Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Probability Discussions of probability theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-01-2018, 06:50 PM   #201
Lego05
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 24,361
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05 View Post
PKDK:

I have a proposal for a bet for you. If you win the bet, I will give you $100,000. If I win the bet, you will give me $50,000. We have to escrow the money before arranging to effectuate the bet.

The bet will be based upon the scenario you laid out earlier in this thread.


We will take 3 Jacks, 3 Queens and 3 Kings and arrange them into a 3 by 3 grid as follows:

JQK
JQK
JQK

Then we will shuffle each row so that the Jack, Queen and King is arranged randomly in each row. We will then have the following grid:

xxx
xxx
xxx

where we do know that each row contains exactly 1 Jack, 1 Queen and 1 King, but the columns could contain more than 1 or less than 1 of each card.

We will then flip over all of the cards in the first column and note whether or not we see at least one Jack. (For the record, earlier in the thread you said that the chance of seeing a Jack is ?/3. I disagreed with that and said the chance is roughly 70.4%. You said 70.4% is wrong and the correct answer is ?/3.)

We will do the above 1,000 times. If we see at least one Jack 550 through, and including, 850 times, then I win. If we see at least one Jack less than 550 times or more than 850 times, then you win.

I am giving you 2 to 1 on the money ($100,000 vs. $50,000) and I am giving you 700 numbers to my 300 numbers.

What do you say? Do you accept?

If you accept, then if you would agree to do so with a simulation rather than actually dealing cards, we could be done relatively quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk View Post
I have not got 50k lol, what do you mean by this part?


We will do the above 1,000 times. If we see at least one Jack 550 through, and including, 850 times, then I win


Are you saying you have a range of 550 - 850 ?

Because if you are, that is ?/3 being nowhere near exact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk View Post
I have not got 50k lol, what do you mean by this part?


We will do the above 1,000 times. If we see at least one Jack 550 through, and including, 850 times, then I win


Are you saying you have a range of 550 - 850 ?

Because if you are, that is ?/3 being nowhere near exact.

How much have you got?


I am saying that:

--- If we see a Jack less than 550 times or more than 850 times, then you win.
--- If we see a Jack 550 times, 850 times or any number of times between 550 and 850, then I win.

You get 700 numbers. I get 300 numbers.


Do you accept?
Lego05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 07:08 PM   #202
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,638
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05 View Post
How much have you got?
?/3
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 07:13 PM   #203
King Spew
Antici
 
King Spew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: pation
Posts: 13,452
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk View Post
so you have to use different forms of logic etc to explain.
When will you start?
King Spew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 07:13 PM   #204
pkdk
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05 View Post
How much have you got?


I am saying that:

--- If we see a Jack less than 550 times or more than 850 times, then you win.
--- If we see a Jack 550 times, 850 times or any number of times between 550 and 850, then I win.

You get 700 numbers. I get 300 numbers.


Do you accept?
if we turn the array to


xxx


1 jack, then yes
pkdk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 07:20 PM   #205
pkdk
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by King Spew View Post
When will you start?

I have tried to start the discussion several time with a question or a scenario, but people have failed to ''play along'' to reach an answer. People are not being completely objective .
pkdk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 07:25 PM   #206
pkdk
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

For the last time, we have two sets of two , box 1 and box 2


12
12

In either box two is a prize.


Now we are going to remove the numbers , shuffle the boxes and remove two of the boxes.

xx

Your chance of winning a prize is ?/2 or to put it more technically https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/me...e97dfafea9fd26
pkdk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 07:27 PM   #207
Lego05
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 24,361
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk View Post
if we turn the array to


xxx


1 jack, then yes
It is hard to be completely sure what you are saying here. But this appears to be a significant change. If we would make this significant change, then I would want to make other significant changes also before accepting.

Why don't we just go with the bet that I already laid out in detail?


DO YOU ACCEPT THE BET I PROPOSED (WHICH IS SET FORTH BELOW) THAT IS BASED ON A SCENARIO THAT YOU CREATED YOURSELF EARLIER IN THIS THREAD???


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05 View Post
PKDK:

I have a proposal for a bet for you. If you win the bet, I will give you $100,000. If I win the bet, you will give me $50,000. We have to escrow the money before arranging to effectuate the bet.

