Reality of independent co-incedences

1 2 3 4

Timmyrocker:

i have had it to HERE with the semantics.
A million times YES, we can not make any statement that is mathematically sound about comparing two or more random independant outcomes. if a post says so much as the word "usually", some conversation disruptor like Mason will discredit the statement even if it is totally true by common logic. Why ? is it is not true ? Nope, because it is not mathematically BOUND to be true as a rule, in an expression of probability math.
The word "usually" does apply to many real things. Proof is all around. This NG discusses real events, not just theory and the laws of odds and probability.

"red does not usually hit 40 times in a row at roulette" is something that Mason or any mathematics stickler would like to disagree with, because these random outcomes are independent, and any such anecdotal observation is merely CO-INCEDENCE and has no bearing on odds, chances, or dependency. So *** what ? Ask some roulette dealers if the statement is true, and i defy you to find any who would disagree with it.
"100 flips of a coin will usually contain more than 1 tail" is true true true. No, it does not HAVE to be true, it is not BOUND to be true, but it damn well IS true. We can choose to make groups and samples of equally generated outcome results, and the words "usually" or "seldom" will apply to abundances or lacks of things to which the odds were high or low of. Things with high odds usually happen more often, things with low odds seldom happen. Casinos would not do business unless the actual "usual" happenings reflected the calculated odds, and this does so USUALLY much sooner than the so-called "long run".

Not for one moment does the word "usually" mean that one is making the outcomes to be dependant or altering of eachother. Shank keeps indicating that by me saying "you can usually win a 50/50 bet at least once, if you bet it 20 times" that i am connecting or relating those 20 bets. i am not. Just because it is true that "red does not usually hit 40 times in a row at roulette", does not open some floodgate to predictive history charting, and card-counting-like presumptions.
"if you are only going to make only 10 bets, the martingale on an even odds wager is a good bet" because... ?
...because USUALLY an even odds wager will not render 10 losing bets out of 10 total bets.
why usually ? because the math gives it good odds. Things with good odds usually happen more often. They seldom fail to happen. Deviation is possible and unpredictable, but does not exterminate the definition of USUALLY.

"usually" = the odds that lead to the factors that comprise x are better than not that x will true.
Dealers see it all, and they know what they only see on a rare occasion, and what they see often. You can't tell them that high odds things are not entitled to the description "usually", or that outcomes of low odds things are not fit to be called "seldom" in occurance.
All but only a tiny handful of disruptors are reading this and going, "sure... of course... well yeah... duh !"

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Agent777:

[nq:1]All but only a tiny handful of disruptors are reading this and going,"sure... of course... well yeah... duh !"[/nq]
No, I don't think so.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Mason:

[nq:1]i have had it to HERE with the semantics. A million times YES, we can not make any statement that ... true ? Nope, because it is not mathematically BOUND to be trueas a rule, in an expression of probability math.[/nq]
We can use probability to calculate the chances of 40 reds in a row with great accuracy.
You can not make this bet. You may only bet on the next spin. If you try to relate what usually happens to your to bet on red, you only need probability mathematics to do so.
Statistics do not apply to the next wager. When you try to make statistical arguments for betting strategies, you are wrong. Only probability mathematics are needed for understanding the likelihoods of betting strategies.
You are confused. This is not semantics.

Onward thru the fog,
Mason

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Mason:

[nq:1]We can use probability to calculate the chances of 40 reds in a row with great accuracy.(aproximately) 9,559,686,726,006 to 1 ... try to relate what usually happens to your to bet on red, you only need probability mathematics to do so.[/nq]
You will win aproximately 47.3684210526316% of the time.
[nq:1]Statistics do not apply to the next wager. When you try to makestatistical arguments for betting strategies, you are wrong. Only probability mathematics are needed for understanding the likelihoods of betting strategies. You are confused. This is not semantics.[/nq]
To avoid what you perceive as semantical problems, just post your calculations.

Onward thru the fog,
Mason

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

redleathers:

