Look at the threads he started. It dates back to 2015, even if he is a hopeless case you won't be able to make him understand anything.

This is a horrendous sentence.

But I think you mean that - given 3 sets of 3 numbers, each set containing 1, 2 and 3, randomly arranged, the odds of drawing a 3 from any GIVEN set is 1/3. This is true.

You have not defined x or y yet so this is very confusing. If Y is ONE set, then you're dead wrong. If Y is ALL THREE sets - then you're right.

Lets nail it down:

3 sets of 3

Set X: {1,2,3}
Set Y: {1,2,3}
Set Z: {1,2,3}

Each set is randomly shuffled.

The odds of drawing a 3 from X are 1 in 3. (33~%)
The odds of drawing a 3 from Y are 1 in 3. (33~%)
The odds of drawing a 3 from Z are 1 in 3. (33~%)

However the odds of drawing AT LEAST 1 3 from X + Y are not 33% + 33%.

They are, instead, more easily calculated by working it backwards based on odds of not getting a 3.

Odds of not getting a 3 in X = 2/3
Odds of not getting a 3 in Y = 2/3
Odds of not getting a 3 in either X OR Y : 2/3 * 2/3 = 44.4~%
Odds of getting at least 1 3 when drawing from X and Y = 1-44.4% = 56.6~%

Odds of not getting a 3 in either X or Y or Z = 2/3 * 2/3 * 2/3 = 29.629%
Odds of getting at least 1 3 when drawing from X, Y & and Z = 1 - 29.629% = 70.370~%

Ok, let us presume I hopelessly did not understand probability. So let us start really basically with two sets 0 and 1 . O represents an empty set with no value and 1 represents a physical element.

01
01

Now we will shuffle the elements into empty space and back again for several times and hide the value.

row a) xx
row b) xx

I can say with a certainty that the chance of 1 being left aligned of a is 1/2 and the same can be said for b.


However if i switch to y the columns


xx
xx
ab


I can not be certain that column a or b is not just an empty space.

You are 99.9~% correct.

However - I also happen to find solving these kinds of questions entertaining. So my success in teaching him is not a primary objective.

Also - someone else MAY get it when they didn't before.

Thats what I said

At some point, given that you are allowed to go that far, you are going to try to relate this to cards, instead of arrays of numbers. Why don't you actually just start there and say what you are trying to say. The way you are going about it you will end up with 3000 posts without ever getting anyone to respond the way you want.

I have seen all of your posts from the last day, and none of them give any evidence at all about how online poker is fundamentally different from live poker - but you have come out and said that there is something fundamentally wrong with online poker. I know you are dying to tell us what is wrong, why don't you just do it now instead of playing these little probability games that you aren't explaining very well.

y is all three sets but you are getting the left aligned values to chose from. Position order, you get the first card in the small blind.

In live poker 1 deck is used per table.

In online poker a new deck comes to table each turn from a multitude of random shuffled decks.


So the function of x changes to y because of the deal and the small blind gets the first card from the top of the deck.

Why is the final distinction important? It doesn't matter if the two sets are A & B, 1 and 0, Ducks and Chickens. Stop introducing irrelevancies.

I'm going to respond using Ducks and Chickens because I like them.

Agreed. The odds of the first value in A being a chicken is 50%. The odds of the second value in A being a chicken is also 50%. The same is true for B.

AT LAST it comes out - you are referring to X and Y in terms of a two dimensional plane! Dude you suck at explaining your meaning...

So?

What has that got to do with anything?

You're comparing Ducks and iPhones here. Your row represents ONE SET, that set consisting of a duck and a chicken.

When you go *vertical* you are now comparing multiple sets. If both sets are shuffled then you have no ability to tell if a column is all duck, all chicken, or half and half.

But what has that got to do with the initial question? Your sets represent chances out of a single set. Once you blend the sets like you are, the entire question is framed differently and previous calculations based on single sets have no relevance.

First, this is false. Many casinos use two decks and rotate through them.

Secondly - it doesn't matter, because each deck and each deal is a distinct set of randomly sorted cards. No matter how many decks you rotate through, there is only 1 set of 52 values in play at a given moment.

In online poker the same set of 52 values is randomly assigned. There is only 1 set of 52 values in play.

This is where you jump off the rails - because you're trying to link the two different, independent, wholly unrelated sets of 52 cards from different deals together.

They're not connected and never will be in any context, live or online.

Exactly, so your odds become ?/?

If you are on the small blind you are aligned to the first chicken from the egg. If you have multiple eggs to choose from, you still get the first chicken from the egg, but the choice of chicken could be all the same looking chicken because that is how they aligned.

untrue there is a different deck every hand

Please never reproduce.

Have you still not worked out the simple math of ?/3.

Try it this way . I will take 9 values with some identical values

123
123
123


I will now hide the values

xxx
xxx
xxx


I will shuffle the value rows randomly and randomly choose 3 of the values, 1 from each row


x
x
x


the odds of a 3 are?

show your proof

Imagine you were playing live poker. The floor decides that he doesn't want to take up player time by shuffling decks, so he shuffles 1000 decks and puts them in a box. After each hand, the dealer will reach into the box and randomly select a deck, and deal the cards.

Are you saying that this is different from the dealer shuffling the same deck each time because the SB will get the first card? Is each deal somehow non-random because there was another deck used in the prior hand?

No, he's saying "gotcha mother****ers" because he is trolling.

I have emails from pokerstars telling me this, I will look on the net and try find something about it . If not will try to dig out the email.

Please explain the difference between the fraction 1/3 and the percentage 33.333333333333...

There both a ratio over time , there is no real difference.

If there is no real difference, what maths does Kelvis need to do before he can come back?

He needs to know how to calculate the difference in set variance and random variance.


I can't stop him coming back anyway , that is not my right.


1/52x is because we know the information, in an undisclosed array of y
information it becomes ?/?.
The second ? being easily to calculate by counting how many values in y, but the first ? remains a ? because the values remain undisclosed.

So if we have y =

?
?
?

we know it is ?/3 and not 1/3

We can't say the chances of drawing a 3 are 1/3 because 1 or more could be a 3 etc.

possible combination of array y

1
1
1


2
2
2

3
3
3

1
2
3

etc,etc

Get the **** out of here, stupid troll.

I am sorry , I do not mean to make you feel embarrassed about your poor math.

Maybe you might learn something.

Let me help you with your maths, if we have a row of 1,2,3 and randomly mixed the order up, the chance of 1 being the left aligned is 1/3.

Do you understand that?

People don't seem to understand that the oceans CANNOT be filled with water. Fish can't breath if there is no air and so they would drown. Clearly fish aren't drowning so oceans must be fake.

Do you understand that?