The bet will be based upon the scenario you laid out earlier in this thread.


We will take 3 Jacks, 3 Queens and 3 Kings and arrange them into a 3 by 3 grid as follows:

JQK
JQK
JQK

Then we will shuffle each row so that the Jack, Queen and King is arranged randomly in each row. We will then have the following grid:

xxx
xxx
xxx

where we do know that each row contains exactly 1 Jack, 1 Queen and 1 King, but the columns could contain more than 1 or less than 1 of each card.

We will then flip over all of the cards in the first column and note whether or not we see at least one Jack. (For the record, earlier in the thread you said that the chance of seeing a Jack is ?/3. I disagreed with that and said the chance is roughly 70.4%. You said 70.4% is wrong and the correct answer is ?/3.)

We will do the above 1,000 times. If we see at least one Jack 550 through, and including, 850 times, then I win. If we see at least one Jack less than 550 times or more than 850 times, then you win.

I am giving you 2 to 1 on the money ($100,000 vs. $50,000) and I am giving you 700 numbers to my 300 numbers.

What do you say? Do you accept?

If you accept, then if you would agree to do so with a simulation rather than actually dealing cards, we could be done relatively quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk View Post
I have not got 50k lol, what do you mean by this part?


We will do the above 1,000 times. If we see at least one Jack 550 through, and including, 850 times, then I win


Are you saying you have a range of 550 - 850 ?

Because if you are, that is ?/3 being nowhere near exact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05 View Post
How much have you got?


I am saying that:

--- If we see a Jack less than 550 times or more than 850 times, then you win.
--- If we see a Jack 550 times, 850 times or any number of times between 550 and 850, then I win.

You get 700 numbers. I get 300 numbers.


Do you accept?
Lego05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 07:36 PM   #208
pkdk
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05 View Post
It is hard to be completely sure what you are saying here. But this appears to be a significant change. If we would make this significant change, then I would want to make other significant changes also before accepting.

Why don't we just go with the bet that I already laid out in detail?


DO YOU ACCEPT THE BET I PROPOSED (WHICH IS SET FORTH BELOW) THAT IS BASED ON A SCENARIO THAT YOU CREATED YOURSELF EARLIER IN THIS THREAD???
My scenario earlier was showing that an empty column could be formed after the shuffle. It was not creating a bet, but I bet you in this array

aqk
aqk
aqk


That the left column of the array will sometimes have no queens. ?
pkdk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 07:40 PM   #209
Lego05
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 24,361
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk View Post
My scenario earlier was showing that an empty column could be formed after the shuffle. It was not creating a bet, but I bet you in this array

aqk
aqk
aqk


That the left column of the array will sometimes have no queens. ?

If you are not confident enough in your "theories" to take the bet based upon a scenario that you posted in this thread yourself, then just say so and say you do not want to take the bet. You don't need to propose completely different bets.


I agree with you that in the above if the rows are each shuffled randomly it will sometimes result in the first column having no Queens. Therefore, I decline that bet.
Lego05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 07:44 PM   #210
pkdk
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05 View Post
If you are not confident enough in your "theories" to take the bet based upon a scenario that you posted in this thread yourself, then just say so and say you do not want to take the bet. You don't need to propose new bets.


I agree with you that in the above if the rows are each shuffled randomly it will sometimes result in the first column having no Queens. Therefore, I decline that bet.
I will not take the bet because the odds are ?/3 .

By agreeing that at times the first column may have no queens agrees with me that the probability of y is not equal to x, x is always 1/3 for a queen in this scenario.
pkdk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 07:50 PM   #211
Bobo Fett
2+2 Ad Man
 
Bobo Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canada, eh!
Posts: 52,100
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk View Post
For the last time, we have two sets of two , box 1 and box 2


12
12

In either box two is a prize.


Now we are going to remove the numbers , shuffle the boxes and remove two of the boxes.

xx

Your chance of winning a prize is ?/2 or to put it more technically https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/me...e97dfafea9fd26
I'm starting to wonder if what you're getting at here is that once you remove those cards/boxes/what have you, if you knew what had been removed, the odds have changed.