...
[nq:1]i have had it to HERE with the semantics.[/nq]
Mason and a few others have as there sole purpose to disrupt the logical flow of information for the purpose of improving our take home profit while playing craps. If you said, "she is my grandmother" Mason would say that you are incorrect she is a daughter and a wife. Sure she is, but your point was to go beyond the acceptable fact of her being a grandmother and to move on with a more advanced thought, say about generational transfer, darwinian evolution, etc. but nope not on here with Mason around. It becomes a fight to communicate and grow.
[nq:1]A million times YES, we can not make any statement that is mathematically sound about comparing two or more random ... ? Nope, because it is not mathematically BOUND to be true as a rule, in an expression of probability math.[/nq]
Well you have really hit on it here. To Mason, there is only black or white, yes or no, yin or yang. While to the rest of us there are degrees of truth that with enough evidence we accept them as being usually* true and treat them for the purposes of learning and growth to be *always true. They are true enough.
[nq:1]The word "usually" does apply to many real things. Proof is all around. This NG discusses real events, not just ... some roulette dealers if the statement is true, and i defy you to find any who would disagree with it.[/nq]Peter Griffin in Gambling Ramblings (Mason Malmuth talks about Peter in Malmuth's book Gambling Theory) anyway, Peter explains mathematically just what you are talking about. In Chapter 3, How Long Must We Wait For An Improbable Event to Occur?, Peter lays out a simple logrithm to help us calculate at what point in A SERIES OF ROLLS (not just one frickin independent sling like Mason and Alan want to reduce the whole world to) there is a better that 50% chance of the desired event occuring.
Here is the example he gives: How many rolls of a pair of dice make it more likely than not that a pair of sixes will have been cast? The answer for this one 35/36 to the 25th power = .4945 which is the closest full roll without going over .5 or 50%. I am being simple here because it is really about subtracting 1-.4945 to get .5055 which proves that yes 25 tosses are needed to have better than an even chance of rolling a 12. The important thing is to notice that 35/36 is what you would use to find out how many rolls it would take to have better than a 50% chance of rolling a 12 and notice that to what power 25 in this case reveals the number of rolls.
My point is that you can find out mathematically when you have better than a 50% chance of rolling a particular craps number (how many rolls it would take).
How Mason and Alan present their version of the mathematics would lead one to believe that no mathematics in this world could possible answer the question that Peter Griffin (a real math professor) has given us the formula to answer.
[nq:1]"100 flips of a coin will usually contain more than 1 tail" is true true true. No, it does not ... All but only a tiny handful of disruptors are reading this and going, "sure... of course... well yeah... duh !"[/nq]
Good Post!

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Mason:

[nq:1]How many rolls of a pair of dice make it more likely than not that a pair of sixes will have been cast?[/nq]
This was the problem that was brought to Pascal in 1654 by a gambler named the Chevalier De Mere who was booking bets that the double six would roll in 24 rolls and losing. It is often given as the question that started the modern mathematics of probability.
[nq:1]My point is that you can find out mathematically when you have better than a 50% chance of rolling a ... world could possible answer the question that Peter Griffin (a real math professor) has given us the formula to answer.[/nq]
This is an assertion based on your ignorance what probability mathematics shows and has shown for centuries. The question and its answer is a part of beginning probability study. That you gleefully demonstrate that are ignorant of the problem's origins and significance in the mathematics of probability is entirely consistent with your other assertions on this NG.

Onward thru the fog,
Mason

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

SEE REAL ADDRESS BELOW:

In article
[nq:1]Mason and a few others have as there sole purpose to disrupt the logical flow of information for the purpose ... transfer, darwinian evolution, etc. but nope not on here with Mason around. It becomes a fight to communicate and grow.[/nq]
But we must remember that when Mason was not posting for a few weeks the group almost disintigrated... he is a necessary part of this group.
Jim (The System Man)
No email may be sent to (Email Removed)
Use this: JimFerr1(TAKE THIS OUT)@aol.com
FREE Gaming Strategies & Methods
No catch, not selling anything
Look here: http://hometown.aol.com/jimferr/profile.html

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Mason:

"SEE REAL ADDRESS BELOW" (Email Removed)
[nq:1]But we must remember that when Mason was not posting for a few weeks thegroup almost disintigrated... he is a necessary part of this group.[/nq]
It seems that I have achieved life goal achieved by a very few. I have become a "necessary evil"!

Oh! Frabjous Day, He burbled in his joy!
Mason

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Timmyrocker:

[nq:2]Statistics do not apply to the next wager.[/nq]
We are not usually at the gambling table for just one single wager. Some players plan out a protocol that is the sum of many outcomes.

We make a group of wagers that constitute a subset. The player is the one who is affected by a group of otherwise independant outcomes. "how did you do tonight?"
"i won"
"how much money do you have now?"
"none"
"i thought you won?"
"well, other independent outcomes during the same session, i lost" "well jeez, man, give me the bottom line ! add it all up !"
[nq:1]When you try to make statistical arguments for betting strategies, you are wrong[/nq]
We all agree the statistical argument for multi-bet plans is a valid calculation. Your odds are 32-1 of losing 5 coin flips "in-a-row" (or in any random set of five unknown equal outcomes) if you are certain to wager 5 times.
[nq:2]probability to calculate the chances of 40 reds in a row with great accuracy. (aproximately) 9,559,686,726,006 to 1[/nq]
the odds favor at least some black, over the course of 40 spins.

layman's translation : there will usually be at least one black in 40.

it is semantics. High odds things (while not bound) usually happen.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Reality of independent co-incedences

Related forum topics: