Two Plus Two Poker Forums Is online poker flawed, fundamentally?
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read TwoPlusTwo.com

 Probability Discussions of probability theory

02-28-2018, 08:40 PM   #101
Bobo Fett
Carpe Diem

Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,158
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk Nothing to do with randomness it is about the repeat values over time.
Repeat values over time is a lack of randomness.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk For example if I had ten decks of cards pre-shuffled and offered you the top card of any deck, some of them top cards might be the same value.
Exactly like if I dealt you the first card, put it back, shuffled the deck, dealt you the first card, until you had seen 10 cards.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk Because you are having the top card, none of the other cards matter , your choice becomes ? / 10
No, there is still a 1/52 chance of it being any given card.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk Once the deck choice is offered, all the top cards become dependent.
No, they don't. They're now set, because you're done shuffling, but what's on top of one deck is in no way affected by what's on top of another.

02-28-2018, 08:41 PM   #102
pkdk
banned

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by King Spew No they do not. Rethink your problems

Yes they do,

If you are getting the first card off the top of the deck, do you agree that the rest of the deck is irrelevant?

That card is any one of 52 individual cards.

02-28-2018, 08:42 PM   #103
pkdk
banned

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bobo Fett Repeat values over time is a lack of randomness. Exactly like if I dealt you the first card, put it back, shuffled the deck, dealt you the first card, until you had seen 10 cards. No, there is still a 1/52 chance of it being any given card. No, they don't. They're now set, because you're done shuffling, but what's on top of one deck is in no way affected by what's on top of another.

I am sorry your maths is poor. If I only have ten cards how can you have something out of 52?

it would be out of ten.

02-28-2018, 08:43 PM   #104
Bobo Fett
Carpe Diem

Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,158
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk It is just the same if I took one card of each of the ten decks and asked you what is the chance of you getting an ace diamonds from the ten cards?
Hmm. Maybe I finally see what you're getting at. You're still wrong, but maybe now I can see the way to explain it.

Is what you're getting at that you can have the exact same card multiple times, whereas if you take 10 cards from one deck, there can be no repeats?

The comparison doesn't work, and I'll explain why, but I want to make sure this is where your head is first.

02-28-2018, 08:45 PM   #105
pkdk
banned

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bobo Fett Is what you're getting at that you can have the exact same card multiple times, whereas if you take 10 cards from one deck, there can be no repeats?

Yes exactly,

 02-28-2018, 08:47 PM #106 Bobo Fett Carpe Diem     Join Date: May 2006 Location: Canada, eh! Posts: 52,158 Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Well, the comparison doesn't work, because when you're dealt the cards live, the deck is shuffled every hand, and is effectively a new deck. So if you shuffle 10 decks and take the starting card from each, or shuffle it and take the starting card, put it back, shuffle, and repeat until you've seen 10 cards, the odds of seeing repeats is exactly the same.
02-28-2018, 08:52 PM   #107
pkdk
banned

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bobo Fett Well, the comparison doesn't work, because when you're dealt the cards live, the deck is shuffled every hand, and is effectively a new deck. So if you shuffle 10 decks and take the starting card from each, or shuffle it and take the starting card, put it back, shuffle, and repeat until you've seen 10 cards, the odds of seeing repeats is exactly the same.
Nice try but no. I understand the way you are considering it and it is completely different to the discussion.
Go back to your earlier post , I thought you had it for a minute.

Quote:
 Is what you're getting at that you can have the exact same card multiple times, whereas if you take 10 cards from one deck, there can be no repeats?

Consider this

123
123
123

consider you are getting the first value on the left

so it looks like this when i offer you a choice of row.

1
1
1

The chance of a 1 is 3/3 yes?

 02-28-2018, 08:53 PM #108 Bobo Fett Carpe Diem     Join Date: May 2006 Location: Canada, eh! Posts: 52,158 Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Just get to your point.
02-28-2018, 08:56 PM   #109
pkdk
banned

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bobo Fett Just get to your point.

I was showing you the point, it is obvious 3/3

2
2
2

The chance of a 1 is 0/3 in the above

so in this next one i will hide the values , shuffle them , and give you a choice of row,

xxx
xxx
xxx

you get the first value , what is your chance of a 3?

x
x
x

 02-28-2018, 09:00 PM #110 Bobo Fett Carpe Diem     Join Date: May 2006 Location: Canada, eh! Posts: 52,158 Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition If I'm understanding you correctly, each opportunity is 1 in 3. When you compound them, I believe it is 70.4% of getting at least one 3.
02-28-2018, 09:05 PM   #111
pkdk
banned

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bobo Fett If I'm understanding you correctly, each opportunity is 1 in 3.

The question was not an individual question, the question was a choice of the whole of rows. You are answering the question as if one deck followed each other in a sequence and you had a different one each time.

I also asked you about a specific value, a specific value that might not be in your column at all. There could be 3 number 1's in your column.

02-28-2018, 09:06 PM   #112
pkdk
banned

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bobo Fett When you compound them, I believe it is 70.4% of getting at least one 3.

In a standard game it would be 33.3%

1,2,3,

02-28-2018, 09:08 PM   #113
Bobo Fett
Carpe Diem

Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,158
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk In a standard game it would be 33.3% 1,2,3,
Wait, what?

In what "standard game" would 3 independent 1/3 opportunities only give you a 33.3% outcome?

Each opportunity gives you a 33.3% possibility of a particular result. Three such opportunities compounded isn't still 33.3%. Just like when you toss a coin 3 times, the odds of getting at least one head isn't 50%.

02-28-2018, 09:12 PM   #114
pkdk
banned

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bobo Fett Wait, what? In what "standard game" would 3 independent 1/3 opportunities only give you a 33.3% outcome?

In this game we are ''playing''.

1/3 is a third of the time. which is about 33.3% .

I would not like to even attempt to do the percent difference in poker, but I assume what works on a small scale works on a large scale

So I think online poker is producing approx twice the action , twice the downswing , everything bad related with twice as much.

In a 3 variable game , you will receive one of the variables for approx a third of the time you play over a large sample scale.

In a 52 variable each value should show about 1.92307692308% of the time over a large sample.

Last edited by pkdk; 02-28-2018 at 09:20 PM.

02-28-2018, 09:19 PM   #115
Bobo Fett
Carpe Diem

Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,158
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

I'm not even sure what you're asking anymore. Here's your post again:

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk I was showing you the point, it is obvious 3/3 2 2 2 The chance of a 1 is 0/3 in the above so in this next one i will hide the values , shuffle them , and give you a choice of row, xxx xxx xxx you get the first value , what is your chance of a 3? x x x
You put 3 x's at the bottom, so I was assuming you were asking me what the odds were that I would get at least one 3, given 3 opportunities. The answer is 70.4%, I believe. If I only get 1 opportunity, it's 33.3%.

I'm off to dinner, so I'll look forward to catching up on your next 50 posts when I get back.

02-28-2018, 09:27 PM   #116
pkdk
banned

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bobo Fett I'm not even sure what you're asking anymore. Here's your post again: You put 3 x's at the bottom, so I was assuming you were asking me what the odds were that I would get at least one 3, given 3 opportunities. The answer is 70.4%, I believe. If I only get 1 opportunity, it's 33.3%. I'm off to dinner, so I'll look forward to catching up on your next 50 posts when I get back.

Well I will reveal the values I had in my mind and speak later. Good night

1
1
1

You had 0 odds all along.

The full array

132
123
123

Your 3 never aligned, good night

02-28-2018, 09:34 PM   #117
Lego05
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 24,375
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk I am sorry your maths is poor. If I only have ten cards how can you have something out of 52? it would be out of ten.
The total number of cards doesn't have to match the denominator in the probability fraction. You can make the denominator any number as long as you adjust the numerator accordingly. People tend to set the numerator at 1 and then adjust the denominator accordingly to make it easier to visualize.

But if you want the denominator to match the total number of cards, then in that situation it is (rounded): 0.192/10 or written as a percentage, roughly a 1.92% chance.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bobo Fett I'm not even sure what you're asking anymore. Here's your post again: You put 3 x's at the bottom, so I was assuming you were asking me what the odds were that I would get at least one 3, given 3 opportunities. The answer is 70.4%, I believe. If I only get 1 opportunity, it's 33.3%. I'm off to dinner, so I'll look forward to catching up on your next 50 posts when I get back.
70.37037037% to be a little more exact.

Last edited by Lego05; 02-28-2018 at 10:02 PM.

02-28-2018, 09:51 PM   #118
pkdk
banned

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Is online poker flawed, fundamentally?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lego05 70.37037037% to be a little more exact.
So f:x = 33.3% ~

and f:y = 70% ~

so x is not equal to y

02-28-2018, 10:11 PM   #119
Lego05
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 24,375
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk I am sorry your maths is poor. If I only have ten cards how can you have something out of 52? it would be out of ten.

The total number of cards doesn't have to match the denominator in the probability fraction. You can make the denominator any number as long as you adjust the numerator accordingly. People tend to set the numerator at 1 and then adjust the denominator accordingly to make it easier to visualize.

But if you want the denominator to match the total number of cards, then in that situation it is (rounded): 0.192/10 or written as a percentage, roughly a 1.92% chance.

Consider weather forecasts:

It can either rain or not rain. That is 2 items or events. Say there is a 20% chance of rain. If that were to be written as a fraction it could be written 1/5. There are only 2 items or events, but the denominator is not a 2. It doesn't need to be. If you wanted the denominator to be a 2, then you could write it that way and it would be 0.4/2. 0.4/2 is still 20%; the same as 1/5. We could also write it 12/60 if we felt like it for some reason or 117/585 or 0.05/0.25.

I think in the world you would more often see 1/5 written than 0.4/2 (or any of the other examples above) to notate a 20% chance. I think most people find it easier to visualize and immediately have a good understanding of a 1/5 chance than a 0.4/2 chance, so they use the 1/5.

Last edited by Lego05; 02-28-2018 at 10:32 PM.

02-28-2018, 10:19 PM   #120
Lego05
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 24,375
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk So f:x = 33.3% ~ and f:y = 70% ~ so x is not equal to y

Yea.

Why would it be equal?

What you are calling f:x is randomly arranging three distinct values, looking at one and seeing if it is a particular one of those three values. What you are calling f:y is effectively doing f:x three times and seeing if you see that certain value any of the three times. Obviously we would have a greater chance of seeing the certain value if we try three times than if we try one time.

03-01-2018, 12:40 AM   #121
Bobo Fett
Carpe Diem

Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,158
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk Well I will reveal the values I had in my mind and speak later. Good night 1 1 1 You had 0 odds all along. The full array 132 123 123 Your 3 never aligned, good night
So this is just a troll account then?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lego05 Yea. Why would it be equal? What you are calling f:x is randomly arranging three distinct values, looking at one and seeing if it is a particular one of those three values. What you are calling f:y is effectively doing f:x three times and seeing if you see that certain value any of the three times. Obviously we would have a greater chance of seeing the certain value if we try three times than if we try one time.
Exactly.

And yes, 70.370 repeating - I rounded it. Just glad to have it confirmed that I was doing it right.

 03-01-2018, 03:47 AM #122 whosnext Carpal \'Tunnel     Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: California Posts: 6,343 Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition What in the world is going on? Is this as ridiculous as it appears to be?? (Please don't ask me to read the entire discussion.)
03-01-2018, 05:37 AM   #123
pkdk
banned

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lego05 Yea. Why would it be equal? What you are calling f:x is randomly arranging three distinct values, looking at one and seeing if it is a particular one of those three values. What you are calling f:y is effectively doing f:x three times and seeing if you see that certain value any of the three times. Obviously we would have a greater chance of seeing the certain value if we try three times than if we try one time.
Well no, I put 70% because I thought you had worked something out, but the real answer is ?/3 .

x=1/3

y = ?/3

03-01-2018, 05:39 AM   #124
pkdk
banned

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by whosnext What in the world is going on? Is this as ridiculous as it appears to be?? (Please don't ask me to read the entire discussion.)