In the example above, I assume you mean that each box 2 has a prize. So if it turns out that both box 2's were removed, you have 0 chance of winning a prize. If it turns out that both box 1's were removed, you have 100% chance of winning a prize. And perhaps that's where you're getting your ?/2.

But that's not how it works. We don't know what's been removed, and our chance of winning a prize is 1/2. I know it's not an easy thing to get your head around sometimes, but it's true.
Bobo Fett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 07:54 PM   #212
Lego05
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 24,361
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

PKDK:

I have changed the terms of the bet proposed. The bet is restated below in its entirety with the changed terms in bold. Let me know whether you accept the bet with these new changed terms.


If you win the bet, I will give you $100,000. If I win the bet, you will give me $50,000 (we can decrease the bet amounts somewhat if you don't have $50,000 as you said). We have to escrow the money before arranging to effectuate the bet.

The bet will be based upon a scenario you laid out earlier in this thread.


We will take 3 Jacks, 3 Queens and 3 Kings and arrange them into a 3 by 3 grid as follows:

JQK
JQK
JQK

Then we will shuffle each row so that the Jack, Queen and King is arranged randomly in each row. We will then have the following grid:

xxx
xxx
xxx

where we do know that each row contains exactly 1 Jack, 1 Queen and 1 King, but the columns could contain more than 1 or less than 1 of each card.

We will then flip over all of the cards in the first column and note whether or not we see at least one Jack. (For the record, earlier in the thread you said that the chance of seeing a Jack is ?/3. I disagreed with that and said the chance is roughly 70.4%. You said 70.4% is wrong and the correct answer is ?/3.)

We will do the above 1,000 times.

The winner is determined as follows:

--- If we see at least one Jack less than 640 times or more than 760 times, then you win.
--- If we see at least one Jack 640 times, 760 times or any number of times between 640 and 760, then I win.

You get 880 numbers. I get 120 numbers.


I am giving you 2 to 1 on the money ($100,000 vs. $50,000) and I am giving you 880 numbers to my 120 numbers.

Over 1,000 trials of something that has odds of occurring of ?/3, I am somehow predicting that the number of occurrences will fall within a range of only 120 numbers. Even though, according to you, we cannot possibly know how often this event will happen (the odds of it are ?/3), I am willing to bet money that over 1,000 trials it will happen 640 to 760 times.

What do you say? Do you accept?

If you accept, then if you would agree to do so with a simulation rather than actually dealing cards, we could be done relatively quickly.

Last edited by Lego05; 03-01-2018 at 08:18 PM.
Lego05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 07:55 PM   #213
pkdk
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo Fett View Post
I'm starting to wonder if what you're getting at here is that once you remove those cards/boxes/what have you, if you knew what had been removed, the odds have changed.

In the example above, I assume you mean that each box 2 has a prize. So if it turns out that both box 2's were removed, you have 0 chance of winning a prize. If it turns out that both box 1's were removed, you have 100% chance of winning a prize. And perhaps that's where you're getting your ?/2.

But that's not how it works. We don't know what's been removed, and our chance of winning a prize is 1/2.


Ok, you have almost understood , you just need to realise why it is not 1/2


If you state it is 1/2 , that is stating you know the hidden values in the boxes, you are stating for 100% there is definitely a prize in one of the boxes.

This is where the uncertainty calculation comes into ''force''.

I have done another piece of abstract math to show you

52*52
All x = 52
All y = 52
all x=1/52
all y=?/52

The answer to y is y = var (1/52x)

y having a probability function range of 0 - 52

Last edited by pkdk; 03-01-2018 at 08:06 PM.
pkdk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 08:03 PM   #214
Bobo Fett
2+2 Ad Man
 
Bobo Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canada, eh!
Posts: 52,100
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

First of all, to be clear, it's not the problem I've "almost understood" - I understand the problem. It's you that I've "almost understood".

There's no need to go off to your abstract math, we have a very simple example, from your post.

12
12

In either box two is a prize (by which I assume you mean each box 2 has a prize).

