Quote:
Maybe learn a little more maths?
Maths is the key to understanding, no doubt about it.
Honestly im starting to think the "fairtards" are as bad as the rigtards.
im not sure what your beef is with bitterchris's statement, aisde from the fact that he said "due" and obv nothing is due because when youre dealing with independent events.
He has a fair point, though he's wrong and he articulated it poorly. His point was "if the deck is not fair and that fact is somehow working to my detriment, i would never discover it, because i would exhaust all my funds and have to stop playing long before i had a sample size large enough to dispositively demonstrate that my results were caused by running at expectation on an unfair deck rather than below it on a fair one"
The answer is that the point of conversion is pretty low. There are probably people who play enough hands in a week to determine basic card distribution stats within a low margin of error and a high degree of confidence.
as a side note, the consecutive times i could draw at a flush and miss it is not of any predictive value, but post factum,from the perspective of analyzing for fairness of the shuffle, yes, it means more that i missed 19 times in a row than 18, and yes, if i get to some particular number, wether it be 19 or 1900 or 19000 i can say with a high degree of confidence that the probablity of hitting a flush might be lower than a fair deck would suggest.
think of it this way, all other thi9ngs being equal, the 8th inning without a runner on base is no more or less likely, as an independent event, than the third inning without a runner on but as we go from the third to the fourth to the fifth to the sixth to the seventh, each of these independent events, when looked at as a group retrospectively, make it more likely that were playing in a game that will be a no hitter.
Last edited by senjitsu; 04-21-2009 at 02:00 PM.