Yeah it is ridiculous that some of the members cant work out the answer is ?/3

03-01-2018, 07:14 AM   #125
Bobo Fett
Carpe Diem

Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,158
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk Well no, I put 70% because I thought you had worked something out, but the real answer is ?/3 . x=1/3 y = ?/3
Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk Yeah it is ridiculous that some of the members cant work out the answer is ?/3
If you are still suggesting that the odds of picking one number out of three in three independent trials is other than 70.37%, you are incorrect. But if you still believe otherwise, it's time to show your work in a comprehensible way - a little less condescension would be a welcome bonus.

?/3 is not an answer, and if that's all you have, I'm inclined to think that others may be right that you are trolling.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Forum Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Links to Popular Forums     News, Views, Gossip and Books     Beginners Questions     Staking     Casino & Cardroom Poker     Poker Rooms     NL Strategy Forums     Poker Goals & Challenges     Las Vegas Lifestyle     Sporting Events     Other Other Topics Two Plus Two     About the Forums     Two Plus Two Magazine Forum Poker News & Discussion     News, Views, Gossip and Books     Poker Goals & Challenges     Poker Beats, Brags, and Variance     That's What She Said!     Legislation for Poker & Income Taxes for Poker Players     Twitch - Watch and Discuss Live Online Poker     Televised Poker Online Poker Rooms & Marketplaces     Online Poker Rooms         General Rooms Discussion         Global Poker         BetOnline.ag     Coaches & Schools         Seeking Coaching         General Coaching Discussion     Staking         Offering Stakes         Seeking Stakes         Selling Shares - Live         Selling Shares - Online         Staking Rails     Poker Software         General Software Discussion     General Marketplace     Transaction Feedback & Disputes General Poker Strategy     Beginners Questions     Books and Publications     Poker Tells/Behavior, hosted by: Zachary Elwood     Poker Theory     Psychology No Limit Hold'em Strategy     Medium-High Stakes PL/NL     Micro-Small Stakes PL/NL     Medium-High Stakes Full Ring     Micro-Small Stakes Full Ring     Heads Up NL     Live Low-stakes NL Limit Texas Hold'em Strategy     Mid-High Stakes Limit     Micro-Small Stakes Limit Tournament Poker Strategy     STT Strategy     Heads Up SNG and Spin and Gos     Mid-High Stakes MTT     Small Stakes MTT     MTT Community     Tournament Events Other Poker Strategy     High Stakes PL Omaha     Small Stakes PL Omaha     Omaha/8     Stud     Draw and Other Poker Live Poker     Casino & Cardroom Poker         Venues & Communities         Regional Communities     Venues & Communities     Tournament Events         WPT.com     Home Poker     Cash Strategy     Tournament Strategy General Gambling     Backgammon Forum hosted by Bill Robertie.     Probability     Sports Betting     Other Gambling Games 2+2 Communities     Other Other Topics         OOTV         Game of Thrones     The Lounge: Discussion+Review     Las Vegas Lifestyle     BBV4Life         omg omg omg     House of Blogs Sports and Games     Sporting Events         Single-Team Season Threads         Fantasy Sports     Fantasy Sports         Sporting Events     Wrestling     Golf     Chess and Other Board Games     Video Games         League of Legends         Hearthstone     Puzzles and Other Games Other Topics     Politics and Society     History     Business, Finance, and Investing     Science, Math, and Philosophy     Religion, God, and Theology     Travel     Health and Fitness     Laughs or Links!     Computer Technical Help     Programming

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:46 PM.

 Contact Us - Two Plus Two Publishing LLC - Privacy Statement - Top