Huh? Really, I would find that very odd

It is statistically unlikely, but it is quite possible.

I got AA back to back in a tournament once, and got them cracked both times. Is that statistically unlikely? Yes. Is it impossible? No.

Also - 10 hands in a row does not give you anywhere near a sample size valid enough for any kind of distribution analysis.

Ok, I will try, it is about what I call quantum leaping, a jump in time. Now I appreciate it may sound a bit mad, but jumping in time is the problem.
The only way I can explain it is by using sequences, time and linear vectors.

You might think what the eck as this got to do with poker, but I assure you it has everything to do with poker.

Do you want me to continue to explain here ? or move over to the science section where I am right at ''home''.

That's the problem see, it is more likely to ''deal'' repeat values. I say deal in quotation because it is more of a selection.

And you're arguing that when it's online, this quantum leaping, time jumping phenomenon comes into play, but when it's live, it doesn't?

On what grounds?

Like a car crash in slow motion, b

Tough to look away (as you personally know by responding)

And honestly, "we" have absolutely no chance to persuade pkdk that his math is incorrect. All the proper math has been push forward toward him, yet he refuses to get off him mountain....that isn't even a molehill.

There is no problem with online poker if the RNG does a proper job of randomizing the 52 cards in the deck that has been assigned to a table. There is no problem with online poker because the choice of decks is or isn't randomized.

10 in a row Ad to the SB is not a problem with online poker because (and I love how he uses this word) cumulatively the result is random.

There is no problem

There is still a normal distribution of cards that will fall to the SB.

UGH.

So you would like SB to be dealt the Ad and then wait 52 more hands before the SB can have the Ad again? In the interim, each and every card in the remain 51 will be dealt exactly once to the SB?

(for ease, we ARE talking about the first card dealt only)

Live play does not choose randomly pre-shuffled decks, the probability of a deck is continuous over time.

Where online it is more discrete over time.


By this I mean, imagine a time line with values on

.....a...........a..................a............a


Between each value is an amount of time, what if you could leap, removing the amount of time between values?

What happens in the leap if there are more of the same values?

a..a.a.aaa.aaa.a.........aa.aa.aaaa.aaaaaaaa....aa a


You have more chance of (a) from

a.....a........a.aaaa..........aa.aa.aa.a.aa.

than

a.......a.........a....................a.......... .

Yes it does.

First you shuffle, then you deal.

When the shuffle occurs is irrelevant.

Based on what evidence?


What if you could fart rainbows? You can't - so it's irrelevant.

What happens when the rainbow farts smell like strawberries? You'll never know because you can't fart rainbows.

What evidence is there that this supposed "time leaping" occurs?

BTW we can disprove this theory with a programmatic test.

We could write two programs - one shuffles, checks the top card, stores the result (is it A or not) and do that a million times.

The other one shuffles an array of 1 million decks and checks the top card and stores the result as well.

Then compare the results. And do it 100 more times for each and compare the results.

Now I'm going on a limb here but do you understand about standard deviation? If so - then if the results are within an acceptable standard deviation of each other, would you accept that this quantum leaping idea of yours isn't holding water?

So wait though, do other poker rooms besides Pokerstars use the many decks method? I thought that some use a continual shuffle or another one deck method. Are those sites broken? Maybe it's just Stars!

Standard response:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...t#post48019462

I can only account for stars because I asked them.

The evidence is dimensional analysis , I understand standard deviation, I will ponder over your test to see if the parameters are all correct before I agree.

The parameters set out would not answer the question or show the problem.

You pondered for 4 minutes.

And you've said "it wont work" but you haven't said why it won't work, or how to fix the problem with the parameters.

You are not working very hard to prove your theory here dude.

What you defined with your two parameters were doing the same thing.

The problem with simulation is , it is only going to do what the coding tells it to do, so if you code a sequence to randomly change position, the random part is just 1/3 or what ever , so the result will always give 1/3 because it was told to do that result by the programming. (i think)


We need to create an array where all x is randomly shuffled, stops , then record the values of y to compare.

We could do with all x shuffling out of sequence in time, meaning some shuffle slow and some shuffle fast.

1) Why would we code a sequence to randomly change position?
2) I'm not talking about simulating. I'm talking about creating a program to actually shuffle decks and count results. The decks would be virtual - but they'd be just as legitimate decks as the ones shuffled for online poker.

In short I PROPOSED creating a program to actually do all the shuffling we're talking about. Are you actually taking the time to read and understand what's being said?

You would literally have to create the exact parameters of the notion, which would be the same distribution process stars uses. However the results would only tell us what we already know, that all rows contain 1/52 and all the columns contain n/52 based on 52 decks.

If I get dealt one hand from a random deck, what is the probability that I get AA?

If I get dealt another hand from a different random deck, what is the probability that I get AA?

What if I got AA the first time - does it change the probability for the second hand?

What if I wait one hour before getting the second hand? What is the probability then? What if I wait one week? How does the probability change?

What if the second deck was shuffled a week ago, and I get the hand a week from now? How does that change things? What if there were 52 decks shuffled a week ago, and I pick one of them at random to deal that hand a week from now?

I hope you know that the probability is exactly the same in all of those scenarios. Based on everything you said, however, I know that you think the probability somehow changes. And you know what? It just doesn't. The fact that your cat might either be alive or dead at the same time just doesn't change my probability of getting dealt any specific hand, and it doesn't change anything about any other hand at the table. This is true if it is from a live deck or a virtual deck.

OP only has one purpose - to convince everyone of what he "knows" is true. There will be no convincing him otherwise. If you don't agree with him, it's because you don't understand the problem. He can't get it through his head that everyone understands what he sees as the problem, but they're not agreeing because he's so obviously wrong. The fact that every single person says he's wrong (he'll argue that point, as he still thinks the one or two people who were trolling him actually agreed) doesn't cause him to question his own beliefs, just like multiple people telling him he's using the word ostensible (which he has a strange obsession with) incorrectly doesn't faze him in the least. If I'm lucky, he might cut-and-paste the definition of the word again, as if me telling him he's using the word incorrectly is because I don't know its meaning and couldn't find it myself.

He's picked up little bits of knowledge here and there and tried to put them together into some bigger theory, but he's learned those bits of knowledge out of context and thus doesn't know how to use them properly - much like the word ostensible.

I'm not saying this to criticize anyone for continuing to argue with him - that would be pretty hypocritical of me at this point. Hell, who knows, maybe I'll have another go at it! But I know how pointless it is, so I'm going to try to avoid doing so any more. Hopefully those who continue to do so have a good time and provide others with more entertainment.

The dude has built and lived with this obsessive belief for over a decade. Everyone else has been exposed to him for a week or less. He is happy with his belief, and given he will never really find anyone who shares it, the feedback he is getting here is literally his drug, because it lets him talk about his ?/? theory.

While somewhat rare, this type of obsessive behavior is not unique, although most people try to latch onto more significant areas to consume their lives, like the 9/11 attacks or some other shadowy conspiracy that only they can see the real truth with their unique wisdom. In contrast, this guy is obsessed with bad math on a weird theory that accomplishes nothing, and in the end has made him exactly $0 from that special gifted insight. Perhaps that irrelevancy is what frustrates others.

The only thing he has going for it is the response it seems to get in others, which I admit surprised me. I would not have pegged this guy to be the one to create such a furor, simply because he does not understand that 1/2 is the same as 4/8, and he has a weird word fixation among other things. I kind of wish he was a troll, but he is not, and this guy managed to be kicked out of the riggie thread for his weird genuine riggie belief. Kind of impressive in a way.

Obviously any "debate" with him will go nowhere, because he can't give up his beliefs. He even openly agreed when I said this earlier about him, so it is interesting to see the continuing efforts in that regard. They will stop soon enough, and he will go to a new message board and repeat this all over again. Weird, and probably disappointing to those who might care about him, but it seems to make him happy.

I AGREE WITH U ON EVERYTHING OP 1/2 = 1/3

It looks like I will have to go back to science for a while until I can come up with a better way of explaining.
People seem to think they are Sigmund Freud and in some way think my thinking is haywire. None of these thoughts are my own thoughts they are the underlying physics of the process.
I guess most poker players will not understand physics.

Actually no, my intent was to teach you all the physics involved, then you all can decide for yourself if it is true. The funny thing about physics is, it does not matter whether you personally believe it , because it is true.

Analogy :


A man walks along a 52m road, on this road are 52 gates spaced out every 1m.


One of these gates is open, all the others are closed, how far does the man travel before he comes across the closed gate?


dx/t = ?/52m