Now we are going to remove the numbers , shuffle the boxes and remove two of the boxes.

xx


You ask what the odds are of getting a prize if you select 1 box. The answer is 1/2. Hopefully you'll be able to understand why that is at some point, as I'm not sure how to explain it any better than has been done many times already.

Every box has a 50% chance of being a prize, no matter whether you remove boxes or not. The odds don't change when you remove a box at random - how could they?
Bobo Fett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 08:13 PM   #215
pkdk
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo Fett View Post
First of all, to be clear, it's not the problem I've "almost understood" - I understand the problem. It's you that I've "almost understood".

There's no need to go off to your abstract math, we have a very simple example, from your post.

12
12

In either box two is a prize (by which I assume you mean each box 2 has a prize).

Now we are going to remove the numbers , shuffle the boxes and remove two of the boxes.

xx


You ask what the odds are of getting a prize if you select 1 box. The answer is 1/2. Hopefully you'll be able to understand why that is at some point, as I'm not sure how to explain it any better than has been done many times already.

Every box has a 50% chance of being a prize, no matter whether you remove boxes or not. The odds don't change when you remove a box at random - how could they?
When an event is changed, things obviously change. So if we start with 4 boxes, and knowingly each box number 2 contains a prize, we know for sure even without numbers it is a 50/50 situation.


However if I start off with only two boxes with no numbers on them, how do you know there is a prize in any of the boxes?

I have just removed a possible 100% of the prizes.
pkdk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 08:30 PM   #216
pkdk
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

I know if I ordered a pallet of 52 random items from Xeon it would have exactly 4 ace prizes on the pallet.

I know if I ordered a pallet of 52 random items from Yeon it could have exactly 0 ace prizes on the pallet upto 52 ace prizes on the pallet.
pkdk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 08:35 PM   #217
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,638
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Would those pallets melt steel?
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 08:39 PM   #218
Lego05
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 24,361
Angry Is online poker flawed, fundamentally?

PDKD, I guess you missed post number 84935. I did not see a response to it from you. Here it is again:




PKDK:

I have changed the terms of the bet proposed. The bet is restated below in its entirety with the changed terms in bold. Let me know whether you accept the bet with these new changed terms.



If you win the bet, I will give you $100,000. If I win the bet, you will give me $50,000 (we can decrease the bet amounts somewhat if you don't have $50,000 as you said). We have to escrow the money before arranging to effectuate the bet.

The bet will be based upon a scenario you laid out earlier in this thread.


We will take 3 Jacks, 3 Queens and 3 Kings and arrange them into a 3 by 3 grid as follows:

JQK
JQK
JQK

Then we will shuffle each row so that the Jack, Queen and King is arranged randomly in each row. We will then have the following grid:

xxx
xxx
xxx

where we do know that each row contains exactly 1 Jack, 1 Queen and 1 King, but the columns could contain more than 1 or less than 1 of each card.

We will then flip over all of the cards in the first column and note whether or not we see at least one Jack. (For the record, earlier in the thread you said that the chance of seeing a Jack is ?/3. I disagreed with that and said the chance is roughly 70.4%. You said 70.4% is wrong and the correct answer is ?/3.)

We will do the above 1,000 times.

The winner is determined as follows:

--- If we see at least one Jack less than 640 times or more than 760 times, then you win.
--- If we see at least one Jack 640 times, 760 times or any number of times between 640 and 760, then I win.

You get 880 numbers. I get 120 numbers.


I am giving you 2 to 1 on the money ($100,000 vs. $50,000) and I am giving you 880 numbers to my 120 numbers.

Over 1,000 trials of something that has odds of occurring of ?/3, I am somehow predicting that the number of occurrences will fall within a range of only 120 numbers. Even though, according to you, we cannot possibly know how often this event will happen (the odds of it are ?/3), I am willing to bet money that over 1,000 trials it will happen 640 to 760 times.


What do you say? Do you accept?


If you accept, then if you would agree to do so with a simulation rather than actually dealing cards, we could be done relatively quickly.
Lego05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 08:40 PM   #219
pkdk
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
Would those pallets melt steel?
Maybe if they travelled fast enough through a field creating a charged electrostatic field around it to cause a quantum tunnel on impact.
pkdk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 08:43 PM   #220
pkdk
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05 View Post
PDKD, I guess you missed post number 84935. I did not see a response to it from you. Here it is again:




PKDK:

I have changed the terms of the bet proposed. The bet is restated below in its entirety with the changed terms in bold. Let me know whether you accept the bet with these new changed terms.



