Thank you for the talk, and I am quite sure by your swift exit the mentioning and reference to roulette you know what I am talking about.

-EV is not +EV

Yes it is. You added new information where we now know the composition of the "new" deck.

The math by which you calculate that Roulette is -EV is the same math by which you calculate that a good poker play is +EV.

At some point I'll learn to resist responding. But your "maybe I'm wrong" post was a brilliant tactic, it baited me to re-engage thinking maybe you're not a troll after all.

What's the EV of this dude being a troll?

and the reason you know 4/52?

You don’t know the composition of the new deck but you know how it was constructed. If you constructed 1000 such decks and picked the top card of each, it should be clear to you that 4/52=1/13 or about 77 times ot the 1000 trials the card will be an ace. This is Probability 1 in any high school course.

How can you not accept that and still think the probability is 1/52 or about 19 times in a 1000, But by this reasoning, each rank will occur 19 times for a total of 13*19~250 times, What is seen the other 750 times= the joker that doesn’t exist?

BTW, this is using the statistical definition of probability,

If, in a series of n independent random trials, an event occurs r times (e.g. ace from a constructed deck), then the probability of the event is estimated by the ratio r/n, with the estimate improving as n increases.

Statistical Probability of Event E:

Pr(E) = r/n,

where r = number of successes (occurrences of E) in n random trials.

I am so glad that you didn't point out that the expected value of one dice roll is 3.5. The discussion of that "impossible" result with someone who has no concept of elementary probability would have taken another 200 posts.

Hah we think alike, that's exactly why I made it 2 dice. Not that it mattered because it had the same result of trying to explain this to a cardboard cutout of Eli Manning making his Eli face.

Then you will also understand that is based on continuous time.

Periodically I introduce my young daughter to new mathematical concepts. Some concepts she picks up fairly quickly and others she just does not grasp at all (like repeating decimals).

I fear OP is that way with probability. In truth, he doesn't really believe that the prob in question is 1/52, but he does not believe it is 4/52. I would rather he would have posted that the prob is really 17/219 (or something like that) for mysterious "variance" or "continuous time" reasons that we cannot possibly understand and that he cannot explain.

I fear this op has not even a clue to what we are discussing and what a Paradox is, I have noticed the failure to contest my maths.
Y is obviously not equal to X so therefore everything associated with X can not be equal to Y.

An equality can not be equal to an inequality which you are trying to suggest is not true.

Most of you have already admitted an inequality.

No.

This has been a long thread, so I'll remind you that you're the OP!

Ok, we know for sure that this new constructed deck will be an asymmetrical deck originating from perfectly symmetrical decks, no matter the values.

Now what?

Are we taking advantage of this?

Let's suppose we're turning up the first 5, 10 or 20 cards.
Do such informations help us in some way?

as.

It has nothing to do with continuous time.

Why am I (and others) still feeding this troll?

At this point, it is like the aftermath of a 20 car pileup on the freeway. All the carnage has already happened and now it is just staring in disbelief. Kinda like the lucky drivers (and other onlookers) who were uninjured chatting by the side of the road waiting for the ambulances to come and take away the injured for treatment (i.e., some mod closing this thread).

You are telling me it has nothing to do with continuous time and it is my idea?

scratches head...

Symmetrical decks remain a constant 1/52 over continuous time

an asymmetrical deck has asymmetrical time

To all that have know idea what this means , I shall explain.

Something asymmetrical has two sides that don't match — it's uneven or out of whack.

the time of X is a continuous linearity where the time of Y is a wave, it is a random wave with random spacing between the troths.


x=shuffle 1,shuffle 2,shuffle 3, shuffle 4, shuffle 5


Y=shuffle 1,shuffle 2,shuffle 3, shuffle 4, shuffle 5

Recommended watch to keep up with thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbg8A_AilWo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUcgqo6il_U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5_zul5wrTY

f(Y)=2*sin(x)

f(t'{y})=∞*sin(t'{x})

This may come as a surprise to you, but some of us have already graduated high school (where we took trig and physics).

You should watch these -- https://www.khanacademy.org/math/pro...nt-probability
Below is the first one:

You continue to post and re-explain what we already know, we know. A Paradox is more than present information, I am getting close to producing the exact maths to show the Paradox.
If you are still posting present information, then I assure you that you do not even understand the Paradox.

Others do I am sure.

Let me try to give you a visual of the Paradox.

Below is a Y axis , representing a distance , and an amount of first cards from several decks . I will reveal two aces.

Y
.
.
ace I am an ace and I occupy this point of space-time at precisely 14.10pm
.
.
.
.
ace I am an ace and I occupy this point of space-time at precisely 14.10pm
.
.
.
.


Y

.
.
.
.
.
ace I am an ace and I occupy this new point of space-time at precisely 14.11pm
.

ace I am an ace and I occupy this new point of space-time at precisely 14.11pm
.
.
.
.

Ok, so these two aces move position, we will now hide the aces

y
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I will give you one bullet to shoot an ace,

alternative imagine the value (A) moves randomly left and right along this line

...........................................A...... .................................................. .........

But the value is unseen,

I will give you one bullet and any sniper rifle you like, take the shot.


nnn
nnn
nnn


I am the red N , I am one in 3 of an X-axis , I am one of three of a Y-axis.


n
n
n

I am now only 1 of 3.

in=known

of=unknown

Well, I'm convinced.

Why do you always capitalize the letter "p" in the word "paradox"?