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

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 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 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 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?

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 How much have you got?
?/3

03-01-2018, 07:13 PM   #203
King Spew
Antici

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: pation
Posts: 13,452
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk so you have to use different forms of logic etc to explain.
When will you start?

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 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

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 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 .

 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
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 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 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 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 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?

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 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. ?

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 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.

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 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.

03-01-2018, 07:50 PM   #211
Bobo Fett

Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,100
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk 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.

 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.
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 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.

 03-01-2018, 08:03 PM #214 Bobo Fett 2+2 Ad Man     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?
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 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.

 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.
 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?
 03-01-2018, 08:39 PM #218 Lego05 Carpal \'Tunnel   Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 24,361 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.
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 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.

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 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

03-01-2018, 08:46 PM   #221
Bobo Fett

Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,100
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk 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%!

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 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.

03-01-2018, 08:49 PM   #223
Bobo Fett

Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,100
Re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk 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.

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 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 I do not gamble,
Interesting.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pkdk 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.

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 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.

 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     Marketplace & Staking     Casino & Cardroom Poker     Internet Poker     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 Marketplace & Staking     Commercial Marketplace     General Marketplace     Staking - Offering Stakes     Staking         Staking - Offering Stakes         Staking - Seeking Stakes         Staking - Selling Shares - Online         Staking - Selling Shares - Live         Staking Rails         Transaction Feedback & Disputes     Transaction Feedback & Disputes Coaching & Training     Coaching Advice     Cash Game Poker Coach Listings     Tournament/SNG Poker Coach Listings 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 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 Internet Poker     Internet Poker         Global Poker         BetOnline.ag Online Poker     Commercial Software     Software         Commercial Software         Free Software 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 03:32 PM.

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