If you win the bet, I will give you $100,000. If I win the bet, you will give me $50,000 (we can decrease the bet amounts somewhat if you don't have $50,000 as you said). We have to escrow the money before arranging to effectuate the bet.

The bet will be based upon a scenario you laid out earlier in this thread.


We will take 3 Jacks, 3 Queens and 3 Kings and arrange them into a 3 by 3 grid as follows:

JQK
JQK
JQK

Then we will shuffle each row so that the Jack, Queen and King is arranged randomly in each row. We will then have the following grid:

xxx
xxx
xxx

where we do know that each row contains exactly 1 Jack, 1 Queen and 1 King, but the columns could contain more than 1 or less than 1 of each card.

We will then flip over all of the cards in the first column and note whether or not we see at least one Jack. (For the record, earlier in the thread you said that the chance of seeing a Jack is ?/3. I disagreed with that and said the chance is roughly 70.4%. You said 70.4% is wrong and the correct answer is ?/3.)

We will do the above 1,000 times.

The winner is determined as follows:

--- If we see at least one Jack less than 640 times or more than 760 times, then you win.
--- If we see at least one Jack 640 times, 760 times or any number of times between 640 and 760, then I win.

You get 880 numbers. I get 120 numbers.


I am giving you 2 to 1 on the money ($100,000 vs. $50,000) and I am giving you 880 numbers to my 120 numbers.

Over 1,000 trials of something that has odds of occurring of ?/3, I am somehow predicting that the number of occurrences will fall within a range of only 120 numbers. Even though, according to you, we cannot possibly know how often this event will happen (the odds of it are ?/3), I am willing to bet money that over 1,000 trials it will happen 640 to 760 times.


What do you say? Do you accept?


If you accept, then if you would agree to do so with a simulation rather than actually dealing cards, we could be done relatively quickly.
I do not gamble, and an estimation is not an approximation, therefore it is ?

If you are declaring a range that shows uncertainty.

Give me an exact amount and I might try find 50k lol I have pokerstars play money lol
pkdk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 08:46 PM   #221
Bobo Fett
2+2 Ad Man
 
Bobo Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canada, eh!
Posts: 52,100
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk View Post
When an event is changed, things obviously change.
The event hasn't changed. There are 4 boxes, and 2 have a prize. There is a 50% chance of each box having a prize. You taking away 2 boxes, chosen at random, doesn't change anything. Yes, there could be no prizes, or they could both have prizes. The odds of each individual box containing a prize is still 50%.

Perhaps this will help. Here are all the possible configurations of the 4 boxes, with box 2 containing the winners.

11 22
12 12
12 21
21 12
21 21
22 11

The first pair are what remains once you've taken 2 boxes away, leaving you with these pairs to choose from:

11
12
12
21
21
22

4 times you will have a 50% chance of choosing a winner. 1 time you will have a 100% chance, and 1 time you will have a 0% chance. The average is...

...50%!
Bobo Fett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 08:48 PM   #222
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,638
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk View Post
Maybe if they travelled fast enough through a field creating a charged electrostatic field around it to cause a quantum tunnel on impact.
If only this could help you make more money in $2 tournaments...

All the best.


P.S. Try to guess ? where ? is the total amount I have actually gotten riggies to wager on prop bets over nearly a decade. Probably a hundred before you have been in your position where they were presented them or actually initiated them (hint, the fact they initiated them rarely meant they would follow through if accepted). You can put your answer in ?/3 form as well if you prefer.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 08:49 PM   #223
Bobo Fett
2+2 Ad Man
 
Bobo Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canada, eh!
Posts: 52,100
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk View Post
I know if I ordered a pallet of 52 random items from Xeon it would have exactly 4 ace prizes on the pallet.

I know if I ordered a pallet of 52 random items from Yeon it could have exactly 0 ace prizes on the pallet upto 52 ace prizes on the pallet.
What is the relevance to poker? There is no situation where 52 decks of 52 cards are shuffled together so that there is a possible outcome of 52 aces or 0 aces in one deal. The 52 decks are independent of one another.

