blog thread or something in the blogging forum, or ban him. He will just preach it elsewhere and keep himself happy. He never talks with people, he just talks at them as a means of getting his fix of his beliefs.

Pfff, try discussing and your inflating egos might drop a peg or two when you finally realise how right I am.

In the below


y
1
12x

If you get to choose from x , what is your chance of a number 1?


If you get to choose from y , what is your chance of a number 1?

x= 1/2

y = 2/2

x ≠ y


Do any of you all so clever people disagree with this?


Try ten years of frustration...pfffff

I have spent ten years trying to fix internet poker , showing why it is not rigged, and the thanks I get is ridicule.

About the first 4 year I spent thinking it was rigged , just like all those in this thread who have voted. Then by deduction I solved the problem of why it was so different than live. Then I realised it was broken not rigged.