I assume what you're getting at is that the first card dealt from 52 separate decks could have no aces, and it could have 52 aces. But what does that matter? If a deck is shuffled 52 times, it could also have an ace on top 0 times or 52 times. 52 decks shuffled and dealt from once, or 1 deck shuffled and dealt from 52 times - nothing changes.
Bobo Fett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 08:52 PM   #224
Lego05
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 24,361
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05 View Post
PDKD, I guess you missed post number 84935. I did not see a response to it from you. Here it is again:




PKDK:

I have changed the terms of the bet proposed. The bet is restated below in its entirety with the changed terms in bold. Let me know whether you accept the bet with these new changed terms.



If you win the bet, I will give you $100,000. If I win the bet, you will give me $50,000 (we can decrease the bet amounts somewhat if you don't have $50,000 as you said). We have to escrow the money before arranging to effectuate the bet.

The bet will be based upon a scenario you laid out earlier in this thread.


We will take 3 Jacks, 3 Queens and 3 Kings and arrange them into a 3 by 3 grid as follows:

JQK
JQK
JQK

Then we will shuffle each row so that the Jack, Queen and King is arranged randomly in each row. We will then have the following grid:

xxx
xxx
xxx

where we do know that each row contains exactly 1 Jack, 1 Queen and 1 King, but the columns could contain more than 1 or less than 1 of each card.

We will then flip over all of the cards in the first column and note whether or not we see at least one Jack. (For the record, earlier in the thread you said that the chance of seeing a Jack is ?/3. I disagreed with that and said the chance is roughly 70.4%. You said 70.4% is wrong and the correct answer is ?/3.)

We will do the above 1,000 times.

The winner is determined as follows:

--- If we see at least one Jack less than 640 times or more than 760 times, then you win.
--- If we see at least one Jack 640 times, 760 times or any number of times between 640 and 760, then I win.

You get 880 numbers. I get 120 numbers.


I am giving you 2 to 1 on the money ($100,000 vs. $50,000) and I am giving you 880 numbers to my 120 numbers.

Over 1,000 trials of something that has odds of occurring of ?/3, I am somehow predicting that the number of occurrences will fall within a range of only 120 numbers. Even though, according to you, we cannot possibly know how often this event will happen (the odds of it are ?/3), I am willing to bet money that over 1,000 trials it will happen 640 to 760 times.


What do you say? Do you accept?


If you accept, then if you would agree to do so with a simulation rather than actually dealing cards, we could be done relatively quickly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk View Post
I do not gamble,
Interesting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pkdk View Post
and an estimation is not an approximation, therefore it is ?
What? An estimation actually is an approximation. Those two words are synonyms.


But anyway, I am not picking a range of 640 to 760 as an estimation or an approximation. The exact expected amount of occurrences is roughly 704, but the probability of the number of occurrences actually being exactly 704 is only roughly 2.66%. I picked a range of 640 to 760 because it is a range around 704 that is wide enough that there is basically a 100% chance that the number of occurrences will fall inside that range and, therefore, there is basically a 100% chance that I would win the bet.




Anyway, you didn't actually decline the bet. But I assume from your post that you decline the bet because you do not bet. Is that correct?

Last edited by Lego05; 03-01-2018 at 08:58 PM.
Lego05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2018, 08:58 PM   #225
pkdk
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 689
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo Fett View Post
You taking away 2 boxes, chosen at random, doesn't change anything. Yes, there could be no prizes, or they could both have prizes. The odds of each individual box containing a prize is still 50%.
You contradicted yourself, you say taking away two boxes does not change anything then in the next ''breathe'' explain the possible changes. Then at the end of paragraph neglect the possible changes and re-insist it is still 50%, completely ignoring any of the now uncertainty you already mentioned.
You can not be certain that there is a prize in any of two boxes that are left . Your new choice is now 1/2 boxes not 2/4 boxes. 2 boxes that you no longer know any information about. Your only information based on a different situation of having 4 boxes and knowing there is two prizes in the boxes. There is a big difference in having information than having no information.
pkdk is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive